Talk:Men's rights movement

Prominent MRA groups/people

Recently there have been two rather high-profile articles on the MRM, one appearing in the Daily Beast, and the other on 20/20 that both discuss Paul Elam, AV4M and their relationship with the MRM. The Dailybeast goes a bit further and discusses John Hembling, Roosh/PUAs, and other movements associated with the MRM. Do people feel that this would merit its own section, or at least appended under the "Movement" section? That details the history of the movement fairly well, but doesn't really describe the groups that have popped up in the last 10-15 years or so. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the things this article is missing is something about how the movement operates; these articles emphasize the importance of the internet and there is a long chapter about it (Virtual backlash: Representations of men’s ‘rights’ and feminist ‘wrongs’ in cyberspace) in this book. I'm not so keen on the Daily Beast as a reliable source (I spotted some spelling mistakes which suggests that the editorial oversight isn't that great even though looking through the archives it has been accepted at RSN postings), but the ABC 20/20 article seems fine for sure. I'd suggest putting more of an emphasis on the process than identifying specific websites, people etc, without a few more and better sources. Part of my reasoning is that these things are so imutable: a few year's ago the Men's News Daily website was all the rage, and we had the people from there trying to promote themselves here; now that's died pretty much completely and it is AV4M etc; who knows how long these ones will last....--Slp1 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Points taken - I'll do some digging and see what I can come up with. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a terrible thing to have a "a movement where moderates are marginalized" as the Daily Beast subheding suggests that MRM does to itself, and I agree there is a huge amount of that, for example, if I criticize the anti-feminism (that is if I oppose anti-feminism or criticize the line that "feminism is all bad") in MRM/MRAs, my head gets bitten off by many MRAs. I saw it happen to a youtuber in the UK too, genderempathy I think his name was, funny he too sees that word empathy as critical as I do.

It's no less sad if "moderates [of MRM] are marginalized" on wikipedia, and marginalized, perhaps, by feminists or possibly by anti-MRM in this case, to the point where even being more accurate about the history is shot down when I merely suggested that the "Relation to Feminism" is badly underserving our readers if we exclude from that section the simple fact that some members like Warren Farrell were leaders in NOW (certainly part of the feminist movement) so informing our readers necessitates inclusion of the fact that some present MRM members are not only former feminists but former feminist group leaders. Or when it gets shot down to point out the simple fact that some not at all obscure compoentns of the heterogeneous MRM like anti-MGM, are certainly not backlashes against femimism. I wrote t I agree, yes, agree that a lot of MRM is a backlash and agree with keeping that word in the article, but that accuracy (not talking about hard to define fairness but accuracy) to our readers suggests that we add a mild modifier that "many parts" or "much of" the MRM is a backlash, but some parts like anti-MGM (anti male genital mutilation) did not arise, or emerge, or come out as a backlash against feminism. Even the standard term MGM (in circles of those who see it as a rights issue for male infants) was attacked. For my not being anti-feminist and the fact that I am even strongly pro WR/WL (women's rights, women's liberation) but also pro MR/ML, some MRAs who think they own the word will say, I am guessing, that I don't get to call myself part of MRM... Crazy. But yes, moderates in MRM are being shot down. Including by a huge number of cases I've seen online, by MRAs/MRMs. But they are not the only ones shooting down the moderates in MRM...I would respectfully request that we try to not contribute to this unfortunate phenomenon on the Talk page. Maleliberation (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the things I believe we need to do is start doing writeups on the most important and prominent Men's Rights Movement web pages. A Voice for Men now has a page (which by the way, needs people to look at it who are unaffiliated with AVfM), The Spearhead, the Anti-Misandry Forum, Angry Harry, ManWomanMyth, Men's Rights Edmonton, and so on. I'm willing to pitch in on that, although I don't know all the history of a lot of these. Nevertheless articles on these individuals and groups/sites, with links to same, would I think be in order. I have a COI with AVfM (since I'm Managing Editor there) but I'd be willing to pitch in and help do writeups on other sites and persons I'm not affiliated with. Would anyone like to coordinate something on that with me?Dean Esmay (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference between those sites and AVFM is that AVFM has recently received notable mainstream press coverage, whereas I don't believe any of those sites really have. Detailing the history of these types of orgs and their relation to the MRM is important but I couldn't really find much RS beyond what I've linked above. Maybe you have other RS in mind? PearlSt82 (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Five Pillars?

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.

---

This page is slowly evolving into one of the most disgraceful violations of Neutral Point of View, Reliable Sources and Original Research on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is in crisis and the history of this page displays all the reasons why. Virtually none of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia are evident in its content. It's all a real shame, a betrayal of the Wikipedia concept and is unbecoming of an encyclopedia. CSDarrow (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, I'm jumping in here in my capacity as administrator to warn you that these kinds of comments, as well as similar comments at Talk:Sexism, are not constructive and are subject to sanctions per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. With your track record, if you persist in this fashion, you risk a very long block or a topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. Prove to me that the page is slowly evolving away from Wikipedia's core policies. I will engage with your conclusion after you've proved its foundation. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The inability for rational discussion to exist on these pages is the very reason we are where we at. You know and I know that and discussion between us would be entirely fruitless. CSDarrow (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I think I've read similar accusations on every page about an activist movement that Wikipedia has... Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You have? Then it's not just the Men's Rights page, things are worse than I thought. CSDarrow (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Or, alternately, activists are generally unwilling to accept that their own positions are not mainstream. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2013 (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.

Definition of rape

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia (or I should say, new to editing it) but I have a mild curiosity in this page and MRM in general. One thing that is missing from this page is the arguments over the definition of rape by legal sources, such as the CDC and the FBI and the united kingdom's legal code outright which exclude male victims of rape and exclude female perpitrators of rape. Here are a couple of sources.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1

The source for the CDC definition is from NISVS 2010 Report. I don't know how to cite this source, but it states generally

"“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. p. 206”"

I can't find a source on UK law although I've seen it before.

I don't know how to edit and properly write this up, so I'm wondering if someone else could help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.152.3 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That content is more appropriate for the Rape article. KillerChihuahua 23:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! The definition of rape is a men's rights issue. You've listed all of these other mens rights issues in this article. Why shouldn't this be an issue that is listed?

what you're suggesting is similar to saying a page on feminism shouldn't mention wage disparity because it belongs in pages about unionization. The two sources are not mutually exclusive.

I agree the issue of the CDC definition of Rape a Men's Rights issue and belongs on this page. Admin. do not control the content of this page they can only express an opinion. Content is contributed by the Editors. CSDarrow (talk)

Enforcing policy, however, is the remit of admins, and you cannot violate WP:SYNTHwith impunity. If the source(s) do not specifically mention MRM, then you will have difficulty in establishing justifiable reason for inclusion here. However, placing information about rape in the rape article, which is linked from this article, would be permissible - providing of course you obtain consensus for such inclusion on the rape article. KillerChihuahua 15:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of good articles on this topic appear on A Voice for Men, with copious references. Unfortunately AVfM is currently blacklisted on Wikipedia, however, avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/ is a good example, and it has useful references and arguments. It also appeared on Genderratic.com. Dean Esmay (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV language needed

There are several points that need to be addressed to provide a neutral point of view for this topic. The first is that language that pits Men's Rights activists against equality for women are inflammatory and shouldn't be used. While some may argue that feminism and the social advocacy that feminists support are ubiquitous to women's rights, MRA's do not. This is a difference of opinion and it should be repsected as such.

Therefore, certain changes need to be made. Language such as "Men's rights advocates have been critics of legal, policy and practical protections for abused women" Needs to be changed because Men's rights advocates are not against protecting abused women. Men's rights advocates are against the exclusion of men. Being against certain laws does not mean you are against protecting abused women in the same way that being against affirmative action doesn't mean you are racist.

I can find other examples but this is one sentence that struck me. Furthermore I would question the constant spattering of "misogynist" claims throughout the language of this article, particularly in the introduction. If you're going to talk about the controversy there should be a separate conversation on this controversy so that neutrality can be maintained when talking about the facts of MRA positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.152.3 (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to propose new wording, please do, but remember that we need to use reliable sources. Whether or not men's rights groups are misogynist or not, if reliable sources say they are then that is what we put in the article. Quietmarc (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely sources that can be relied upon to call men's rights groups misogynist, just as there are sources that can be relied upon to call feminist groups misogynist and/or 'misandrist'. Regardless of the validity/authority of those sources, it would not be appropriately neutral to put such comments in the introductory paragraphs of their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.183.68 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggest a concrete change with reliable sources and editors can discuss if it is appropriate or not. The archives are full of discussions about giving sources and viewpoints appropriate weight in the article. Often a compromise can be reached that complies with the wiki's various guidelines, but we would need a concrete suggestion to start with. Quietmarc (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion. Remove the statement from the lead that the MRM is misogynist. Not one of the sources are reliable or in totality satisfy WP:UNDUE, especially for the lead. The sources are labeled [4] - [9]

[4] An article about Russia.

[5] A blog.

[6] A partisan article by a partisan organization, with no expertise in gender issues, (in a earlier article they claim MRA's are pedophiles). They later clarified they don't consider the MRM Misogynist.

[7] Has no mention of the MRM or Misogyny.

[8] From a 16yr old book by two of the most vehement and ardent opponents of the MRM.

[9] A bigoted diatribe from an unpeer reviewed book chapter.

Those are the sources justifying the MRM being labeled Misogynist on Wikipedia. Do you know what the chances of getting that changed are? They are ZERO and you will get probably get blocked for trying, as I am probably going to be now for even broaching this subject.

It is about time a frank an open discussion is held about the charade that has been going on on this page. It is for the well being of Wikipedia and its editors. Unless we start doing this in general Wikipedia is simply going to decline further into crisis. We have been going round in circles for seemingly ever using 'procedures' and getting nowhere. If people really care about Wikipedia they would join me in this endeavor.

CSDarrow (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's some advice on how to avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your specific objections to the lead are far more constructive than generalized diatribes. (I have no idea of whether these objections have been made before by you or by others, in which case they could still be considered disruptive.) The stuff following your specific objections is not constructive, as well as unnecessary. If every time you make a comment you also throw in your negative, personal views about Wikipedia, this subject area, etc., that at some point becomes sanctionable in and of itself. I'm not taking any action against you, despite your prediction that I would, for what you posted above, but I suggest you retrain yourself by (1) striking the unnecessary comments and (2) thinking those things next time you post but not writing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I can not overstate how vehemently I disagree. Sometimes it's time to call it as it is, period. Do you honestly believe the statement that the MRM is Misogynist will ever be removed? I am putting myself on the line here cause I care about Wikipedia, it would be easier if I didn't. CSDarrow (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being specific. I'm returning to editing after a long absence and am still learning the ropes myself, so I'm not prepared to "Be Bold" and make major edits on an article that has as controversial a history as this one, so I hope more experienced editors can chime in with their thoughts on these references. I think you have a point about many of them, however I would tend to disagree with 2 of your objections. For [6] while I know that a lot of people aren't happy with it, I believe that currently the Southern Poverty Law Centre is considered a reliable source for this kind of article. I know that there's been debate on various articles about them as a source, but more times than not the consensus (as far as consensus exists on controversial articles) has been to keep them.

For [9], it looks like that source comes from a book published by the University of British Columbia which, to my mind, is a valid source. I'm not sure whether sources for an article like this must be "peer reviewed" or not, so again, I think it would benefit from more experienced editors' input.

If someone could check our work here and maybe remove some of those sources and/or provide a better explanation (if only so that an inexperienced editor like me can learn a little something :) ), it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I will see if I can find some better sources for that statement.

OP, I do want to be up front that I actually do believe that the MRM has some serious issues with their viewpoints. I personally would call the movement as misguided at best, but regardless of my personal beliefs I do want wikipedia to be as reliable as possible. Be warned, though: in my limited experience studying sociology and psychology, most reliable sources tend to support progressive social movements like feminism and it certainly appears as if in some ways "reality has a liberal bias". This does not mean that everything "my side" says is true, but only that one of our strengths is that we appear better organised when it comes to producing more reliable studies on social issues than the more right-wing or conservative parties do. So, be prepared for better-sourced references to not support all of your ideas and beliefs.Quietmarc (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Quietmarc, A book published by the University of British Columbia is exactly that, ie a published book. There make no more claim to fact checking than any other publishing house. The referenced sectioned is self evidently inadequate as a citation for such a controversial statement in the lead, or in fact anywhere. There is still the issue of Wp:Undue.

Re: "I will see if I can find some better sources for that statement."

This is the old song and dance routine we get into. Citations are discredited then people start looking for others to support the statement. These are then discredited and are replace by others. It goes on and on. The statement should be removed, if others find reliable sources then they should be brought to Talk for discussion. If a consensus is reached, bearing in mind other considerations such as Wp:Undue, then it can be replaced. We do not add a statement then find sources, we find sources than add a statement.

There certianly are problems with the MRM, just as there are with the Feminist movement, the Republican party, the Democratic Party and any movement of any worth. Though I'd ask has your opinion on the state of the chicken coop come from the Fox or the Chickens? This article reads like an essay by the Fox.

CSDarrow (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

All due respect CSDarrow, but we're coming at this from other ends of the ideological divide. I have no intention of performing any sort of song and dance routine. My interest is in helping to create or preserve a well-resourced article on this subject that is in line with wikipedia policies. As I've said, I'm a novice editor and am not prepared to answer your challenges. My understanding of the project, though, is that it often takes a lot of back and forth to make any sort of progress on articles of this nature. I'm willing to put in some time. I accept that the finished project may not completely reflect my own personal biases, and I hope not to write bitter drive-by comments about the failure of wikipedia as a project if that happens. If you are so frustrated with the wiki process, why not take a break or devote your time to a different project where you may find more success?

Or, if you feel so strongly about it, why not remove the statement yourself and see what happens? I'm sure that would draw attention to the article, and with more editors working in good faith we are sure to improve at least some aspect of the whole. Quietmarc (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking a further look regarding the UBC book, in context the sentence is that the MRM has been criticized by groups and academics. The book was published and was (I assume good faith here) critical of the MRM. Now, is the book notable? Is it a valid source? I would say yes, and am waiting to be convinced otherwise. It would seem to me that if notable persons are critical of the MRM, it would violate NPOV to NOT mention that, right?Quietmarc (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning taking a break, I am glad Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela didn't despite their probable profound frustrations at times. New editors are the life blood of this project and I welcome you regardless of your views. Diversity of opinion is crucial for Wikipedia and in fact Society in general. Me removing the statement is probably unwise, I have been round these parts for quite awhile. Concerning the book, not everything uttered by 'scholars' is by definition scholarship. CSDarrow (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't disagree with anything you've said just now. :) But with regard to the phrasing in the lede, whether it is scholarship or not, if the source is recognised in some capacity as notable, regardless of whether or not it is ultimately right or wrong, we are obligated to include it, aren't we? At least within the context of the sentence. The movement has been criticized, and the movement has been called misogynistic. To ignore that wouldn't be accurate or NPOV, wouldn't it? Quietmarc (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The MRM has certainly been criticized, but how that is represented is a complex equation based on good faith judgement guided by by Wp:Undue and Wp:Reliable. There is no simple deterministic formula. My claim is that atm its representation is unfair. CSDarrow (talk)

Assuming the phrase can't be removed, how would you change it? Quietmarc (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. CSDarrow (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, this has certainly been educational. I'm off to a holiday dinner, but I will see about looking for better sources for the misogyny phrase and will be back tomorrow.Quietmarc (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You will notice the silence from other editors is utterly deafening. I am sure this conversation is being followed by many. I think this page is due for a massive shake up so the Five Pillars as envisioned by Jimbo Wales are more apparent in its construction. CSDarrow (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about my (unenforceable, and maybe unrealistic) commitment to come back with some better sources. Just been busy with "life". If I don't get called in to work tomorrow I'll put in some time here.Quietmarc (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, you are of course correct. WP is clear. But the consensus of the editors of this article is equally clear. "NPOV" does not actually mean NPOV, "avoid weasel words" does not actually mean that the article should avoid weasel words, and so forth. You are pointing out that the "Misogynist" claim is not actually prominent, therefore does not meet with the requirements for the lead. But what of it? If the audience wants to keep the Misogynist language in, and they are violating two policies to do so, they are not going to suddenly change their minds when you accurately point out that they are also violating a third policy as well.64.134.69.209 (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV on false rape accusation

The section on rape is overwhelmingly biased towards MRA doctrine. Criticisms of the research that is cited, particularly on the incidence and nature of false rape accusation, is entirely absent, whereas it is present in other sections. If we wish to maintain a consistent tone, this needs to be rectified.174.45.108.15 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What type of criticism should we include? This article is about the MRM, and as such presents what their views are. Criticism of the research that they cite would not be appropriate in this article because it's not an article about rape, or false rape. However criticism about the MRM using "bad" research in the subject would be relevant. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

An additional oversight is the lack of information regarding that MRAs often bring up the insufficient definition of rape among many first world nations. It's not just the rate of false accusations, but also the erasure of male victims that is highly objected to. Something not alluded to, at all, in the section on rape. For instance, the current U.S. federal definition of rape excludes "made to penetrate" a form of sexual intercourse where a male is forced to penetrate a person or object against their will. Additionally, in the UK, the crime of rape is specifically worded to be gendered. Women cannot legally commit rape unless they assist a man in doing so. Even if the victim is a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.32.158 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Article lede patently incorrect, a correction needed/recommended

The lede of the article says the MRM "branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s." This is patently false, as there were numerous organizations fighting for men's rights long before that. Here are two examples of men's rights organizations from before the 1970's that have verifiable sources:

The World's First Men's Rights Organization - 1926-1930
MRA movement of 1898

Both examples (and there are many others) are impeccably sourced. Should the WP entry not reflect this reality instead of the currently false claim that the MRM branched off the men's liberation movement? 202.173.170.85 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those examples would meet WP:RS but it might be more correct to add the word "modern" in there, like in the history section so it reads something like "the modern Men's Rights Movement branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s". If you look at the history section, it mentions a few examples dating back to the 19th century for the origins of the ideology and various early movements. Its quite clear that there is a disconnect between the modern movement and various outlier organisations from the pre-1960 timeframe. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Backlash"

I have edited the lead again because I feel that the use of the word backlash is somewhat misleading. In the section later in the article, entitled "Relation to Feminism," I feel that NPOV is maintained. The section reads: "The men's rights movement is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism.[3][36] The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which reject feminist and profeminist ideas.[37] Men's rights activists have said that they believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men.[15][38][39] They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege[40][41] and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women.[42][43][15][44]."

However, I take some issue with the lead. Feminism, as its own article states "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The statement, by itself, that the MRM is a backlash to feminism implies that it opposes political, economic, and social rights for women. The key examples cited in the article on Feminism are "contract law, property, and voting" yet the article contains not a single mention of the MRM opposing anything of these things. It may be more accurate to say that the MRM is a backlash to later waves of feminism but I lack sources. Instead, I have edited the lead to reflect that the MRM sees excesses in the feminist movement (ie the vast majority of the issues on the page) rather than being opposed to the basic principles of the feminist movement. The langugage is not the best and could be improved but I feel it is NPOV to simply present the MRM as opposed to Feminism as the article previously did in its summary. Perpetualization (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)