Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Sources

Just listing an interesting source that could contribute to the article in some form.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-now-president-who-became-a-mens-rights-activist/372742/#disqus_thread Arkon (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We could nearly build an article around that one. Very nice!

Indeed. The article The Feminist Leader Who Became a Men's-Rights Activist: Karen DeCrow served as president of the National Organization for Women, but she often broke with feminist orthodoxy has some very relevant information that should be incorporated here. Memills (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

More: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/19/fox_news_destructive_ignorance_network_gets_schooled_by_male_rape_survivor/ Arkon (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

More: http://jewishvoiceny.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7711:livni-shocks-with-war-on-men-ad&catid=107:israel&Itemid=290 Arkon (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

More: http://www.moneylife.in/article/celebrating-fathers-day-without-comparing-him-with-a-mother/37781.html Arkon (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

More: http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20140614/NEWS01/306140038/More-dads-demand-equal-custody-rights Arkon (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure those are entirely appropriate for this article - the first one would be best for Male rape, the third for Fathers' rights movement and the second only tangentially connected to the MRM. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. Arkon (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

More from the VP of the National Coalition of Men: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140610/OPINION01/306100008 Arkon (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/ Arkon (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

MRA's want the right to rape their wife, beat up their partner and force them to have an abortion

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/ford-a-lesson-for-mens-rights-activists-on-real-oppression/5533412

So...should we include this in the article? 58.7.167.55 (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Harlequin

• No, I don't think so. This article cites enough mendacious drivel as it is. Reyk _YO! 11:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

How is the ABC not a good source? 58.7.167.55 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Harlequin

• • Because editorials are essays expounding the personal views of the writer, not the neutral reporting of discovered facts. While outlets like the ABC have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, this applies to their investigative journalism, not to guest pieces expounding one person's opinions. In fact, it is quite common for news outlets to invite editorials simultaneously from people holding completely opposite points of view. Reyk _YO! 13:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No way this has editorial control on the content. Anyone can submit an article, so it's essentially a blog. I can't even figure out why this should be included in the article, as many other, more reliable sources have stated concerns about the MRM that are the same as stated in the ABC article, just less covered with partisan rhetoric. Plus, your header is biased towards the point of trolling, as the the ABC article you cited doesn't even mention abortion. In fact, this sounds a lot like an edit request to me, so I am rejecting as you have failed the edit request guidelines of consensus and formatting your request in the format of "change x to y" Novato 123chess456 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling, though i'm not stating outright, that you may an MRA sockpuppet account. As you have just blatantly lied about the referencing to abortion in the article. "for a woman to have the final say over whether or not she grows a fetus inside her for nine months before birthing it and then raising it." It specifically refers to the MRA claim that they want the right to force women to have an abortion rather than be a deadbeat dad. 58.7.167.55 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Harlequin

IP editor, I think it is incredibly disruptive to be accusing established users who have been registered on the site for years and have many good contributions of being a sockpuppet to be incredibly offensive. However, even if that were entirely true, their content or contributions would stay if they were valid. If a sockpuppet says the Capital of France if Paris, then we cannot edit that out because they were a sockpuppet. It's all based on validity. Nonetheless, I would like to beseech that you do not resort to accusing editors of being sockpuppets, as it is probably a personal attack against them. If you think that there is enough evidence to support such a accusation, however please visit WP:SPI for more instructions. Tutelary (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you read, I clearly stated i'm not stating that. So please do not accuse me of things I haven't said. I simply put the idea there as the user in question blatantly ignored a highlighted reference to abortion while simultaneously denying it was there because they claimed they had read the article. Such a claim is highly suspect MRA behavior and needs to be pointed out. If the user isn't, then the very fact that MRA's use that tactic shouldn't offend either them or you. 58.7.167.55 (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Harlequin

I'm gonna try to make it concise. Even if any editor on this page, including myself was an MRA, or a communist, or a member of any other extremist group, they are entirely free to edit Wikipedia as long as they abide by content standards and civility guidelines. There is no policy or guideline saying that 'If X user is an MRA, they are not allowed to contribute.' There is no 'gotcha!' moment for finding an MRA on Wikipedia. Also, this may be communication issue between me and you. A sockpuppet abuser is a user who abuses multiple accounts in a means to harass users, revert more than three times, continue disruptive editing, or to evade blocks. Believe it or not, socking in certain pretenses are perfectly acceptable; having an account where you login with shoddy wifi hotspots with no good privileges is a good idea, indeed, particularly if you're an administrator so if your shoddy account is obstructed, it does not give a great deal of damage to the encylopedia. That's just one example. An editor not reading the article in this context is not indicative of them being a sockpuppet. As I said before, if you have genuine evidence that this person is abusing multiple accounts, then you can take it directly to WP:SPI. It will be evaluated by an administrator. The only other policy which may apply is WP:COI. Say this editor was paid by some group to edit this page. They would be in conflict of interest. Since this is not the case, then the policy doesn't apply. All in all, even if the user was an MRA or anything of the sort, there is no content policy or guideline to prevent them from editing. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Tutelary (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary: it is worth keeping in to account that this page is under article probation, including a 1rr per 24 hour period restriction (I bring that up just because you specifically mentioned 3rr.) The rest of the terms are worth reviewing as well, since some stuff does differ here in terms of appropriate behavior from pages that aren't under probation. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I shouldn't have been so general in that regard, since it is under probation. Under these terms, all Mens Rights related articles (broadly construed) are under 1RR. One revert per editor per 24 hours. Violations can carry a block in that regard. There are also other restrictions since it's another probation. Terms can be reviewed here at WP:MRMPS. It's meant to 'force' discussion so to speak. You do a WP:BOLD edit, get reverted, you revert once, another person reverts you, forcing you to go to the talk page to get consensus for your edits so that they stay. This is often referred to as WP:BRD, a popular essay but not a guideline or policy. Tutelary (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary is correct about the IP editor's behavior: unacceptable. You clearly are accusing them of being sock.

That said, I am not convinced this is not an RS. The article is on The Drum and is has editorial oversight. It is clearly an opinion section of ABC according to its about page, but that does not make it useless. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It can be used, per WP:RS, but it should be attributed to the author of the article, and not the publisher - since this is an opinion piece. It cannot be used, for example, to make general statements about the MRM. Zambelo; talk 04:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Zambelo, since it's an opinion piece at a pretty reputable outlet it could be used for attributed opinion or perhaps statements of very obvious fact. That said, since it covers most of the same stuff a lot of our scholarly sources do, I'm not entirely convinced it would be too useful. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

People who come on here and disregard the rules so they can POV-push their own agenda should learn the rules of Wikipedia. First of all, IP editor, you mean to call me a WP:MEATPUPPET, and second of all, you seem a lot like a troll. You come on here, with your header of "MRA's want the right to rape their wife, beat up their partner and force them to have an abortion". Not a header of "Could we have this source in the article?" or "This opinion piece seems like a good perspective on the MRM". No, you actually come on here with a POV sentence in the header, only to link to an opinion piece by a feminist where she writes a partisan screed about how bad the MRM is. Then, to top it off, you give no actual reasons why we should include it. You just expect us to accommodate you with your unreliable source, made by somebody who, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't seem to have any educational credentials whatsoever. We prefer to use academic sources here on Wikipedia, not every columnist in every newspaper. Then, when people like Reyk come on and refute your reasons for including this "column" in the article, such as the fact that the SPLC and a multitude of other academic sources have called the MRM things akin to a hate group, you accuse me of being an "MRA sockpuppet" and of "blatantly lying". I used CTRL-F and not one mention of abortion was found, which is why I assumed there was no mention of abortion. The only thing that comes close to what you mention is two or three misinterpretations on what the term "financial abortion" means. On Wikipedia, we like to assume good faith. But you come on here and accuse me of being a sockpuppet for the MRM, ignoring my hundreds of anti-vandalism reverts, my work in new pages patrol, 15 classifications in AFC, and being on Wikipedia for 3 years! Please, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:SOAPBOX, and the message I've left on your talk page. Come back when you can read the top of the talk page, which is about how to be civil. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone removed this long response, claiming it was a personal attack. I disagreed and reverted, but perhaps you would consider rewording your first few sentences? Reyk _YO! 02:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with the long response being removed. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW I disagree with it having been removed to though agree that the first few sentences should be reworded... but disagreeing with it being removed is pretty pointless at this point since it had been restored for two days before your comment was made =p Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe have a separate page for Men's rights and the Men's rights movement..? --Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There are not enough reliable sources covering "men's rights" as a notable, coherent, separate topic to have a standalone page on men's rights - this has pretty much been discussed ad nauseam on this page in the past. There are many sources talking about various rights that men enjoy/have enjoyed or lack/have lacked either now or at various points in history, but very few that treat "men's rights" as a coherent topic. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to figure out what the scope of a page about "men's rights" should be - should it talk about the fact that men have the right to drive in modern day Saudi Arabia? About the fact that men have the right to marry men in California, but not in Kentucky? About the fact that men are overwhemingly more likely to be executed in the United States than women are for committing the same crimes? About the fact that in many historical societies and more than a few modern ones, some men had the right to own other men? Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The scope isn't as hard as you make it out to be.. Does the women's rights page talk about how women have the right to marry women in California but not in Kentucky? I don't believe so- that's already covered in the same-sex marriage articles. I don't get how slavery applies since a person of one gender can own a person of any other gender. And it's not necessarily a bad idea to include rights that men have and rights that men lack. The execution rate could be included as well as how male homosexuality is illegal in more countries than female homosexuality.

I think the main issue with the page though is how the page approaches the issue. It addresses what the men's rights movement's opinion is on men's rights and then it addresses what the feminism movement's opinion is on the men' rights movement. It fails to address men's rights from a neutral prospective; the men's rights movement isn't necessarily linked to men's rights. There either needs to be a distinction between the two on this page or a separate page should be made. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The article already makes it clear, in the first sentence, that the men's rights movement is a part of the men's movement. There are already many articles dealing with men's rights as a general topic. In addition to men's movement, Masculism and Men's studies seem especially relevant. This article (the men's rights movement article) is very specifically about the movement-within-a-movement as it has been described by reliable sources. If you want to expand the article, find reliable sources, but be cautious that you may be reinventing the wheel, and other articles might be closer to what you're looking for. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting research can be found here [1] and here [2]. It gives citations to the early history of men's rights. The notion that this isn't a cohesive topic is bunk, it has been covered, indeed it was discussed over 100 years ago, we just need to do some library research and pull up those old newspapers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.

There is an article for Women's rights which states "Women's rights are the rights and entitlements claimed for women and girls of many societies worldwide. In some places, these rights are institutionalized or supported by law, local custom, and behavior, whereas in others they may be ignored or suppressed."

Except for objections from feminists, there is no reason why there should not be an equivalent article on Men's rights with an equivalent opening statement: "Men's rights are the rights and entitlements claimed for men and boys of many societies worldwide. In some places, these rights are institutionalized or supported by law, local custom, and behavior, whereas in others they may be ignored or suppressed." The books by Farrell, Benatar and Bauermeister are good starting sources for this topic. Memills (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Memills Don't assume feminists would be against such a page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right, EvergreenFir. Some would not, including, presumably, Karen DeCrow. Memills (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether there should be a separate article. The question is, are there enough sources to support the new article as being notable and then whether it is likely to have the support of the community. I suppose it all comes down to how it is approached. But I would say that it is likely that there would be some opposition to another article similar to this. Men are not a group or sub group that have a history of a lack of rights requiring a fight for those rights. But perhaps that is just not a requirement.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The same was said about women before feminists pointed out the contrary. As noted above, books by Farrell, Benatar, Bauermeister and others make a parallel argument re men's rights and issues. Memills (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's true that there have been movements that mirror the ethos of the men's rights movement in the past. This one in particular comes to mind: [3] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A fair number of early men's rights groups are covered under the "Forerunners" section. As the article already states, nearly all of these groups dissolved by the 1930s and there was a 3-4 decade gap between the movement's resurgence in the 60s and 70s. I think its rather clear that the concerns of early men's rights groups are not the concerns of the modern movement, especially concerning fathers rights and false rape accusations. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This has gotten a bit off topic.

Memills: please go read some of the policy pages you've been linked hundreds of times and stop constructing strawmen. Wikipedia treats topics in the way they have been treated in sources, not in some sort of weird artificial equivalency between topics we think approximate each other. The notion of men's rights and the notion of women's rights have been treated massively differently in reliable sources, so the way they are treated on Wikipedia is, appropriately, massively different. If you want to change that, go publish work in reliable sources dealing with men's rights as a cohesive concept separate from the men's rights movement. You do have the ability to do that instead of just being here. To everyone else: I'd invite you to reread over the previous discussions in the archives and archived move discussions about this. It's been discussed pretty much a ridiculous amount, and no one has ever come up with the sources to justify two articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Come on, Kevin. You need to expand your reading beyond the feminist literature. Maybe start with the academic journal New Male Studies. You suggest there is no "weird artificial equivalency between topics" so as do deny a WP article on Men's rights? The WP article Rights includes "Men" as claimants! You write " ...men's rights and the notion of women's rights have been treated massively differently in reliable sources." No, the core issue of human rights is the same. The difference lies in claims of unjust application of rights per claimant group. The MRM is claiming denial or discriminatory/inequitable application of certain fundamental rights (e.g., a male-only draft, etc.). Another claim that they would likely make is that it is discriminatory to allow an opposition group (in this case, mostly feminists) to deny a Men's rights article on WP because... er, what? ...oh yes, because men already presumably have all the rights they need due to the covert operations of a shadowy group called "The Patriarchy." Pablum. Memills (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Memills discussed the article, not other users. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Memills, please go ahead and do as Evergreen suggests and discuss content, rather than me. "Men's rights" and "women's rights" *have* been treated massively different in reliable sources, and I say that as someone who has read pretty much all available RS'es that deal with 'men's rights' as a coherent concept (and yes, I'm even including the 'journal' you linked, although I wouldn't accept treating it on par with any journal that had ever been cited by more than a tiny handful of outside scholars.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC) I was discussing your claims, which are based on feminist literature and scholars. Some academic fields are bifurcated into competing paradigms. For example, economics has been split between Marxist and capitalist scholars (well, perhaps moreso in the past than now). Imagine a WP article on capitalism that primarily cited Marxist scholars while marginalizing the work of free market scholars as "not RS." (Or vice-versa.) It is an analogy with some passing relevance here. To wit: the problems of using primarily feminist scholarship to define men's rights, and the MRM, has been broached many times, by many editors, on these (23 archived and counting) Talk pages... Memills (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Better analogy, imagine an article about Evolution that gave equal weight to creationist and Darwinist views. Also the fact that you or the men's rights movement consider particular scholars to be Marxists and therefore biased does not make that a fact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) ...er, worse analogy. Science articles don't have to give equal weight to non-science viewpoints (or vice-versa). This is not a science article, it is an article about politics. Re the Marxism/capitalism issue -- you lost me. Most Marxist or free market economists self-identify as such -- as do most feminist and masculinist/MRM scholars. Memills (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC) I dont know a single feminist scholar who would selfidentify as a Marxist, and I know more than a handful. And yes this is a science article. Social science.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Re-read what I wrote. I never suggested that feminists are/were Marxists. You missed the point of my analogy -- which was not about Marxism/capitalism per se. The point was that it is problematic when the majority of the sources in a WP article are to publications by those who are its POV opponents. Re your second claim: the vast majority of folks in the MRM are not social scientists, they are political activists. Memills (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Yes, but the scholars who are competent to write evaluations of the movement are not the members of the movement but the social scientists who study them. It is the way that they characterize the movement that should be wikipedia sway of characterizing the movement. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC) It's not now and it never has been a problem that our scholarly sources come from scholars who might be criticized as feminists. Wikipedia gives the highest regard to scholarly sources, especially if the scholars largely agree to form a mainstream scholarly opinion, as they do in this case. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC) No, scholars do not "largely agree." There are two academic paradigms that are in conflict. Most academic biologists and psychologists believe that sexual selection results in sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations (see, for example, this article that lead to conflicting reproductive strategies, or a "battle of the sexes," grounded in biology. And that men's rights activists are pointing out some legitimate issues of interest to men in general (see in particular, Roy Baurmeister's book Is There Anything Good About Men and David Benatar's The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys). In contrast, most gender feminist scholarship is derived from social constructionism (specifically Social construction of gender difference) which leads to the presumption that non-biologically based social structures (e.g., "the patriarchy") has led to the oppression of women, but not of men. (Also, see this article that differentiates the conflicting theoretical foundations of "equity" and "gender" feminism). Given this, it is important to identify the "bias" of the scholars and scholarship. Most of the sources used in this article are from gender feminist scholars, and, per WP: Biased or opinionated sources, should be identified as such. Memills (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC) I think you missed a step. The biologists and psychologists who argue a battle of the sexes do not draw from that hypothesis a conclusion that men are somehow harmed by society's overwhelming emphasis on men's rights and mens's issues. Rather, they draw the opposite conclusion, that men are advantaged at nearly every turn. 06:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC) No, they don't. Biologists in particular have pointed out for quite some time how males (across many species, including humans) are disadvantaged, including having weaker immune systems, senescing (ageing) faster (they die earlier), are more likely to be victims of physical aggression, expend costly resources to compete for mates (e.g., inter-sexual competition such as the peacock's tail / intra-sexual competition such as having to fight for mates), higher likelihood of reproductive failure (higher male "reproductive variance" -- see Bateman's principle), etc. In biology, both sexes have it hard, but with different sets of challenges. In human psychology and the social sciences, Warren Farrell pointed out quite some time ago in his books Why Men Are the Way They Are and The Myth of Male Power that both sexes have unique sets of advantages and disadvantages, and, that what commonly passes for "advantages," on closer inspection, may not be (e.g., sacrificing health and personal relationships to focus on career advancement and wealth acquisition). More recently, again, Roy Baurmeister's book Is There Anything Good About Men and David Benatar's The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys point out the ways in which males may be disadvantaged (while, to their credit, not discounting the unique set of disadvantages women may experience). They suggest that many of these disadvantages are distally related to biological sex differences (higher male suicide rate, males as the "disposable sex" -- male-only draft, etc.). Imho, the problem with the foundational theory of gender feminism, social constructionism, is that it is wrong. Gender feminism is based on an erroneous assumption: that males and females have monomorphic brain/minds, biology can be safely ignored, and that social structures in cultures, even those separated widely in time and/or space, developed de novo into "patriarchies" designed to disadvantage women only. Coming from that perspective, it is easy to see why some editors here believe that "men are advantaged at nearly every turn," believe that there is no "equivalency between topics" of men's and woman's rights, and/or are unsympathetic to the idea "men's rights" or to the MRM. A more helpful perspective is that both sexes have their own unique set of problems that deserve attention, analysis and redress. Coming from that perspective, rather than being at each others' throats, editors could collaborate on WP articles related to both topics more effectively and harmoniously. Memills (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Could you please avoid constructing strawmen to tear down and acting like it proves your points in the future? Among other things, few serious scholars argue that patriarchy is something that only disadvantages or is designed only to disadvantage women. And of course there's pretty much no equivalency between topics on Wikipedia, because we treat topics how they've been treated in reliable sources, so even if a seemingly perfectly matched set of topics exists, if they've been treated at all differently in reliable sources than we don't treat them equivalently here. And in this case, "men's rights" and "women's rights" are treated massively differently by most published sources - even you have to acknowledge that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Straw men? Don't think so. Re patriarchy: From the patriarchy article: "(Patriarchy) implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination..." "Feminism defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that is necessarily more oppressive to women. ...In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction..." Re equivalency between rights the rights of men and women: Look at the box at the top right of the MRM article, specifically "Rights by Claimant." Both men and women are included as claimants. It is the concept of "rights" and "claimants" that is equivalent. Of course the the specific claims and issues will be different -- which is exactly what I stated. In fact, it is the juxtaposition of these two terms, patriarchy and rigths that is relevant. As I noted just above: Coming from the feminist perspective that patriarchies are socially constructed and cause female subordination, again, it is easy to see why some editors here believe that "men are advantaged at nearly every turn" (and thus their "rights" are not at issue) and, there is no "equivalency between topics" of men's and woman's rights. Memills (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC) I don't understand how you can say one thing, then quote another thing that contradicts what you said, and claim that your original statement was correct. Do you really not see a difference between "it only disadvantages women" and "patriarcy is more oppressive to women (than to men)"? Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Not too many feminists would argue that the Patriarchy also disadvantages men -- to the contrary, most would argue that all men are privileged by it. Right? But... I agree with you, I don't think absolutist language like that, as in "all" or "none," is helpful. Substitute "the great majority" and we are are in semantic agreement. Memills (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Not sure why your comment was left intact when all responses to it were collapsed, but to be clear: I don't believe your restated position is correct, or backed up by the balance of available reliable sources. Leaving this comment brief, and anyone interested should feel free to collapse this comment - as well as all the preceding comments in the same discussion line - in to the hat below. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC) I only took a quick look at where I thought the discussion devolved, on a second look it appears it should have been collapsed higher up. I don't have the time at the moment to go find the point where this really devolved, so if anyone wants to adjust the collapse point to someplace else is fine by me. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC) I'm a feminist, and I would argue that the patriarchy disadvantages men as well as women, although to notably different extents. Most feminists I've met hold similar views. Some of the best conversations I've had about the problems facing men today have been during events facilitated by groups like the Ada Initiative. Plenty of feminists argue that the ways in which the patriarchy disadvantages men are less important than the ways in which it disadvantages women, and I agree with them. And I'm sure you can dig up a minority of feminists who argue that the patriarchy doesn't disadvantage men. To present "the patriarchy doesn't disadvantage any men" as the most common feminist viewpoint is a strawman that an average highschooler should be embarrassed for making. But personal experiences are more or less besides the point on Wikipedia. There's more or less no direct equivalency between topics on Wikipedia because there are a very small number of topics (if any) where what may seem to be logical pairs have been treated equally in reliable sources, and we treat topics according to how they've been treated in reliable sources, not by what seems intuitively right. If topics haven't been treated equally in reliable sources, we don't treat them equally here. In this case, "men's rights" and "women's rights" are treated massively differently by most published sources - and anyone who disagrees with that statement is either unaware of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source to be (hint: not John the Younger's blog,) or has simply not surveyed the reliable sources in the field. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I would have to say that I agree. There are many feminists who think patriarchy disadvantages men. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC) As am I and I would argue the same thing. So does Michael Kimmel, Michael Rosenfelt, Michael Messner, CJ Pascoe, RW/Raewyn Connell and dozens of other feminist masculinities scholars. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Sounds like the Patriarchy article, especially the lede, needs some serious revisions, both from feminist, and nonfeminist, masculinities scholars. Memills (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Memills, you are familiar with the terms of the article probation, are you not? You have strayed off topic repeatedly. Please keep in mind that talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversations about patriarchy, physical aggression, inter-sexual competition or anything else that you want to talk about. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Singling out one editor for your comment is unhelpful. They certainly aren't talking with themselves. Arkon (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Replying to off-topic comments is not a good idea, I should have added that, yes. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure you heard what Arkon said. He said "Singling out one editor for your comment is unhelpful." I'll second that, especially given there were several active discussants. Per WP:HA it is against WP policy to " ..intentionally target a specific person (to)... make the target feel threatened or intimidated... to undermine them... or to discourage them from editing entirely." Memills (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) WP:HA first off only covers repeated patterns of behavior, not single instances, and secondly, is certainly not intended to stop people from warning someone who has been sanctioned seven times more strongly than they warn someone who has never been sanctioned. If WP:HA were extended to forbid people from asking habitual rule-breakers to get back on track, Wikipedia as a whole would be in a lot of hurt. Sonic was not wrong in assuming that I and the other established Wikipedians in this thread were aware that it wasn't a good idea to stray off topic repeatedly, and thus didn't need the warning. If you'd like to accuse Sonic (or me of hounding, as you've recently done elsewhere,) please just take it to ANI already. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Isn't this discussion getting a bit, er... off topic? You previously initiated two ANIs against me -- both were declined because they were deemed as frivolous, and you were specifically told to back off. Take it to my Talk page, Kevin. We have conflicting views on this topic. But let's try our best not to let that get in the way of WP:civility. Memills (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Though you're fond of bringing up the fact that not every time I've brought up your behavior have you actually been sanctioned you're awfully fond of leaving out the fact that you've been sanctioned seven times in this topic area. Asking you to follow our policies is not disruptive or offtopic when you're not doing so. If you're going to accuse someone of hounding or harrassment, just take it to ani already. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Lede

There has been no justification for the current wording of the lede and the issue has been discusssed to death. The scholars who consider the MRM misogynist are not strictly feminist. The Ruzankina article states: "As researchers note, the mythopoeic and conservative men’s movements have an obvious negative vector, that is, they try to prevent the development of social trends promoted by the radical feminist movement.". It does not state "As feminist researchers note..." or "As feminist scholars note....". PearlSt82 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why force it if it's such a sensitive topic? Especially if there isn't any section devoted to the criticism, similar to any other gender topics page. Let's be consistent here. NBAkid (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It sums up the text in the "Movement" section in a few neat sentences, namely this paragraph: "Men's rights activists see men as an oppressed group[14][15][16][17] and believe that society and state have been "feminized" by the women's movement.[14] Sarah Maddison, an Australian author, has claimed that Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg "argue that, for most men, power is an illusion, and that women are the true power holders in society through their roles as the primary carers and nurturers of children."[14] Sectors of the men's rights movement have been critiqued by some as exhibiting misogynistic tendencies.[18][14][19][20][21][22][23][24] The Southern Poverty Law Center has said that while some of the websites, blogs and forums related to the movement "voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many."[25][26][27]". I think it is absolutely appropriate for the lede, and from previous discussions, it is supported by consensus. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

So your comfortable accepting a criticism based on the fact that the source's only criticism is the tone of a movement, that might imply misogyny?? Proves the legitimacy of the sources are zero and should be treated opinion pieces with obvious bias, rather than a legitimate source. NBAkid (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The SPLC source says it is a "misogynistic tone", not "the tone of the MRM implies misogyny". Furthermore the previous sentence "Sectors of the men's rights movement have been critiqued by some as exhibiting misogynistic tendencies." is backed up by eight sources.PearlSt82 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

1. same thing. I can't point out the misogyny in what he said, but THE WAAY he said it was misogynistic! yeah... seems like a legit critique. NOT! Give me an actual source of an actual example of misogyny, not feminist scholars freaking out over a few MRAs/antifems raising their voice. 2. By whom and more importantly, what were these misogynistic tendencies? NBAkid (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Look at the eight sources currently in the article supporting the "Sectors of the men's rights movement have been critiqued by some as exhibiting misogynistic tendencies" sentence. You are also reading a lot into the SPLC source that just isn't there, and it is indeed an "actual" source as it passes WP:RS. 2. If you look at said eight sources, you will find the answer to this question as well. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine let's pretend the sources are legitimate although i have massive reservations, especially with sources like Glen Sacks, but I digress. The way the lede is written still gives undue wight to criticism. Thats why i shortened it and added the rest to a reaction/criticism section. As you can see, I did not remove the opinions and conclusions some might have regarding the movement. NBAkid (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No need to pretend as they all clearly pass WP:RS. The line from the lede is a total of one sentence and does not give undue weight, and the only text removed were appropriate citations and reference to the SPLC.. Criticism sections are not appropriate per WP:Criticism and the addition of the quantifier "Feminist" term preceding "scholars" is pure OR/SYNTH. It is not only unsupported by RS, but the criticism of "misogyny" comes from many different groups, not just feminist. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets' vote then. PS it may be original research, but judging by the tone, i'm pretty sure it was the feminist elements of those groups wrote those very opinionated articles. NBAkid (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to set up a poll (or open an RFC), go for it, but but keep in mind WP:VOTE. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nbakid: arguments on Wikipedia aren't settled by votes, they're settled by what position is best supported by arguments supported by Wikipedia's policies. 500 people could swarm this page saying the sources in question weren't reliable sources... and they'd still be reliable sources. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't. WP is run by "consensus," which sometimes can run counter to the facts. A reliable source is whatever the consensus says it is. Which is why a certain subset of sources here are considered more "reliable" than others. Memills (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Weak local consensus cannot override strong projectwide consensus. It is usually worth paying attention to ENWP's policies, since having a solid understanding of them ensures that your editing efforts have at least a good chance of actually leaving lasting content in project space, instead of just leaving thousands of words in talk space. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

...except for when a WP article attracts a numerically dominant subgroup of editors with a shared POV (see: WP:Systemic Bias) such that their bias becomes de facto the "consensus." Memills (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Should it contain detailed criticism? According to WP:LEAD,

" It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies"

and

"the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

Here the lede sets a tone of criticism that continues to the rest of the article - as such, it is not neutral. If you contrast the current lede to that on the feminism article, you will notice that there is a large difference of tone between the two.

I think the lede should allude to the criticism, and the criticism should move moved to the body of the article.

Zambelo; talk 01:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with an article about one topic using a different tone than an article about another topic if the reliable sources discussing the two different topics treat them differently. That's the case here, and trying to make artificial equivalencies is not helpful. The criticism contained in the lede is a summary of the criticism contained in the rest of the article, as is appropriate - it's not detailed criticism, it's a summary of the movement and prominent controversies contained in the rest of the article. (A longer lede as this article had at one point - not sure when it lost it - would not be inappropriate.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

t is rather detailed, when a simple sentence could allude to it - for instance "elements of the MRM have come under criticism" - no other details needed, no need for references in the lede at all. Zambelo; talk 08:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

When an overwhelming majority of reliable sources that exist criticize the MRM, it is not at all WP:UNDUE to contain summary criticism in the lede, even if it's more substantial than you would prefer. Your proposed alternate language greatly understates the amount of criticism that has occured; the consensus version does a relatively fair job of summing up the enormously substantive criticisms of the MRA that are gone in to further depth in the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The current wording is even more vague and almost weasel-wordy than the original one. I think its important to note that the criticism is coming from scholars, and not just "some". The original sentence read: "The men's rights movement's beliefs and activities have been criticized by scholars, the Southern Poverty Law Center and commentators, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist" - if this needs to be shortened, the "SPLC and commentators" can likely be trimmed, but the rest is accurate. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Without a good reason, there's no reason to shorten it though. This article's lede isn't too long, the criticism is summed up appropriately, etc. Other material could be added to the lede as needed, but given that pretty much all well established scholars in the field criticize the MRM which is gone in to in further detail later in the article, I don't see a need to shorten it as it currently is yet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not generally an editor of Wikipedia but I read articles regularly and understand the phraseology and boundaries of neutrality it sets, and the lede of this current article looks unusual in its current state. Kevin Gorman, I have been following some of your comments in the talk area here and I think you have a good grasp of most of the issues in regard to the article currently and you have been quite impartial in your assessments, although I think the 'criticism' comment in the lede specifically does require reevaluating. I have read a lot about the MRM prior to reading the Wikipedia article and the lede's reference to criticism —wording, tone, and weight— seem inappropriate with the impartiality you'd generally see in the media (The BBC have not made any mention of misogyny, and very little weight to criticism in their reporting on MRM). It's also unusual as you would not expect to see a statement with so many sources being required. Mention of the movement's criticism is certainly warranted but I expected it to be shorter with succinct wording more along the lines of, "The Men's Rights Movement has been controversial due to its criticism of Feminism.", with it expanded on in a criticism section. The 'misogynistic' wording seems especially subjective and unusual in the lede of such a Wikipedia article as the history and inherent objectives of the MRM cannot be named as misogynistic and are rarely reported as misogynistic in the media. If criticism of misogyny must be mentioned, it should be clear what is being named misogynistic (e.g., "Some members of the MRM have been criticized as misogynistic."), but putting that in the lede would again be growing the comment on criticism to an inappropriate length. 92.28.218.252 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a note, I see significant problems with multiple recently arrived editors repeatedly reverting the lede to your preferred version. The lede that I am reverting to is a lede that has found consensus in at least half a dozen previous discussions. Please do not revert the lede to your preferred version again, or I'll be asking an uninvolved admin to look over the behavior of those doing so. There's nothing wrong with changing the lede to reflect a new consensus - but first you have to estalbish that consensus, which has not been done. I would request @Gorgi88: selfrevert his recent change to the lede until consensus has been established here. WP:BRD isn't make a bold edit, get reverted, and then make the same bold edit every time you can - it's make a bold edit, get reverted, and then engage in discussion about whether consensus regarding the lede has changed. Continuing to revert to a version of the lede that has nevere established consensus over one that has established consensus many many times is actively disruptive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2014

For greater precision in the definition please insert the word "always" as it appears in the following sentence. The men's rights movement contests claims that men always have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression. Chiefmugwhump (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done 123chess456 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Most print sources I have around (including the two cited) don't actually support the wording change. That said, I think the wording change is actually a good one, and I'm pretty much positive sources could be found to back it up, so I have no problem with the change. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose the change. The wording "contests claims that men always have greater power, privilege or advantage" implies that there is someone who actually claims that men always have greater power, privilege and advantage which (to my knowledge) isn't the case. Feminists will probably be the first ones to concede that some men (e.g., black, homosexual, poor men) do not always have power and that there are situations in the private sphere where women's, wives' or mothers' power rivals men's, husbands' or fathers'. The point is that men's rights activists actually claim that men have no power and that power for men is an illusion (e.g., Farrell), or that women have more power than men. This is supported by the sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you be alright if the word 'always' was removed? Someone added it before with the notice of being 'uncontroversial', and I feel that if you were to remove that, this would be solved, would it not? Tutelary (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not all men's rights groups and movements believe in the same thing. "The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.[1][2]". Not all men's rights groups believe or claim that men have greater power than women. Russam5354 (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is an embarassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

the whole article is structured as a long dialog trying to state and then refute all positions held by the various men's rights group.

I think this is massively POV. The structure presents to the casual reader the impression that all those positions have been soundly refuted and have no value. If the article about feminism was structured in similar fashion, we would have an outcry on Wikipedia.

My suggestion would be to trim the article substantially, concentrate the "refutations" in a few places, name them as criticisim or use other language to clearly indicat they are not to be taken at face value.

Maybe there are other, better ways. But as it is, this article is ridiculous. It could as well be named "Refutation of all Positions the Men's Rights Movement ever held". This is not the way to write an encyclopedia. Wefa (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be the general consensus when people read it. Arkon (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Wefa, Arkon - I've actually strongly wanted to trim this article for quite some time. The unusual structure where seemingly every position of the MRM is listed and then a counter point is listed is not at all in line with Wikipedia's style. The laundry-list of issues (and refutations for most of them,) isn't something found on pretty much any other established article. I've tried to substantially revamp the article to be far more prose focused than it currently is at several points in the past, but have received a lot of pushback in trying to do so. If either of you are interested, I'd be happy to work on a new version of the article with you in a sandbox and then hopefully move it over once it achieved consensus. The current state of this article definitely isn't what anyone wants - it's just unfortunately what we've gotten from a lot of pushback to any major changes to the article in the past. Given the recent comparative abundance of relatively decent pop media sources dealing with the MRM, trying to restructure the article to be more well written may be something that may get less pushback than it has in previous attempts.

As one minor note: Wikipedia also strongly discourages separate criticism sections, and depending on the wording of the source, it's also inapproprate to imply that a criticism of something shouldn't be taken at less value than other sources talking about the same subject are (and may in fact be appropriate to phrase in a way that suggests it should be taken at *more* value if it's a stronger source.) Universally, well-written articles avoid the bullet style list this article currently uses, and also avoids separate criticism sections (criticism is instead integrated in to prose in the appropriate section that it naturally falls in to.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What about a separate criticism article? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally an even more discouraged notion. We rarely have standalone criticism articles - we don't have ones about creationism, intelligent design, the Klan, or Obama. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an abnormal amount of criticism in this article - it is heavily unbalanced, starting with the lede section. I think one large issue is that the article is focusing more on issues, and less on the history of the MRM... obviously there is less of that as compared to feminism, but perhaps we should be looking at the largest, most prominent organisations and individuals within the movement are, and systematically look at how they have shaped the movement through policy, theory and law changes etc. Zambelo; talk 02:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you believe the article has more criticism in it than is proportional to how the subject of the article is presented in reliable sources, I'd encourage you to start a separate section where you lay out an argument to that effect, which will include having to actually look at what the RS'es say. Although I agree with you that this article focuses more heavily on issues than it should reasonably, the MRM has received an awful lot of criticism, and that is (and will continue to be) reflected in the article, at least until the movement receives a hell of a lot more positive coverage than it has. As it stands, reliable sources about many of the prominent individuals within the movement don't even exist. The lede is far from perfect, but it draws on a high number of high quality reliable sources, and any perceived imbalance in the amount of criticism contained in it is more likely to reflect actual imbalance in how the movement is covered in reliable sources than a fault on the part of Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would be misrepresentation of the sources if we were to rewrite the article as an advertisement for what is a hugely controversial and academically contested movement --2.221.89.130 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You could argue that the feminist movement also received its share of criticism, and yet this is not found on that article to the extent it is found on this one. Reliable sources that define the movement independently from the criticism should be used, and establish a complete image of the movement. Zambelo; talk 12:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have problems with our article on feminism, you should probably take them to that article's talk page. If it doesn't follow our content policies, it should be fixed, but even if it doesn't follow our content policies (and I don't know if it does, I haven't looked at it in probably half a year,) that would not be a reason for this article to not follow our content policies. If you believe this article puts more weight on criticism than reliable sources do, I would encourage you to start another section to that effect laying out your argument in explicit detail. And yes, that will probably require a trip to the library if you don't already own the sources used in this article currently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are criticisms on many of the secular movements within Feminism, that is to say, articles like Radical feminism, Liberal feminism, Cultural feminism, Marxist feminism, Womanism, Postmodern feminism, Sex-positive feminism, Transnational feminism etc, as well as the articles Antifeminism and Postfeminism that focus mostly on criticisms of the movement. The Feminist article also contains some criticism and discusses that there were vocal critics throughout the movement. We also have a category "Criticism of feminism" with a subcategory "Critics of feminism", all of which contains further criticism of the movement. Forget the fact that it is academically backed by the people who focus on gender issues at Universities, such as in Gender Studies and Sociology fields, it has to have exactly as much criticism as the Men's rights movement in article space or it is sexism against men. Either way, we could probably add even more criticism of Feminism, it would make sense considering the gender gap on Wikipedia that we are overtly critical of women's rights movements. Maybe the whole encyclopedia should be criticism of Feminism and notable women, that'll show 'em guys --2.221.89.130 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Fyi IP, snark and sarcasm are not helpful. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, it's frustrating when people are intellectually dishonest and try to push article changes based on comparisons (i.e. that Feminism has less criticisms in article due to editor bias - which is strange as most reliable sources on the Men's rights movement are critical of its actions, not some, like in the case of Feminism). It's a lazy comparison, but should be base the Men's rights movement article structurally on the African-American Civil Rights Movement article? No, because they are completely different things, with different sources, different goals and achievements, and different histories, with the only point of reference being that they are civil rights movements. The argument that this should directly mirror the article on Feminism is weak and not useful in the construction of an encyclopedia. These are different topics and they are treated how sources treat them --2.221.89.130 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wefa, You are exactly correct this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia in general and in particular to its Five Pillars. Regardless of how and how long you argue, this page unfortunately will not change until there is a will and ability by all involved to abide by the foundational principles of Wikipedia. Probably not going to happen soon unfortunately. CSDarrow (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It follows how sources treat the movement. You can't give credence to ideas that don't have any backing. It's pretty evident how the website treats pseudoscience. What new sources do you have? Independent research shouldn't happen on website --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The page content is to be driven by the Five Pillars, period. It isn't happening. CSDarrow (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well... what exactly is wrong with following neutral point of view and using reliable sources? The five pillars seems to be a good rule for articles like this. You could contribute to WikiMANNia if you want to edit from a men's rights perspective? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Feminist sources are not "neutral." They should be identified in the article as feminist sources, per WP: Biased or opinionated sources:

Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..." Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

This point has been repeated in just about every page of the 24 archived Talk pages of this article... Memills (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Feminist scholars are scholars whether or not you like their analysis. Scholarly sources are what should be used the most to describe this topic. Your assertion that feminists are biased does not hold any water against scholars. Wikipedia does not have a guideline recommending we identify peer-reviewed scholarly works as non-neutral if they are feminists. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

Please can we change the second sentence in this article from:

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism, often as a result of a perceived threat to traditional gender roles.[3]"

To:

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism, often as a result of the feminist opinion that the MRM perceive feminism as a threat to traditional gender roles.[3]"

Or:

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism, due to their conflicting beliefs."

I have checked all the citations listed for this statement and they are almost all written by pro-feminists! One was written by a man that died a long time ago and therefore has an out dated opinion. Feminists have a clear agenda against the MRM and so it seems unfair to define the MRM based on feminist views.

I realise the first option might be seen as confrontational so maybe it would be better to use my second option. Ideally someone that is not pro-feminist needs to talk about the real reasons as to why they want to counter feminism but I can see that being messy! Until that happens the only fair thing is to remove this discrediting statement about the MRM's agenda.

Thanks.

CavemanDaniel (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Not done: - the source you provide does not support either statement. The source just explains some MRM causes. Frankly neither of them are correct. As for your concern about sources, see the rest of the talk page about use of feminist sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2014

This is false all sited supported info was Feminist written work which gives a one sided argument or view the owner can't assume she or he knows about what as been written falsely as he/she is most likely from the opposing movement. I am in the Mens right movement I know how it is I need this to be taken down or changed with non bias eyes. Punkgok84 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No clear request made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 13 August

The second link in this sentence in the introduction:

The men's rights movement's beliefs and activities have been criticized by certain scholars, the Southern Poverty Law Center and commentators, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

(Citation 5)

Is a dead link.

Please amend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingo12 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Link is fixed, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests on 11 August 2014

Under sub-section "Relation to feminism", the following sentence:

"They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women."

Should be changed to:

"They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are often victimized and disadvantaged relative to women." - I suggest either "often" or "sometimes", or a word that would carry a similar meaning.

This edit is not directly backed by sources. The main reason for this edit is to make clear that the Men's rights movement is not declaring that men are in every way victimized and disadvantaged compared to women, as could be implied from the tone in which it is currently written, and are only so in certain aspects, like the rest of the article then claims (under the "Issues" section), essentially clearing up possible ambiguity and improving clarity.

Furthermore, I also request an edit on the following sentence under "Issues", under the first paragraph:

"Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards, gender roles, and patriarchy."

Not only does this lack any sources, seeing as the Men's rights movement denies men having institutionalized privilege it would also be logical that it denies the existence of a societal system which would revolve around said privilege (the patriarchy), and as such it could not be held as the 'cause' for these issues which the Men's rights movement claims to exist, at least from the MRM's perspective.

That being said, removing "and patriarchy" from the sentence would make it more logical, at least it would be in line with MRM rhetoric, although the sentence is still not backed by any reliable sources but rather the editor's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okymyo (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Added missing request code. Kizniche (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I will do the first part. I think I have a source for that second one, including the "patriarchy". Give me a few minutes for it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a source to "Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards, gender roles, and patriarchy." PDF of source can be found at this link. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's proposed that a change should be made to the Domestic Violence section of this article, with an addition of newly-published research. This proposal is for the incorporation of two new sentences (with citations) between two currently-published sentences. The following sentences should be added:

"A 2014 study found women were more likely to be physically aggressive to their partners than men and women engaged in significantly higher levels of controlling behavior than men, which significantly predicted physical aggression in both sexes. Dr. Elizabeth Bates, who presented her research at the symposium on intimate partner violence (IPV) at the British Psychological Society's Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow, reported that "women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men. This suggests that IPV may not be motivated by patriarchal values and needs to be studied within the context of other forms of aggression, which has potential implications for interventions.""

This proposed statements should immediately follow the sentence, found under the Domestic Violence topic, that at the time of this proposal, states:

"They state that women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men in relationships and that domestic violence is sex-symmetrical."

The proposed addition describes the results of a scientific journal article and a quote of the significance of the study by the main author of the study, at the symposium on intimate partner violence (IPV) at the British Psychological Society's Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in 2014. This proposed addition supports the previous sentence (above) with peer-reviewed research and strengthens the prior claim(s) with statistically-significant data.

Additionally, the following sentence could be altered to increase flow of the sentence following the proposed addition, and improve the overall clarity of the paragraph, from:

"They frequently cite family conflict research by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles as evidence of sex-symmetry,"

to:

"Further evidence of sex-symmetry is cited by family conflict research conducted by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles." Kizniche (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

References

I won't close this since I was the one to revert the edit, but I reverted this edit before because (1) it's primary research and (2) the second source is a conference paper and thus not stringently peer reviewed. Furthermore, the sentence stating "They state that women are as aggressive..." is cited by books that also say there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. This article is about the MRM, not about supporting their claims with individual pieces of research (WP:COATRACK). I would object to the conflict tactics scale edits because Straus does not argue sex symmetry the way MRAs do. See Kimmel's paper on sex symmetry for more on this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: You bring up valid points. However, can you elaborate on your objection to the use of primary research? Kizniche (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a specific policy against primary sources as part of its general policy against original research - part of which is:-

"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material"

Arjayay (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's rather embarrassing for Wikipedia

That in the time I've been gone from this article significant changes have been made with little to no discussion here that have gone against consensus as it has been established time and time again, and that despite plenty of probation violations being made, no action has been taken against anyone. If you compare the last version I edited (which mostly reflected consensus as reached through repeated discussion) and the current version, the changes I am referring to should be obvious. Oh well. I'll check back again in another three months, mostly to see how bad it's gotten, with an inkling of hope that someone has started actually enforcing the probation. Patrolling admins: I imagine this section will irritate you a bit so feel free to hat it, etc. I don't intend to return to this article for multiple months, and am in a place for at least a week or two longer where I can barely edit anything anyway. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you point out specific issues? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I've gone through every edit made to this article since Kevin Gorman last modified it. Most edits have been innocuous fussing over tags and wording. The only significant content change that was not immediately reverted was the addition of a paragraph stating that the MRM has several prominent female advocates, and this seems both relevant and well sourced. I'm not sure what the problem is. Reyk _YO! 05:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"the changes I am referring to should be obvious" No, they aren't. Memills (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me. I didn't see any major changes either, except, as mentioned above, the list of pro-MRM women, which seems uncontroversial. Kevin, you might have to be more specific. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

How to get changes:

1. make change

either

• change is kept
• change is reverted

1. if the change is reverted, start a discussion on the talk page.
2. (optional) start an RFC
3. request close of the discussion

if the change is good, it will be done, if it isn't, it won't. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights movement as a singular entity

The Men's rights movement is comprised of many disparate groups with more or less aligned views, beliefs and objectives. Part of the issue with this article is that the MRM is being referred to as a singular organism, when in reality is is comprised of individuals and organizations from different countries. Claiming therefore that "the MRM has been referred to as ...." is incorrect if the source only makes the claim about a certain part of the movement or of an individual within the movement.

How could we address this? We could identify the principal actors in the movement and create subsections - or better still, move the content to the individual's article (if it exists).

Zambelo; talk 04:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to create subsections. Feminism is much the same and there are lots of disparate articles for the movement (i.e. Radical feminism, Liberal feminism, Womanism etc). The general Feminism article summarises the views that researchers and sociologists consider to cover most of its groups views and explains the differences between them. We should still include all well-referenced information concerning the actions of the men's rights movement, that is what an encyclopedia is for and movements within the name are still reflective of it, but they could be contextualised by group and put into a timeline --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"The men's rights movement branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s" (not!)

Edits spouting this patently false feminist "history" about the MRM - that it emerged out of the feminist "men's liberation movement" frankly disgust me. Blatant propaganda and information control.

Entities called "men's rights movement" have been around for centuries, including this one I noticed today in the Yorkshire Evening Post - dated from Friday 06 May 1898. There are numerous newspaper articles about them, including one from the London Daily News - Friday 06 May 1898 entitled An ungallant society: The men’s rights movement.

That media article (if feminist-inspired "editors" on Wikipedia even bother to read it) clearly says that a "men's rights movement" was established, and it also mentions female violence against men, misandric customs, laws and etc. However, such factual information threatens the propaganda about the MRM supposedly being a branch-off from the feminist-inspired men's liberation (liberation - giggles) movement.

Ernest Belfort Bax was dead right when he wrote in 1913 that, [quote]- “When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” [from 'The Fraud of feminism' by Ernest B. Bax, - 1913]. 58.7.223.26 (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The article clearly says the modern mens rights movement branched off from the men's liberation movement and notes that 19th century forerunners have nothing to do with the modern movement as there was a disconnect of several decades between their activities and the reaction to second wave feminism. This is all covered in the history section of the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The emphasis is clearly undue in favour of the MRM branching off from the feminist male liberation movement. Whereas in reality, many MRM threads, nay many MRM's since the early 1970s had zilch to do with that - but please don't let me stop you defending the propaganda that is Undue in the article.

Another thing that this dumb, feminist-propaganda article fails to reveal is that there is no monolithic men's rights movement. There are only men's rights movements (plural) per se. Wouldn't that wreck the monolithic picture, lol.

Oh, and I note you've said zilch about the new historical fact/resource I offered. Quelle surprise. Keep the article locked up, guys.58.7.223.26 (talk)58.7.223.26 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Still think this is WP:FORUM and should be removed or closed. But if you're gonna continue, please provided reliable sources to back up your statements (and not blogspot) and avoid soapboxing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you blind? Here is a reliable source that I already posted above, and it isn't posted on a blog Einstein - "An ungallant society: The men’s rights movement" page.6 London Daily News - Friday 06 May 1898 . You can find it in the British Newspaper Archive along with four other articles, in other papers of the time, talking about the same men's rights movement. BTW it's a 2000 word article about men's rights issues, so take your spectacles with you. There are literally hundreds more articles just like that out there that make a mockery of this needlessly profeminist Wikipedia article.

Pays for you to read before reacting. 58.7.223.26 (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

See also "A Men's Rights Movement" - Page.2, Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday 06 May 1898 which is also archived in the British Newspaper Archive. Here's a quote directly from that article in the British Newspaper Archive;

[start quote]
A MEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT
A Men's Rights Movement has been formed by a Mr. Austin. The founder points out many grievances borne by men. No matter, for instance, if a wife is rolling in wealth, she is not obliged to contribute one penny to her husband's support, even if he is incapable, through disease or accident, and even if she received her wealth from him in his time of prosperity. Even if a wife, against her husband's wishes, leaves her husband's house, after assaulting him and insulting him, she can obtain an order for restitution of conjugal rights, which is merely a preliminary form of a claim for sequestration of his property her her maintenance.

WOMAN'S PRIVILEGE

A successful lady litigant in 1896 observed to her husband, "There is no law which compels me to honour or obey you, but there is one which says you must keep me." [finish quote] (Source; Page.2, Column 5., 'A Men's Rights Movement,' Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday 06 May 1898, located in British Newspaper Archive)

58.7.223.26 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This would merit a sentence about the existence of the organization (after the Putnam's Magazine and before the Austrian interwar stuff). Please try to keep your tone civil. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we have anything that says this is the same as the current movement, or a continuation thereof? Also, IP editor warned (again) this time for tone and PA. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The present page does not say what the Movement is let alone the current movement. This page does not define what the MRM is yet it is called Men's Rights Movement page. A page on a topic should say what the topic is. CSDarrow (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a continuation, or the same movement. It should however be included, since it is the earliest mention of the term. Zambelo; talk 05:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly not the first mention of the term, nor is it a continuation. Like any of the pre-1960s movements, its likely this organization stopped existing by the late 1930s or so. I dont think any secondary RS has done analysis of the first wave of MRM but its likely that it arose as a response to first wave feminism, much like the modern day MRM arose as a reaction to second wave feminism. PearlSt82 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair points. My question was more in general than saying that it had to be continuous. It does warrant inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The narrative in the lede concerning the origin and history of the Men's Rights Movement appears to be entirely OR, fabrication, and SYNTH. It is false and misleading in itself and it undermines whatever good content may exist in the rest of the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that almost all of these points are cited by RS, I have to disagree. Feel free to point out specific sentences which are not supported by their sources. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that we should base the lede and article content from academic sources, this is very important --81.129.126.66 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source of "men's rights movement" that editors here are refusing to cite

Here again is the reliable source of "men's rights movement" that editors here have refused to cite in the article because, I suspect, the 1898 entity described doesn't "branch off" of the profeminist "men's liberation movement" of the 1970s that the editors here are insisting on being the main premise of the men's rights movement article.

"An ungallant society: The men’s rights movement" page.6 London Daily News - Friday 06 May 1898 . You can find it in the British Newspaper Archive along with four other articles, in other papers of the time, talking about the same men's rights movement. It's a 2000 word article about men's rights issues. There are literally hundreds more reliable-source articles just like that which make a mockery of this needlessly profeminist Wikipedia article.

See also "A Men's Rights Movement" - Page.2, Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday 06 May 1898 which is also archived in the British Newspaper Archive. Here's a brief quote directly from that article in the British Newspaper Archive;

[start quote]
A MEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT
A Men's Rights Movement has been formed by a Mr. Austin. The founder points out many grievances borne by men. No matter, for instance, if a wife is rolling in wealth, she is not obliged to contribute one penny to her husband's support, even if he is incapable, through disease or accident, and even if she received her wealth from him in his time of prosperity. Even if a wife, against her husband's wishes, leaves her husband's house, after assaulting him and insulting him, she can obtain an order for restitution of conjugal rights, which is merely a preliminary form of a claim for sequestration of his property her her maintenance.

WOMAN'S PRIVILEGE

A successful lady litigant in 1896 observed to her husband, "There is no law which compels me to honour or obey you, but there is one which says you must keep me." [finish quote] (Source; Page.2, Column 5., 'A Men's Rights Movement,' Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday 06 May 1898, located in British Newspaper Archive)

Moreover, this is no "forerunner" to the 1970s MRM, it is an MRM - and clearly stated as [quote] "A Men's Rights Movement." 58.6.204.219 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, I think this would merit inclusion for one sentence saying the organization existed in May of 1898. Any claims that they are part of the modern day MRM is WP:SYNTH unless explicitly stated in an RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, PearlSt82, it appears you are the only one who has raised the question of it being part of the "modern" men's movement. I suggest you focus on what the above poster wrote, and not what she didn't write. Also, it is OR to claim how long the 1898 mrm lasted for if you have no sources to confirm your claim that it only existed in May, there is no mention of which month it started nor which year it finished, only that it was formed. Rosebudflower (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Unless we have further RS detailing their later activities, all we know is that the organization existed on May 6th of 1898, nothing more. We can't attribute any long term significance to that group as we only have WP:PRIMARY documents to go on which just establish its existence. The fact that the modern day MRM arose out of the 1970s is well documented by WP:RS, and unless we have a RS which accounts for the 30+ year gap between the disjointed movements of the early 1900s and the movements we have now, we can't include that in the text. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)