Talk:Violence against men/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Circumcision is male genital mutilation and its an act of violence against male individuals

Circumcision is a violation of psychical and bodily integrity and the right of self-determination, especially in case of worldview. A little boy cant voluntary say yes to the Mutilation of his genitalia. There are no rational arguments for Circumcision. Please write just that Circumcision is an act of violence against men.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Violence against men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unhcr.org/5072bfa69.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Circumcision

PolarYukon, I've reverted your edits again because they appear to be original research. The sources you give supported the individual statements, but none claim that circumcision is part of "violence against men". You are making that leap yourself, but is why it's OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add a source to this effect.

If you still think we need more sources, please tag with citation needed, rather than deleting the entire section. I think it is quite valid to have the section here, as sources state, and we can flesh it out with other editors.

Thanks

PolarYukon (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@PolarYukon: Per BRD, please discuss the changes here first and get some consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

See, if you had discussed the sources first, I would have objected to Equality4Men as not a reliable source. The IRIN source is good for showing that there's efforts to get this recognized as a form of violence against men, but only discusses forced circumcision and does not support the rest of the paragraph. Same with the UNLV sourced. You cannot extend these to all circumcision. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, adding some higher-quality sources PolarYukon (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

PolarYukon, I've cleaned up this section but I'm unable to find the ref for the statement: Several former colonial powers, including Belgium, Britain, France and the Netherlands, followed suit, either with new laws or by making clear that it was covered by existing legislation. which you give as: Boyle 2002 p. 97. in this diff

I thought it might be: Gregory J. Boyle "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae" (2002), Journal of Health Psychology, 7(3) doi:10.1177/135910530200700310 but there is no mention of legislation in the article and the page numbers are 329–343, so no page 97. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claim

Espoo recently added a claim to the article that "The official figure in the United Kingdom, for example, is about 50% of violence by men against women". Ignoring the fact that this sentence is ungrammatical, it is also dubious and uncited. According to the Office for National Statistics, 4.5 million women and 2.2 million men over the age of 16 have suffered domestic abuse in Britain,[1] which means the figure should be more like 33% than 50%. Is there a source for the 50% claim? Kaldari (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing ungrammatical about this sentence, and it is supported by a reference. If you'd bothered to read it, you'd have easily found this: "more women than men suffer domestic abuse in Britain (4.5m women versus 2.2m men over the age of 16, according to the ONS)". Let me parse my sentence for you so you see your claim about grammar is nonsense: Violence by women against men is widespread and underreported. The official figure [for acts of violence by women against men] in the United Kingdom [2.2m], for example, is about 50% of the number of acts of violence by men against women [4.5m]... --Espoo (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Rape against males

More should be added to Wikipedia about rape against males, sexual harassment against males by gay males or by women, and other situations. These situations are often neglected because they represent a small number compared to the female and lesbian female victims. We should want WP:npov for all classes of victims. I have more to say, but not immediately.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

The Violence against men article is virtually a stub unlike the Violence against women article. A double standard, says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.221.36 (talk • contribs)

You have violence committed by men against women and the literature focusing more so on violence against women for numerous reasons to blame. See WP:Due weight. Violence against men is not studied or recognized in the same way that violence against women is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it's not studied nor recognized, a sit doesn't suit the paradigm to recognize, particularly the structural violence and what it's come to with men where all a woman ha to do is make a claim of sexual misconduct and they will almost automatically be believed. It dismisses the facts that on numerous occasions the claims are nothing but a psychological assault against men with no founding what so ever. This, in turn, creates a paradigm where men don't even bother to approach women for fear of having an allegation thrown at them in spite of their actions being pure. And this is now the paradigm we live in. It's unfortunate but such is the way of modern life. The more structural problem with some of the more extreme form of radical feminism is that they want this to happen with the ultimate aim of the destruction of masculinity entirely... and I'm not speaking out of turn because it's written in their own literature should you choose to read it. --120.155.184.212 (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this. I will state this before archiving: You have men being significantly more violent than women are to blame. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias

There seems to be too much focus on male victims with precious little focus on male perpetrators, in an article about male violence. 88.106.238.93 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The article title is 'Violence against men', not male violence generally. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I advise you to ask EvergreenFir to inform you about critical gender theory and how males are not the victims of male violence directly, but do suffer from the effects of toxic masculinity as it is displayed through violence. 88.106.238.93 (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you explain it yourself? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is more well versed in critical gender theory. 88.106.233.198 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment 88.106.238.93 It is incumbent on you to suggest changes to the article as it was you that commented about bias. Merely suggesting that another Wikipedia editor knows more about a subject isn't helpful. It is not up to PaleCloudedWhite to contact the editor or put forward any of their views. Even if the editor you point to was to contribute it would still be only one point of view. As Pale Clouded White said this is about violence against men not by men and until a consensus is reached to include other views that you are suggesting then the article's focus will remain that way. Robynthehode (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Article on Violence Against Men Should not refer to men as perpetrators in the first paragraph

https://www.statista.com/statistics/254893/child-abuse-in-the-us-by-perpetrator-relationship/ The violence against women article does not mention that women perpetrate by far the majority of child abuse in the USA as well as do not mention that females are directly involved and do female genital mutilation. Quote from Wikipedia female genital mutilation article: "The cutter is usually an older woman, but in communities where the male barber has assumed the role of health worker he will also perform FGM.[25][c]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:780B:869:9A8A:517F (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Demands for symmetry do not coincide with verifiable reality. This article doesn't concern FGM. Acroterion (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

More Coverage

Need more coverage of Violence Against Men with only 1 Wikipedia page compared to Violence Against Women with 12 Wikipedia pages.

1. Violence Against Women - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women
2. Violence Against Women in Cambodia - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Cambodia
3. Violence Against Women in Fiji - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Fiji
4. Violence Against Women in Guatemala - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Guatemala
5. Violence Against Women in India - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_India
6. Violence Against Women in Malaysia - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Malaysia
7. Violence Against Women in Mexico - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Mexico
8. Violence Against Women in New Zealand - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_New_Zealand
9. Violence Against Women in Pakistan - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Pakistan
10. Violence Against Women in Philippines - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_the_Philippines
11. Violence Against Women in Tamil Nadu - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Tamil_Nadu
12. Violence Against Women in The United States - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_the_United_States

This does not advocate a redaction or downplaying of any Violence Against Women aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:780B:869:9A8A:517F (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

So fix it. Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Claims not backed by sources

Hi all, looking to remove the dubious and pointy claims in this article. I tried to remove several pointy or misleading claims in the lede, but was reverted by Discospinster. This claim, for example "Men are over-represented as both victims and perpetrators of violence" - We are talking gendered violence here, where does the cited material make this claim, exactly, which page and sentence? Really such a controversial claim made in such glaringly stark contrast with mainstream academia on the subject of gendered violence should be very well sourced, preferably from a seminal academic text. As it is most of the lede appears to be cherry picked and/or misrepresented. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

One of the core facts in criminology is that men perpetrate more violent crime (80%) than women and they primarily victimize other men. That statement you quoted is exactly correct. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's violence generally, not gendered violence. I think the claim needs some context. The article should not be conflating gendered violence and violence in general.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, this claim seems odd "Sexual violence against men is treated differently than that committed against women in most societies and is largely unrecognized by international law" I mean, I've read so many studies about women not being taken seriously or being dismissed when reporting crime. Again I think such a claim needs really strong sourcing, like a seminal text, not just a grab bag. And also needs context and be specifically about gendered violence, not just general crime or violence. There's already articles about crime and violence, we're talking gendered violence that specifically targets a certain gender, the claims and cites should reflect that. I guess the key issue for me is that the article generally makes false equivalences between gendered violence experienced by women and gendered violence experienced by men. Much of this article is discussing general violence, street fights, war etc...not gender based violence at all.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, as Messerschmitt would say, is that men's violence against men is normalized to the point that gender is erased. There are plenty of scholars who point out that violence against men (by men or women) is treated differently. I don't think this article needs to be or should be like violence against women. We can reflect the literature on this topic without trying to make gender-based violence about men. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)violence against women, but what about men"

Yes, indeed. I guess the issue I have here is that this article reads like it was created as some kind of f-you to feminists penned by some horrid MGTOW type. Much of what is included is not male specific, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide for instance, were genocides, how an editor took it upon themselves to decide gender was a major factor is anyone's guess. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the tone isn't like 100% in your face about it but it's there and it can be subtle at times. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed 100% the tone is loaded at points throughout the article, but it's subtle. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed that part of the revert and added some more statements in it's place that are backed by journal citations. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think they were much needed improvements. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing blogs and websites in favor of academic journals

I've been going over the article and replacing blogs and newspaper articles with references to academic journals. I think this is a good step in improving the article. If I removed something you felt was really important just add it back alongside the replaced reference. I feel it's important that with this subject that we are really careful what we cite but at the same time I don't want to block readers off from a reference due to a paywall. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice work. I've removed a few things I thought would be uncontroversial to remove. Let me know if you feel I've gotten any of it wrong. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think your edits on the LGBT section were really good. That section was part of a student assignment, so I think shifting away from a few cases of violence against and moving towards the larger structural problems is the right move and fits with our goals. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks same goes, the work you've done on the 'Perceptions and aspects' section is great, exactly what was needed in terms of tone and sourcing. Now we're getting somewhere. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of introduction edits

Hey @EvergreenFir, I wanted to highlight some of the material I removed and my reasoning behind it. Not upset or anything just wanted to give you thought process and bounce ideas back and forth on this because this is a lot to work with and I did make some mistakes.

• In general I remove sentences that say "Renowned scholar Bob said x,y,z." because I find it to just be a lazy way to add words to a sentence. Unless they're really important or famous, but more often than not they not.
• I removed the citation and mention of Richard Felson because his work isn't really completely aligned with the citation, for example he has promoted the idea that rape isn't about power but just sexual urges.
• I removed the line "Reporting on violence against men shows disparities; people are less likely to report a man hitting another man to the police than a man hitting a woman" because I didn't think it was a good apples to apples comparison so I wanted to find an experiment that compared woman on woman and man on man violence to integrate it into the article and expand it. I probally shouldn't have removed this yet until I can find something better to replace it with so you were right on that one so thanks.
• For the "few legal provisions" line I changed that because the source was talking about India and there is an obvious global and cultural differnce at play. Do you have any ideas of how to balance that? I wasn't really sure where to start.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think they are obvious and much needed improvements, thanks. The way the article has been framed is WP:POINTY to say the least. I think removing language that infers there's some kind of anti-male conspiracy by law enforcement is a must. The section linking genocide to gendercide based on what appears to be a blog needs to go to. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree on the anti-male conspiracy by law enforcement, it's got to go. It's why I've tried to focus on using academic journals as sources, there is a bias against men in some cases (there's way more bias against people of color and women) but it's not a vast anti-male conspiracy. Do you know anyone else or other communities we can invite to help us with this article? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I'm only recently returned to editing Wikipedia after a long break. I'm working on an "intensive" Masters degree, but I'm happy to keep chipping away slowly at the article when I have time. I certainly agree now that there is a legitimate article in there amongst the histrionic men's rights stuff. Just needs all the hyperbolic, conspiratorial men's rights stuff removed and/or replaced. I think the tone for this article needs to be very finely tuned, to avoid it reading like one awful anti-feminist equivocation. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Attributing sources, particularly for an article like this, seems important for WP:WIKIVOICE considerations and WP:NPOV generally. Removing attribution may make this article look more like a personal essay. Sources that may help with a worldwide perspective include Crime & Criminal Justice (UN), Reports on world crime trends (UN), and International Government Data & Statistics: Crime (UC Berkeley). Beccaynr (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, good sources. I think the issue was that dubious and false claims were being dressed as legitimate using the old "Jimmy Bobscot said" when Jimmy Bobscot was just some fringe blogger or an MRA nutjob or some such. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup of anti male bias and rollback of false removals of sources and edits

Commenting that men are over representing as perpetrators is nothing but anti male bias, as men as perpetrators has absolutely nothing to do with them as victims and is nothing but anti male victim blaming. There is not reason for that line to be there as it only serves as an insidious way to lessen the concept of men as victims.

However if the line needs to be there it should be "Men are over-represented as both victims and perpetrators of violence." and not "Men are over-represented as both perpetrators and victims of violence." as this is a page about violence about men and editing it to be male perpetrators first shift the focus from being victims to being perpetrators. As such I would ask the anti male people disruptively editing this page to cease their attacks on this page.

Further, the links to the SCUM manifesto and throw rocks at boys are directly and strongly related to violence against males and should not be disruptively edited away like some are trying to. The Scum manifesto is a core piece of anti male radical feminist litrature that directly promotes violence against males written by a radical feminist who proceeded to shoot and murder one man and shoot another. Its a direct contributor to violence against males and radicalization of violent feminists. The second link is an example of literally and directly advocating violence against boys so there is no way one could argue its not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.44.83 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"The Scum manifesto is a core piece of anti male radical feminist litrature". No it simply isn't. It is the work of a severely mentally ill person who went on to attempt to murder somebody. I'm not here to broadly defend radical feminism in all its various forms but we can't define it by this fringe craziness. The "rocks" business is an argument about a stupid T-Shirt. This is trivia. It trivialises the subject at hand. Find some better examples if you like but not these. DanielRigal (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it simply is. It have been quoted and celebrated by a vast number of feminists, made into movies games and much much more. It's simply indisputable that its extremely important and core piece of feminist literature. Whatever she is mentally ill or not is irrelevant and has nothing to do with it being a core piece of feminist literature. It's indisputably famous and heavily used by radical feminists and as such an important piece in them advocating violence against men. It's also indisputably advocating violence against. Those two things are the only relevant aspect in consideration for its inclusion.

And I have seen nothing to substantiate it's fringe craziness given how commonly cited it is. I would like you to validate that claim in some way.It's litterally one of the most sold and read feminist pieces out there. I don't know on what basis you call it fringe.

And those t-shirt are significant in illustrating how commonly accepted violence against men are. They litterally advocate violence against boys to children. It was a significant controversy and important in illustrating how little care there is about violence against males. Your argument seems to boil down to you thinking it's stupid and not liking it, but that does not seem a valid reason to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.44.83 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll give you the mail (or male if you will). If my wife hit me, I'd probably fall over laughing. Just saying. Cheer up mate, you'll be right. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a joke. No one should ever hit anyone. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Those kinds of sexist jokes just goes to show that you are not editing this article in good faith. Wikipedia should not be a platform for your toxic chauvinism.

I'm just an IP, so I won't do anything, but I would encourage other users to consider reporting this user and reverting their recent changes, as he has been removing well-sourced content just because it seemingly goes against his point of view. 188.213.136.3 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a chauvinist, lol. Grow up. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Apsolutly disgusting joke, and not something you should joke about at all. Why do people like you always manage to be sexist against both women and men at the same time? I agree with the other person. You should not be editing this article. 90.129.210.87 (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It is funny though. And Jesus wept. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Propose deletion

This article is obviously bunkum, it's WP:POINTY, about as pointy as it gets. Looking at sources, they are misrepresented. After taking the time to read the first few sources, it is evident that they clearly do not support the claims they are linked to. The article's claims are wildly at odds with mainstream academic discourse around the subject of gendered violence. I'm a bit confounded as to why it wasn't deleted at the first two nominations where consensus was to delete, and with good reason. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably better to improve the article than propose deletion then Imaginarium Monkey (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that needs to get deleted is ur account Goldberg246 (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. See conversations below.

Sexual Victimization of Men in America

The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions contains relevant data that I think should be included in the article. The National Crime Victim Survey's 12-month prevalence estimates of sexual victimization and the National Survey of Youth in Custody's statistics for sexual victimization by facility staff are particularly relevant for this article. See the below quotes:

> The NISVS’s 12-month prevalence estimates of sexual victimization show that male victimization is underrepresented when victim penetration is the only form of nonconsensual sex included in the definition of rape. The number of women who have been raped (1 270 000) is nearly equivalent to the number of men who were “made to penetrate” (1 267 000). As Figure 1 also shows, both men and women experienced “sexual coercion” and “unwanted sexual contact,” with women more likely than men to report the former and men slightly more likely to report the latter.

And:

> In the National Survey of Youth in Custody 2012, about 9.5% of male and female juvenile detainees reported sexual victimization in the 12 months before the interview (or since detained, if < 12 months). But gender differences were observed: females were more likely than were males to report sexual victimization by other youths (5.4% vs 2.2%), and males were more likely than were females to report sexual victimization by facility staff (8.2% vs 2.8%) 188.213.136.3 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Autoconfirm your account and edit it yourself Goldberg246 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Reworked sources needed

More recent reliable source citations are needed. Sources from 15 or more years ago often have more recent ones with modern data. For example number of juvenile boys forced into sex by female guards at juvenile detention centers. A prisoner can never have consensual secpx with a guard when the guard can retaliate at will against the prisoner. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:11CB:8225:9E04:C76E (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree we need more modern citations, when I went though and changed the sources I would read a few papers on a topic and take the one that had the most citations or was the best article for the statement. The plan is after we get the article stable and structured to then go back and update the citations with more modern ones and add some non academic journal references as well. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is one source referring to a Fed government report on the subject. https://kidsimprisoned.news21.com/sexual-assault-juvenile-detention-facilities/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:11CB:8225:9E04:C76E (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Greetings,

since the deletion seems rather on course to not get through, I thought I'd start a discussion here while focus is on the article still. I agree that it's a mess in its current state, and needs cleanup. I've watchlisted it already, and will take a look at what I can contribute when time allows. In the meantime, feel free to remove anything you deem inappropriate or misrepresented. Maybe leave a quick note here so we can coordinate. I'll start by removing the Holocaust mention, since it is not in the Androcide article and the source cited says "It should be noted, that the Jewish genocide carried out by the Nazis was a “root-and-branch extermination” campaign and that gender was not a dominant consideration." Only at the very beginning there may have been some discrimination; it gives undue weigth keeping that here.

Pinging Dr vulpes, DanielRigal and Tambor de Tocino as potentially interested participants from the AfD discussion. -- LordPeterII (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I do agree with you but not sure how to contribute. this article seems biased in the sense that it overwhelmingly emphasizes violence by women against men when the literature I read seems to underline×s the fact violence against man is mainly perpetrated by men (war, killing, rapes...). Let me know if/how I can help. Cheers Astragales (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LordPeterII - I'm going to remove claims about men being over-represented in gendered violence, mainstream academia on the subject says the exact opposite...so those claims need excellent sourcing ie: seminal works on gendered violence...not a grab bag of random, fringe, selectively interpreted or completely misinterpreted sources. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, I made some edits but I'll back and try to find better sources for things. If I can't find anything then I'll remove it if its not in line with the goals of the article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

DanielRigal and Tambor de Tocino should not be allowed to edit the article as they are using it as a soapbox to introduce their own anti male bias and misandry. They are disruptively edditing it by remvoign sources and introducing biased language and false interpretation of sources.

– Just FYI, the preceding statement was made by 130.226.157.37; I have warned them on their talk page that this is not acceptable. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LordPeterII Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Article Rework

Perceptions and aspects

So @Tambor de Tocino I think for this section we should expand a bit into the sources of stereotypes and unconscious bias. That was sort of what I was trying to get with in my previous edit but after rereading it I agree it wasn't the best, but I still think we should either add some more material on stereotypes and unconscious bias or make a new section for it. What do you think? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It's a hard area to tackle, and sorry if I accidentally undid some of your work feel free to reinstate. I find that section a real dogs breakfast, the idea that social attitudes affect the way violence against men is perceived is very real, it's a matter of drawing out what is specific to men rather than just generally poor attitudes from police and society in general. Many of the issues that effect men also effect women, like dismissive policing or abusive institutions. Again, as with the rest of the article I think following the best sources, a neutral tone, a bit of commonsense and a heap of context is needed. As evidenced from the original state of the article and much of the IP commentary, there's clearly been more than a few attempts to turn this article into a giant anti-feminist equivocation by misogynist MRA's and the like. If the article is to be kept, it needs to be very neutral, well sourced and given proper context, not just a platform for men to post fringe ideas (and frankly often revolting ideas) about how shit they think women are, drawing out every tiny perceived injustice...like circumcision? lol. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Domestic violence section

I just wanted to let people know I expanded the domestic violence section of the article. I was checking my work and pressed submit before I typed in the changes. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I just went through and more or less completely re-wrote that section. I removed claims cited to a Daily Telegraph editorial/opinion piece. Removed sentences that were poorly writen and hard to understand. The first journal article did not say anything that it is used to cite. Most important to note IMO is that there was massive equivocation going on there someone clearly acting in bad faith had completely misrepresented the figures in order to make it sound like there is parity between genders on this issue, which if you look at the facts from reliable source like the UN and government stats from Australia, USA and UK is clearly absolute nonsense, not even in the same ball park as reality. Also, female sexual violence being understudied and unrecognised means the stats on the claim are exactly that, understudied and unrecognised. Of course please pull me up where I got it wrong and reinstate where you think I've got rid of something valuable. Thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nah looks good to me. In general I think it's generally a good idea to include at least one or two nonacademic sources to each section of the article. Not everyone can access or properly understand academic language so I like having a few sprinkled in to increase accessibility. We can add them later after we screen them there's no rush. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

True, good idea adding a variety of reliable sources. I think another issue broadly with this article is equivocation, by omitting contextual information the article has ended up reading like we're saying there's a parity or a reasonable comparison to be made between men's and women's experience of gendered violence, when there is not. Like for example the section we've been working on, it was completely at odds with mainstream academia on the issue. This happens again and again throughout the article. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely a reasonable comparison between men's and women's experience of gendered violence. Men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence while women are more likely to be victims of the most severe and lethal forms of domestic violence. This was reflected in the article and supported by peer-reviewed academic sources before you removed them. 90.129.210.87 (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Care to share the source and the specific paragraph that makes such claims? That claim is refuted in several excellent sources that reflect the consensus view among mainstream academia. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll rejoin this conversation when work slows down but i wanted to chime in to say IP editor should stop relying on CTS studies and go read Kimmel's rebuttal of the gender symmetry argument. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you so blinded by your sexism that you can't even remember what you removed a few hours ago? Let me remind you: You removed this table: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14303/tbl/tbl1.2-eng.htm among a lot of other good sources I can't be bothered to dig up. The numbers speak for themselves but the report also says:

> In 2014, slightly more men (4.2%) than women (3.5%) reported being victims of spousal violence during the preceding 5 years. This translated into about 342,000 women and 418,000 men across the provinces. Similar declines in spousal violence were recorded for both sexes since 2004.

That should sound familiar to you because you removed similar text from the article. I would also like to draw your attention to this https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 paper which says:

> Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

There is however no point in engaging further with this as you are not doing this in good faith (as shown by your sexist joke and how you respond when called out on it), so I will leave this page now. It just confirms that Wikipedia is not good for topics that people feel too strongly about. I hope someone else has the energy to fight you on this, so that this page maybe could be neutral and informative one day. 90.129.192.94 (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That's some really interesting and important statistics. Can you tell me what they adjusted for in the odds ratios? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision

I'm not so sure about this section. I reckon most the men I know have been circumcised, no ones ever got upset about it, not even slightly. We used to joke about it "are you a helmet or a skivvy?". It's nothing like female genital mutilation which would be more akin to cutting the penis off entirely. I think its inclusion is silly, stupid even. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

We can get rid of it, that section was hard to wrangle. It's either a bunch of stories about isolated cases of forced circumcisions or just on the topic of circumcision. I could be wrong but I'm going to assume there aren't mass forced circumcisions happening. I would just add a link about it to the See Also section and if something comes along that's well developed we'll add it in. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Cutting of a part of a child's genitals is definitely violence. There are millions of men who don't share your views which in of themselve are an example of violence against men not being taken seriously. I think the section was good as it was before it was removed. 90.129.210.87 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The topic is already a part of the series on violence against men and there is an entire article on the topic. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Get real, IP. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A way to handle that is simply to keep the section short and rework it while piping to the in depth article on forced circumcision at the top of said section. This is fairly common across other articles. Regardless there is merit in discussing circumcision at large as there is academic literature on adverse health effects it can have and it is definitely gendered violence, despite not being seen as such in the US or religions which habitually practice it. 24.203.119.44 (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Mass killings

Cleaned up the mass killings section and added some sources. As with before I want to try and find some non-western historical accounts of this happening, all I found was the case for Rome which does well in the article but could be expanded a bit. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Legend, much improved. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• In the mass killings section I did a minor revert and changed conscription back to forced conscription. From my reading (and I could be wrong) forced conscription by an invading army seems much more violent than normal conscription by the state. It also is more in line with the other sources in that section. If we want to expand on military conscription broadly we can add it to the list of things to in the next wave of edits. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  All conscription is by definition forced conscription. I fail to see any value in distinguishing conscription by an invading army from any other kind of conscription. 90.129.210.87 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, there are differences between registering for the draft and being forced at gunpoint to fight and kill members of your nation. If you want to expand you're more than welcome to. Just make sure you have proper references, we've been leaning on academic journals mostly for this article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  As much as I hate to agree with our friend here, I believe conscription is forced, state mandated military service. But I also hear what you're saying, being captured and forced into an invading army is different...perhaps "forced military service" would be more accurate. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Who said we can't all find common ground :-)

  I'm not saying it's not, but as the article stands in the context of gendered violence we talk about conflict areas and war in that section of the article a lot. The literature I've found talks more about how there is mass murder or forced conscription of males and then taking women as war booty. So I'm just keeping things on theme. As I said before we can add a section to the article about conscription and there's already an article about it which we can poach from. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  lol. Fair enough, keep as is then. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Police killings

Refreshed this section, added some sources. Tried to include articles which had a focus outside of the USA and EU but it wasn't easy. It should be a good space to expand into later on after we get the bones of this article taken care of. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Really starting to shape up into a neutrally worded and well sourced article.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting domestic violence section

So @Tambor de Tocino doesn't seem to understand that this is an article about violence against men so including stats about female victimization is irrelevant.

Also don't see the point in separating "domestic violence" from "female violence against men" they should just be in the same section. Goldberg246 (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, lets be cool and not start fighting. We're working together to build an article not rip each other down. I disagree, domestic violence can happen in homosexual or poly relationships and the section on women on man violence is wider than just domestic violence. When working with this many layers I think it's important to be as inclusaary as possible, add as much focused material as possible then go back and cut stuff away or move it around. @Tambor de Tocino and I have been doing that so far and it's been working. I'll add a bunch of stuff and they'll pull stuff out, I won't revert their edits but I'll go back and add on top of it. This process builds better articles, we spend more energy working towards something instead of trying to win a revert war. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Goldberg246 Hey mate, please read WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I'm willing to give you a chance to correct this behavior, but if the personal attacks continue I will not interact with you at all. I'm going to revert your recent changes as you edit summaries lacked any reason, they were just full of personal attacks. Please bring your changes to talk and I'll happily discuss them with you in a friendly and civil fashion. Thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• There seem to be some gaps in this and the related main article, e.g. Mutual combat and other family violence myths. (1983). There appears to be a nexus between this topic and violence against women, that is more complex than straightforward statistics. Beccaynr (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hi there Beccaynr I'm not sure I see what you are getting at. Your link just takes us to a list of studies. Could you expand a little? Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think there are avenues for research that may help support fair and proportionate coverage of the topic. For example, the concepts of "mutual combat", "primary aggressor", and "self defense" may relate to challenges for law enforcement and challenges for prosecution. I do think it is helpful to include statistics about violence against women as compared to statistics related to violence against men to help understand this topic, but there are also other aspects that this article, and the related article, could perhaps explore. With regard to so-called "mutual combat", for example, sometimes both parties are fighting, or sometimes someone is acting in self defense, and there are laws that try to discern the "primary aggressor", e.g. A 10-Year Study of the Impact of Intimate Partner Violence Primary Aggressor Laws on Single and Dual Arrest (J Interpers Violence, 2021). Basically, going beyond victimization studies could add some encyclopedic depth to this complex topic. Beccaynr (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Cool, thanks. Sounds interesting.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment regarding phrasing / focus

A lot of the prose appears to be driven by violence targeting women, such as with these sentences Globally, women are far more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner than men with 47,000 women murdered by a male family member every year globally. In the United States, in 2005, 1181 women were killed by their intimate partners, compared to 329 men. (refs and maintenance tags omitted). Since the focus of the article is on male victims, this would read as better-aligned with the article title if the driving part of the sentences was changed to men, perhaps along the following: Globally, men are less like likely to be murdered by an intimate partner than women with 47,000 women murdered by a male family member every year globally. In the United States, in 2005, 329 men were killed by their intimate partners, compared to 1181 women.

Also, I'd remove stats that are only reported for women: knowing that an estimated 47,000 women were killed by family members does not help a reader understand violence against men, unless presented together with a male-targeting number. Unless that number is available for comparison, I'd propose something along the lines of Globally, men are less like likely to be murdered by an intimate partner than women. In the United States, in 2005, 329 men were killed by their intimate partners, compared to 1181 women. Ljleppan (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: Support the first proposal of a changed sentence structure, makes sense and doesn't change the content. As for the second part, maybe we can find stats for men as well, so I'd wait with that; but if none can be found, it also does make sense. –LordPickleII (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've done a once-over. I ended up removing that specific statistics, because it failed verification as phrased. No objection to reintroducing it (properly phrased) if someone can find the comparative statistic for men. Ljleppan (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ljleppan, nice work, really tidies the article up. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Huge improvement

Hi all, just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone who has been working on improving this article recently. I just read the entire article for the first time since restructuring and it's like a new article, the tone is neutral, the article is cited properly and reflects mainstream academia on the subject, proper context is given to claims, it's a huge improvement...Great work everyone. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, thanks to all! Likely the best outcome of any AfD I have witnessed, and a testament to the community's ability to tackle difficult topics :D –LordPickleII (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sexual violence and rape

The sexual violence section would greatly benefit from some discussion on both the legal definitions of "rape," (where some legal definitions have not applied to women-on-men forced sexual intercourse) as well as the other problems unique (or at least more prevalent) to male rape victims. Potential sourcing for the latter includes:

• Turchik, Jessica A., and Katie M. Edwards. "Myths about male rape: A literature review." Psychology of Men & Masculinity 13.2 (2012): 211. discussing way in which sexual violence has been sustained and justified through history and modern times
• Javaid, Aliraza. "Male rape myths: Understanding and explaining social attitudes surrounding male rape." Masculinities and social change 4.3 (2015): 270-294. Discussing how male rape myths shape society’s responses and attitudes to male victims of rape
• Walfield, Scott M. "“Men cannot be raped”: Correlates of male rape myth acceptance." Journal of interpersonal violence 36.13-14 (2021): 6391-6417.

etc. - Ljleppan (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The sexual violence section needs to include "The Human Rights Campaign found 21 percent of heterosexual men and over 40 percent of gay or bisexual men experienced sexual violence.[21]" part near the top of the section. Here is the quote from the earlier section if this page. "According to the Human Rights Campaign, 26 percent of gay men and 37 percent of bisexual men experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner, compared to 29 percent of straight men.[21] Additionally, 40 percent of gay men and 47 percent of bisexual men have experienced sexual violence other than rape, compared to 21 percent of straight men.[21]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5822:31D6:B377:FE12 (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Military conscription and war

I expanded Military conscription and war section, mostly cut and paste from the Conscription and sexism article. I also moved the Wartime sexual violence section into this section. I've added a photo of a women's march against male conscription. I think this is important to to give context and demonstrate women and feminists longstanding support for men and peace and their longstanding opposition to war and violence against men. That's enough procrastinating for the day. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino: It's a good start (a lot better than an empty section lol). I'm unsure of whether Wartime sexual violence really fits there better than it does under Sexual violence, it's tricky because it basically is a part of both. I think currently, the context on feminism is a bit too pronounced: We really only need a short explanation why this can be considered "violence against men", and most other things can be read in the linked, main article. I think They say conscription of men normalizes male violence, conscripts are indoctrinated into sexism and violence against men is the most important sentence here (which ofc begs a little context, in that this was said by feminists). I believe the last paragraph starting with While not all feminists are anti-militarists, opposition to war and militarism has been a strong current within the women's movement could simply be cut as not relevant for this article. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually think it would be better to move Wartime sexual violence back. Because currently, it looks like Conscription and sexism would be the main article for that entire section, and you'd think that it also covered wartime sexual violence, which it does not. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What if we just rename the section simply "War" Tambor de Tocino (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I like this bit, gives context. "While not all feminists are anti-militarists, opposition to war and militarism has been a strong current within the women's movement" but if you think it should go then I'm fine with that. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino: Yes, "War" works, as now the "main article" fits. My issue with that sentence is that it only talks about feminism and anti-militarism, which is not important for this article which deals with neither. I mean, that's why we have the "main article" link there, for people who want more context. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remove it. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to it. Thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Not always women opposing conscription. See White_Feather campaign with women shaming men for not serving in WWI, even to the extent of shaming WWI veterans during the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:4C7F:C53C:4358:E964 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but generally speaking the feminist movement has opposed war and conscription, as can be easily verified in mainstream academia on the subject - it's simply a well known historic fact. I know it's hard for some MRA's to accept, but women are not evil, most women love and respect the men in their lives, their sons, lovers, fathers, grandfathers etc. Same goes the other way, most men love and respect women. This article is about violence against men, not how shit MRA's think women are. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I just took the time to read about the white feather, it was created by a male military officer Charles Fitzgerald. He enlisted the enormous group of...just thirty women to give the feathers as a propaganda stunt, it appears it was not wide spread. Charles Fitzgerald, the misandrist! lol. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino: I think you need to differentiate between "women" and "feminists". IP is not wrong in that women have not always opposed war. Like, if you go back to before the feminism movement even started, or even further far back in history, war might have been considered necessary, and that only males would go to war accepted. But yeah, that would mean going back pretty far in time; and as this article is mostly concerned with the present, I think we can leave that out. (As a side note, don't suspect a MRA advocate everywhere. These two initial IPs were disruptive, but others might mean to be constructive.) –LordPickleII (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I did cop a lot of abuse from IP's to start with. You are right though, not all IP's are disruptive. I should assume good faith. Having said that, no one said all women or all feminists oppose war, so the comment did feel like another MRA jibe. I'll remember to assume good faith. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I did some edits to the conscription section, but I'm left with a concern that it doesn't really discuss conscription as an act of violence against men. Sentences such as [Critics] say conscription of men normalizes male violence, conscripts are indoctrinated into sexism and violence against men, and military training socializes conscripts into patriarchal gender roles. frame it as a catalyst for men committing actions against others (largely irrespective of gender, as the text reads now), rather than as violence against men. This is mostly a tonal issue, but I'm not sure how to address it. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As a thought, does the literature support a framing via something like "conscription puts men in an increased danger of being subjected to violence during a war"? Ljleppan (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Conscription affects more than 419,000,000 men in just the top 7 most populous countries: Brazil population 215,105,687, Russia population 145,100,000, Egypt population 103,794,548, Iran population 85,750,977, Turkey population 84,680,273, Thailand population 66,832,317, South Korea population 51,638,809, Algeria population 45,400,000 and Ukraine population 41,130,432. Those countries are more than 10 percent of world population at over 839 million persons from List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population. 5 percent of world population of men are affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5822:31D6:B377:FE12 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Can this be added: "Conscription reduces college graduation rates and reduces lifetime earnings." with the following reference?

The journal reference has the impact on college graduation rates and future earnings impact. From the abstract:

1. decreases the proportion of Dutch university graduates by 1.5 percentage points from a baseline of 12.3 per cent.
2. reduces the probability of obtaining a university degree by almost four percentage points.
3. The effect of military service on earnings is also negative and long-lasting. Approximately 18 years after military service, we still find a negative effect of 3 to 4 per cent.

Hubers, F., Webbink, D. The long-term effects of military conscription on educational attainment and wages. IZA J Labor Econ 4, 10 (2015)

2600:1700:D591:5F10:B9C2:D41E:48B6:5F27 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Please fix typo

"Male law enforcement officers show a greater reluctance to file charges or reports when a man is the victim on domestic violence." should change "on" to "of" in the end part "victim on domestic violence" of the sentence. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:8C0B:DCB:8F8F:3A64 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)