Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Creation of relevant article.

"Female Privilege" ought to be made its own article, it's absurd that "Male Privilege" has its own, lengthy article while "Female Privilege" is relegated to a footnote on an entirely different page, if no one else will make this I will. Markovich Rashkolnikov (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You are assuming a false balance between two very unequal concepts. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

So is your personal (and therefore undemocratic) assertion that they are "very unequal concepts" the only barrier between the creation of two separate pages? 131.172.31.171 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The point is to portray as much of a neutral, unbiased standpoint, and this statement, as it is a small sample size, is biased. Cheeseburger3 (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the first point. 131.172.31.171 (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"a curricula" should be "a curriculum" or "curricula"

because it is plural. 85.148.38.245 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Reassessing Gender and Achievement quote

@Panamitsu: Regarding the sentences They have also advocated clearer school routines, more traditional school structures, including gender-segregated classrooms, and stricter discipline.

Per p. 19 of the cited source:

Furthermore, proponents of the ‘men’s rights’ perspective argue that more evident school routines and practices are conducive to boys’ styles of learning and support traditional forms of school organisation and the implementation of stricter discipline measures.

Per p. 141 of the cited source:

Single-sex teaching is a strategy particularly advocated by those writing from a ‘men’s rights’ perspective in North America (Pollack, 1998; Hoff Sommers, 2000) although not, strangely enough, by those living in the UK (Bleach, 1998b; Noble and Bradford, 2000). Martin Mills (2004: 344) writing critically on the ‘men’s rights’ position, observes that those who subscribe to the ‘boys as victims’ viewpoint advocate single-sex settings as, ‘boys’ only classes will serve to create an environment where their “energy” can be appreciated and harnessed for their learning’. - this is in a section on single-sex classrooms, and the work spends several dditional paragraphs on this as it relates to the men's rights movement.

There are other mentions of this in the cited source as well.

Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell Whoops, sorry about that. Thanks for the page numbers Panamitsu (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

References

NPOV

The lead of the article talks about the manosphere being hateful and misogynistic, which is undisputed, however what makes this article un-neutral is the fact that much of it (especially the lead) describes the movement itself as only being on the manosphere which is incorrect. Naturally, this leads to a bias "against" the movement as the manosphere is generally hateful.

Take the feminism page for example, it talks about feminism as a movement in its own right rather than the group online which is generally hateful also. Panamitsu (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have which contradict the label of the men's rights movement being part of the manosphere? On top of the sources already included which establish that connection, here are a few extra:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/manosphere-mens-rights-movement-terms/

https://www.gq.com/story/mens-rights-activism-the-red-pill

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/07/349052/the-manosphere-is-getting-more-toxic-as-angry-men-join-the-incels/

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-culture/with-andrew-tate-arrest-a-look-at-manosphere-8356385/ 22090912l (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@22090912l Men's rights being part of the manosphere is undisputed. However, much of the movement is outside of the manosphere, which the lead ignores for the most part. Panamitsu (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: Fair enough, I misunderstood what point you were trying to make and I apologise. However, the men's rights movement having any kind of presence outside of the manosphere is still an unsourced assertion. In fact, based on the reliable sources, it seems to me that it is almost entirely a subset of the manosphere. 22090912l (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@22090912l There's a whole section in the article of MRAs who are authors, scholars, etc, who aren't a part of the manosphere.

The problem is that all the media only talk about is the manosphere, which makes people think that the same. Panamitsu (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu:Then I guess you've admitted that you're wrong, even if you didn't mean to, because if all the sources only talk about the men's rights movement in connection with the manosphere, then wikipedia has to follow suit. It seems that, even if a handful of men's rights activists aren't directly connected to the manosphere, they are outweighed by the abundance of online spaces and activists who are outright hateful. 22090912l (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: I will remove the NPOV template now. 22090912l (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@22090912l I said the media, not all sources in existence. There are plenty of sources that talk about the movement outside of the manosphere. Panamitsu (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform to right great wrongs. It's not at all clear what actionable changes you are proposing. The discussion is ongoing, so the template is not currently productive.

The second paragraph misrepresents its cited sources only slightly. Only some of the cited sources for that paragraph even mention the "manosphere" directly. Instead they discuss the MRM's online activities ("cyberspace" or similar) more broadly. Regardless, the paragraph about the manopshere isn't the place to discussion "the movement outside of the manosphere". We are not concerned with "all sources in existence" only the WP:RS and only in proportion to WP:DUE. Any sources which talk about the movement's offline activities would have to be evaluated on its own merits, summarized in the body of the article as appropriate, and only then included in the lead. Avoid gossip, and also avoid slacktivism, listicles, and WP:FARTs.

The line saying here have been multiple attempts at censoring the movement. is obvious editorializing or WP:SYNTH which violates WP:NPOV. If you have a reliable source which actually says there have been multiple attempts at censoring the movement, summarize that source, but even then this use of loaded language is a red flag. If instead it's a reliable source's opinion that there here have been multiple attempts at censoring the movement, consider whether that opinion is worth summarizing with attribution. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

Remove this whole entry. It's just wrong and clearly biased with an agenda. There have been and are and will be many differing initiatives and attempts to protect men's human rights. Maybe there's a reason no one wants to donate to this site? 60.242.54.94 (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This wasn't a suggestion, it was just complaining. Wikipedia has articles about:

• Men's movement
• Men's liberation movement
• Masculism
• Pro-feminism
• Mythopoetic men's movement

And dozens of others. Whether or not you donate to Wikipedia has nothing to do with how reliable sources describe this topic. Grayfell (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)