I already forgot (talk | contribs) →NPOV January 2006: add nowiki tag - talk page showing up in npov backlog |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Gender Studies}} |
|||
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=40|archive_units=days|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
==No, Ma'am== |
|||
{{Controversial}} |
|||
What about the group "No Ma'am" from the American television show [[Married With Children]]? [[User:VarunRajendran | VarunRajendran]] |
|||
{{Notice|1=Some content around '''Men's rights movement''' was split from this article and then remerged. Some of the history of this split can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMen%27s_rights_movement%2Foldhistory&action=history here].}} |
|||
{{Not a forum|Men's rights}} |
|||
{{Calm}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B| |
|||
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Feminism |importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Low |Social movements=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Anthropology |importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Trolling}} |
|||
{{Topic|Men's rights|talk=y}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 32 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|||
|algo = old(40d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} |
|||
{{Old moves |
|||
|title1=Men's rights movement|title2=Men's rights |
|||
|list= |
|||
*RM, Men's rights → Men's rights movement, '''Not moved''', 5 nov 2011, [[Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Archive_8#Requested_move|RM]] |
|||
*RFC, Men's rights → Men's rights movement, '''Moved''', 14 Aug 2012, [[Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Archive_11#Rename_article_to_Men.27s_Rights_Movement.2C_also_serious_article_issues|RFC]] |
|||
*RM, Men's rights movement → Men's rights, '''Not moved''', 13 Sept 2012, [[Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Archive_12#Requested_move|RM]] |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Refideas |
|||
| {{cite book |last1=Carian |first1=Emily K. |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=E. K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=A. |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=C. |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=Abingdon, England |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter=The Inversive Sexism Scale: Endorsement of the Belief That Women Are Privileged}} |
|||
| {{cite book |last1=Rothermel |first1=Ann-Kathrin |last2=Kelly |first2=Megan |last3=Jasser |first3=Greta |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=E. K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=A. |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=C. |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=Abingdon, England |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter=Of Victims, Mass Murder, and 'Real Men': The Masculinities of the 'Manosphere'}} |
|||
| {{cite book |last1=Coning |first1=Alexis de |last2=Ebin |first2=Chelsea |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=E. K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=A. |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=C. |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=Abingdon, England |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter=Men's Rights Activists, Personal Responsibility, and the End of Welfare}} |
|||
}} |
|||
== Possible inaccuracy or misunderstanding. == |
|||
==recent edits== |
|||
I've just done a major rework of the article. It now has a structure (which I am happy to admit is debatable, e.g. I think a history section would be nice). I also included a lot of critical positions, which lacked in the article. I feel it now has a good balance of men's rights concerns and their critics issues. I've deleted some of the links in the external link section, just because there were too many. I tried to take out redundant ones that didn't look very authoritative in the first place and those that are already in the article. Still, the link section needs more cleanup and could use some more good critical links. I hope you like my edit. [[User:Bastel|bastel]] 06:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Under the first few sentences, it states "As a part of the manosphere," however, the manosphere is described as promoting masculinity and misogyny, however, under my experience, the movement has been largely quite the opposite. Many times, misogyny inside of the community, at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society. I would like to know if this is a misunderstanding on whomever added that sentence, or a misunderstanding from me of what the male rights community truly is. I personally believe that this could be fixed by a simple "Some view this as a part of the manosphere." thus being neutral, but still getting both views into the text. |
|||
This is a useful page outlining some major concerns raised by the Men's Movement. This movement consists of multiple organizations in the US, Canada, UK, continental Europe, Australia and New Zealand (to name just those of which I am personally aware). Because of the breadth of organisations that campaign for Men's Rights I suggest that the list of Men's Rights Organisations be arranged into sections. |
|||
[[User:Cheeseburger3|Cheeseburger3]] ([[User talk:Cheeseburger3|talk]]) 06:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Note: Under further, closer inspection of the article, multiple paragraphs, most of which use the words manosphere, also follow this narrative, further hinting towards either a sole individual making multiple edits or a misunderstanding on my part. [[User:Cheeseburger3|Cheeseburger3]] ([[User talk:Cheeseburger3|talk]]) 06:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Initially, I have created sections for International/US/Canada and Australia, but if those with knowledge of specific organisations could further divide the first section and add other sections that would be helpful. I have considerable first-hand experience with the Men's Rights movement in Australia, perhaps others could put up their hands with similar experience in other countries, so we can extend the information included here. Thanks everyone. -[[User:Akiva Quinn|Akiva Quinn]] 02:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Wikipedia articles should be based on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. First-hand experience is not generally usable as that is considered [[WP:OR|original research]]. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we do not publish original research. |
|||
Great work on the link collection. It is, however, overburdening the artcle. I'd suggest moving it to a [[List of Men's rights organizations]] site. Also, the article needs structural reworking, cf. [[Wikipedia:How to write a great article]], e.g. a lead section, somewhat longer paragraphs (some critical voices would be nice to).[[User:Bastel|bastel]] 03:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::This article has many sources for the connection between the MRM and misogyny. The article currently cites several reliable source (which are also [[WP:IS|independent sources]]) which have identified misogyny as a disproportionately prominent trait. Likewise, many reliable sources link the MRM and the manosphere, although the term "manosphere" is much newer than the MRM. Those sources are linked in footnotes throughout the article, and those sources are what we use to inform the article. |
|||
== POV == |
|||
::[[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 06:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::That's all well and good but the whole article id designed to discredit the movement |
|||
:::Which is why all the negative points are put up front t0 dissuade the reader |
|||
:::Usually the article states a series of facts, and then has a separate section under the title "Criticisms" |
|||
:::[[User:Montalban|Montalban]] ([[User talk:Montalban|talk]]) 11:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::@Montalban It is not designed to discredit the movement but summarises [[WP:RELIABLE|reliable sources]]. Having a criticism section is discouraged. See [[WP:CRITICISM]]. |
|||
::::If you see any problems, you are free to edit as long as they use reliable sources, is [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] and follows any other relevant policy. [[User:Panamitsu|Panamitsu]] ([[User talk:Panamitsu|talk]]) 12:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::There are many sources that highlight misandry as a common trait in Feminist circles. Why isn't that in the first sentence in the feminism artcile. To be frank, this is malicious. You will ask me for sources and once provided, you will claim they aren't credible. Who determines what sources are credible? This is why wikipedia has a massive bias issue. [[Special:Contributions/47.230.49.22|47.230.49.22]] ([[User talk:47.230.49.22|talk]]) 04:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:47.230.49.22|47.230.49.22]] Where are your sources? Predicting future events is often inadvisable because the predictions can be incorrect. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">[[User:Panamitsu|Panamitsu]]</span> [[User_talk:Panamitsu|(talk)]] 05:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Concerning Accuracy and Understanding == |
|||
Not sure about this, but it seems this page has a subtle POV to it. |
|||
Many times, misogyny inside of the community, "at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society". |
|||
e.g. "This can lead to the mistaken perception that such measures are anti-women." |
|||
As well as a questionable opinion, might not this non-NPOV be aimed at down-playing the true level of misogyny and forced masculinity within this right-wing movement? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.149.166.175|95.149.166.175]] ([[User talk:95.149.166.175#top|talk]]) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I'm sure there are feminist groups out there who will argue that most of the claims |
|||
made about discrimination again men are either false, blown out of all proportion, or fair. (note I'm not taking a stance on this issue). In saying that such perceptions are mistaken, wikipedia is taking sides in this dispute. [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 12:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* a ''subtle'' POV is a very nice way of putting it: The Men's rights movement is viewed critically by major parts of the population and (even more so) academia. There's none of that in the article except for the above quoted. If anyone finds the time to fix this?[[User:Bastel|bastel]] 03:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Citations 10 and 11 do not support corresponding text.. == |
|||
::''"Many men's groups just represent abusive bullies and violent dangerous men. Many violent men expect all other men to support abusive men. Numerous self priclaimed "men's groups" just represent a pro violence agenda supporting domestic abuse, bullying, and glamorization of abusive men."'' Seems to be cited from some random uk site - http://www.lonympics.co.uk/new/ZMensgroups.htm. The ranting author uses horrible english, even for a brit: ''"And no this is not a joke if you thjink this is a joke you are rerally dangerous, and are toaly in need to being thorwn in jail for a life. Yet i know for a fact some shithead will act like i have sopmehting toally teffrriing or illogicla just because i ghave psone out again abuse. The next minute thos scum, will be beating their opwn wife face in."'' I hardly think this qualifies as a valid encyclopedic contribution. Any qualified professionals out there want to confirm my suspicions? --[[User:69.158.50.199|69.158.50.199]] 10:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
10: SPLC does not say that some branches of MRM are not hateful. It says that some branches use legitimate grievances to draw new members in, without meaningfully addressing said grievances; "instead directing followers to blame women [...] for everything". (To quickly locate the relevant passage, search for the word "legitimate" in the source.) |
|||
== Men's rights? == |
|||
I'm a man and I find this laughable to say the least. Discrimination against men is extremely rare (or perhaps non-existent), compared to discrimination against women. [[Women's rights]] is a valid term, this is not. There is not one society that discriminates against men. There are many that discriminate against women. Feel free to debate me, but I will win the argument, because you will not be able to back up your claims. [[User:Revolución|Revolución]] 04:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: Whether I or others agree with you or not is irrelevant; talk pages are used to discuss issues with the article. Some would perceive your statement above to be incorrect and these people have created a seperate movement -- this is factual. Whether their claims are legitimate or not is for the article to discuss in an NPOV manner -- talk pages are not soapboxes. Thanks [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 09:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
11 very clearly considers MRM hateful. Not sure how it can be argued it ties to the sentence is is linked to. [[Special:Contributions/91.26.88.218|91.26.88.218]] ([[User talk:91.26.88.218|talk]]) 12:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== NPOV January 2006 == |
|||
:Same guy who made the topic. |
|||
<nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki> |
|||
:After commenting, it occurred to me that 11 might have been meant for the first part of the sentence it's linked to. However, it does not (as far as I can tell) come from the SLPC, so, while fine as a source, it seems a bit awkwardly placed. [[Special:Contributions/91.26.88.218|91.26.88.218]] ([[User talk:91.26.88.218|talk]]) 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== 1970s and The Myth of Male Power == |
|||
I frequently feel that the NPOV tag is used as a sort of drive-by vandalism, so I plan to stick around through this one, and initially I got here through a redirect so perhaps I am a off-base. That being said, if one is going to assert the existence of a "men's rights" or "men's movement" analogous to the feminist movement, this article misses on a few key points. Among the major flavors I see which should be addressed are<BR> |
|||
''In the mid-1970s, this movement began to focus on the oppression of men and less on the effects of sexism on women. This shift was influenced by author Warren Farrell and his book The Myth of Male Power. He emphasized how male gender roles disadvantaged men by forbidding them from being seen as caring or having emotion. '' [[The Myth of Male Power]] physically couldn't have done it in 70s because it was written in 1993 year. Farrell is indeed mentioned in the source, but not that way: |
|||
*'''Daddy rights''': issues of special concern to men, mostly around divorce and family law<BR> |
|||
*'''[[Gay rights]] movement''': including the huge gains made by men regarding civil liberties for homosexuals<BR> |
|||
*'''[[Pro-feminism|Pro-feminist men]]''': who support the feminist movement but wish to do so from a masculine position<BR> |
|||
*'''[[Mythopoetic|Mythopoetic men]]''': such as the Jungian archetype folks and readers of Robert Bly's ''Iron John''<BR> |
|||
''In 1971, educator Warren Farrell helped form the National Task Force on the Masculine Mystique within the National Organization for Women, an idea which quickly spread toover fifty local NOW chapters and provided a framework for the further development of the men’s movement. Farrell’s more lasting contribution to the growth of men’s awareness of their culturally limited options was his influential 1975 book The Liberated Man: Beyond Masculinity, which quickly assumed for men the place occupied in women’s liberation by Betty Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique. Its publication sparked the beginning of a separate men’s literature concerned with offering theories of and solutions to male oppression. Two viewpoints characterized this body of writing: acceptance of feminist criticism of masculine status and behaviors, and calls for the restoration of ‘‘traditional’’ masculine social roles. Among the more important works produced at this time were Herb Goldberg’s antifeminist The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege (1976), and the anthologies The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role (1976) and For Men against Sexism: A Book of Readings (1977).'' |
|||
This article seems almost entirely about #1 with a vague nod toward #3, but completely ignoring other areas which might be considered part of the broader "men's movement" over the last 20 or so years. Comments? [[User:Rorybowman|Rorybowman]] 05:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I delete the sentence from the article. [[User:Reprarina|Reprarina]] ([[User talk:Reprarina|talk]]) 12:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Father's rights]] v [[Masculism]] v "masculist"== |
|||
So what is exactly the difference between the advocates of [[father's rights]] (FR) and [[masculism]]? Is it the purely [[family law]] focus of [[father's rights]]? Do the FR folk want to insert themselves into [[abortion]]? Is any father who asserts he should have more say in something that vaguelly involves the law an FR activist? I'm not seeing a clear distinction or explanation here, and think that such clarification would help with NPOV appreciably. [[User:Rorybowman|Rorybowman]] 03:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Reading both articles, [[masculism]] appears a more scholarly movement whereas [[fathers' rights]] has been more a reaction to [[feminism]] and the changing demands on men to engage with their children (the [[private sphere]]). Related but not the same. The fathers' rights article needs a fair bit of work. |
|||
:Probably all of [[Fathers' rights]], [[Masculism]], [[Mythopoetic]], [[Pro-feminism]] (referring to men) could be related to each other better. -- [[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] 05:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::under the section on '''The Movements Structure''' it states "The men's rights movement is often equated with the masculist movement, but although there is some overlap, large parts of both movements strongly dispute this equation." I expect the same for father's rights and masculism. -- [[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, Paul! It was when I started to look into the structure section that I started to run into serious questions about where the line fell. Although [[Warren Farrell]] has famously claimed to be a feminist and a masculist, a Google search on masculist brings up a number of clearly anti-feminist and misogynistic views more in line with [[pater familias]]. Checking out the article on [[masculist]] the only substantive reference was Bax, whose "masculist" work such as ''Fraud of Feminism'' is clearly misogynistic, which I found when I tried to find links to his work to add to the Bax bio page. My choice of the top-article phrase about "legal forms which '''unnaturally''' favor women" (emphasis mine) is because most of the Google hits for masculist clearly do indicate a strong sense of biological difference, most notably [http://www.geocities.com/qim/masculisttrinity.htm this fellow]. My concern is not that there are a few man-haters who call themselves feminists (which there are, to the annoyance of most who call themselves feminists) as that the phrase "masculist" and "masculism" has little use as a distinction from "father's rights" and the distinction it does have is mostly toward either obscuring or trying to distance the real differences on [[abortion]] and other [[civil rights]] issues. At this point in usage it seems to me that "father's rights" (which some would argue includes veto power regarding abortion) and "masculist" are used differently. Here in the United States similar issues are usually expressed in a sort of linguistic code with phrases such as "ethnic pride" (for the general use) and "White pride" (for racist usage). It seems to me good to clarify the family law focus versus the gender role focus (which also tends to be against [[gay rights]]) in an article on '''men's''' rights. |
|||
:Should the article just admit that the phrase "men's rights" is hopelessly vague and point to the more distinctive branches such as [[civil rights]], [[gay rights]] and [[father's rights]]. I first got here from an ill-advised redirect from [[men's movement]], for example. Decreasing this section's prominence to favor more specific articles may be the better part of valor. What do you think? [[User:Rorybowman|Rorybowman]] 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Men's movement]] is now introduction to this == |
|||
[[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks, Paul! The [[men's movement]] article is a very nice framing. How does the subject of this article [[men's rights]] differ from [[father's rights]]? Is this article a general discussion of the legal rights of men? The extension of [[human rights]] or [[civil rights]] to a wider category of men? The philosophical extension of those in democratic thought such as Thomas Paine's essay [[Rights of Man]]? Certainly the move away from men's rights being the family law rights of father's is a great improvement, but should this article be phased out and content moved more into the separate articles on [[masculism]], [[father's rights]], etcetera? [[User:Rorybowman|Rorybowman]] 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:General men's movement intro stuff here should probably go to [[men's movement]], material related to the 4 streams either to there or the specific article. This page should probably then be made a redirect to [[Fathers' rights]] but only after that article is pared down/broken up/sorted out. -- [[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Merge proposal - from [[Fathers' rights]] == |
|||
This is a better article, and Fathers' rights are intrinsic to men's rights. During merge a number of the extended discussipons in the Father's rights article should be moved, for example, the extended discussion on UK law to [[Fathers' rights movement in the UK]] where it is appropriate. -- [[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'''Against''': These issues are not general MEN's issues, but specific FATHER issues. Whether masculist or merely a matter of [[family law]], these men are working on behalf of biological fathers, not of men generally. This is trebly the case in issues of custody and abortion. To conflate the limited interests of fathers with the general issue of men is confusing, and arguably deceptive. While a rhetorical coup for its proponents (just ask any anti-feminist woman about "women's rights") I think it is imprecise. '''Fathers' rights''' is the more precise term and should be retained as more specific. [[User:Rorybowman|Rorybowman]] 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'''Don't Merge''': Men's rights is civil law. Father's rights is family law. — [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 01:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Not all men are father's. Men's rights and father's rights are separate issues. Perhaps provide a link from one article to the other as the issues are arguable related, but do not merge. |
|||
'''Removed'''' merge recommendation as concluded in discussion. -- [[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] 12:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Reverts 2006-01-23 Discussion == |
|||
I just reverted a few deletions of criticisms and references made by two Ohio IP addresses (which I had mistakenly read as a single IP at the time of revert). My rationale is that this set of edits effectively removed criticisms of the movement and references to alternative views of the movement, which seem to merit discussion. The usual custom on this article has been increase the range of views rather than cut them, which seems more in accordance with an NPOV survey of the subject. - [[User:Rorybowman|Rorybowman]] 15:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
____________ |
|||
There was a part of this article, that out of the blue said "The man is better than the woman. Always!" just like that. I deleted that section. It had no place at then end of the topic and was clearly put there by some feemenist that wanted to make fun the the topic. Men's studies are a valid topic, men's rights are too. |
|||
Or perhaps somebody who actually thinks that men are better than women? |
|||
== Pro-feminist men == |
|||
Men who support feminism are generally not advocates of men's rights and should not be referred to in this article as being members of the men's rights movement. They support feminism, clearly not the men's rights movement. |
|||
[[User:NiceguyC|NiceguyC]] 13.47, 16 April 2006 (GMT) |
|||
: May I just point out that both movements are not absolutely incompatible. It is possible to support, say, for example, equality for women, whilst also supporting equality for men as well. [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 13:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Blatent and disingenious POV vandalism == |
|||
FAr too much of this (especially the violence section) is introduced by |
|||
"critics say..." far roo much ids contested, unreferanced, and projective. |
|||
Before I go in slashing, and perhaps many of the "(for example-long drawn out |
|||
unsubstantiated referance)" might be footnoted and cited. The vandalism |
|||
and intelectual dishonesty is clear to me. |
|||
At this point I can only pray that the offenders subscribe to "watch this site" |
|||
and will repair this, before the validity challanges start slapping up. |
|||
I have no qualms about editing large chunks that clearly serve as |
|||
projection and redefinition. |
|||
This chunk is a blatent illistration; |
|||
"Further they cite statistics suggesting that of reported assaults by a partner, men are more likely to call the police, press charges, and keep them than women (Schwartz, 1987; Rouse et.al; 1988; Kincaid; 1982). More still the National Institute of Justice Report on Intimate Violence states that: Men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant. These findings, combined with those presented in the previous bullet, provide further evidence that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates. |
|||
Further, critics accuse men's rights advocates of defending male abuse, often by alleging it is justified due to a perceived "unfairness" men face, and even rallying behind abusers. For example, a spokesman for The Men’s Confraternity, after a Perth man gassed to death his three children and himself in 1998 after his visitation was shortened by Family Court, voiced (perpetrator was) probably a decent, hard-working man who was pushed too far by the Family Court. Critics allege men's rights advocates attribute the violence they concede men do to outside forces and then pre-emptively accuse women who allege abuse by men of lying and scheming. Critics also claim, in regards to abuse women and children allege against men, alarmist exaggeration of false accusations by men's rights advocates and voice they then do not apply the same standards to the numbers of male (by female) victims men's rights activists claim exist. Critics contend that this attitude also does existing male victims of domestic abuse a disservice. |
|||
I did correct some spelling typos and weasle insinuations.--[[User:CaptDMO|CaptDMO]] 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)CaptDMO |
|||
:The problem is the '''entire''' article needs clean-up, citations, and context. Look at this- |
|||
From employment: |
|||
''“They also assert sexual harassment policies are de facto directed against the male style of inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace, while ignoring the female style of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace (eg: wearing sexually revealing clothing, offering sexual favours in exchange for promotion or raises, etc.).”'' |
|||
Alright ''who'' in particular, ''where'' are the complaints and do all the complaints fairly represent what all MRAs feel? |
|||
''“They express anger towards the fact that a man telling a joke or simply referring to a co-worker by a nickname is grounds for dismissal and/or lawsuits.”'' |
|||
Who in the MRM and what are the examples they cite? I get that it is worded as “assert”, but then you can’t expect the criticisms section to be of such higher standard. |
|||
::::About Sexual harassment polices being directed at men. Things like this are repeated big time amongs a lot of the MRM blogs and sites. Indeed it made it big time in Thomas Ellis book "Rantings of a single male" [[User:Rhythmic01|Rhythmic01]] 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
''“Advocates frequently cite statistical evidence to support their claims of discrimination against men.”'' |
|||
What ''particular'' MRAs? |
|||
''The most frequently cited statistics are:'' |
|||
Then there are bullet-points of what the cited statistics are for, yet no ''actual statistics/sources'' or who ''actually'' provided them or conducted the studies. |
|||
:::: I have them for two. I can add them into the main article. |
|||
*in recent years, girls have tended to perform better at all educational levels |
|||
http://165.224.221.98/programs/quarterly/vol_2/2_2/q6-1.asp |
|||
*Suicide rates are dramatically higher for men and boys of all age groups. |
|||
http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/hsu/9903suicide.pdf |
|||
[[User:Rhythmic01|Rhythmic01]] 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Appreciated but shouldn't we verify if that is considered original research? [[User:NeoApsara|NeoApsara]] 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: What do you mean by original reseach? [[User:Rhythmic01|Rhythmic01]] 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Incarceration- |
|||
''“Though America is home to less than 5% of the world’s population (est. 298 million of 6.5 billion people), America incarcerates almost 40% of the world’s inmate population (about 2.1 million v. 5.5 million prisoners). Therefore, America imprisons over 800% more men than the world imprisons men. About 95% of prisoners are men.”'' |
|||
This is really just a statement that fits in some incarceration in the United States section? What are they trying to say? That too many men are in jail and we need to let them go? That we should put more women in jail to even it out and be fair? Shouldn’t there be a citation or link actually explaining the context or contention that is held with this?[[User:NeoApsara|NeoApsara]] 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I agree with this one here however, I don't understand what the above has to do with mens rights. It really should be either redone to make the point and context clear or just be taken off the page completly. |
|||
:::For now, I'll take it off because I just don't know what to do with it. It will remain here on the talk page were somebody to better contextualize it though. [[User:NeoApsara|NeoApsara]] 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 05:54, 31 March 2024
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Possible inaccuracy or misunderstanding.
Under the first few sentences, it states "As a part of the manosphere," however, the manosphere is described as promoting masculinity and misogyny, however, under my experience, the movement has been largely quite the opposite. Many times, misogyny inside of the community, at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society. I would like to know if this is a misunderstanding on whomever added that sentence, or a misunderstanding from me of what the male rights community truly is. I personally believe that this could be fixed by a simple "Some view this as a part of the manosphere." thus being neutral, but still getting both views into the text. Cheeseburger3 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: Under further, closer inspection of the article, multiple paragraphs, most of which use the words manosphere, also follow this narrative, further hinting towards either a sole individual making multiple edits or a misunderstanding on my part. Cheeseburger3 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. First-hand experience is not generally usable as that is considered original research. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we do not publish original research.
- This article has many sources for the connection between the MRM and misogyny. The article currently cites several reliable source (which are also independent sources) which have identified misogyny as a disproportionately prominent trait. Likewise, many reliable sources link the MRM and the manosphere, although the term "manosphere" is much newer than the MRM. Those sources are linked in footnotes throughout the article, and those sources are what we use to inform the article.
- Grayfell (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's all well and good but the whole article id designed to discredit the movement
- Which is why all the negative points are put up front t0 dissuade the reader
- Usually the article states a series of facts, and then has a separate section under the title "Criticisms"
- Montalban (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Montalban It is not designed to discredit the movement but summarises reliable sources. Having a criticism section is discouraged. See WP:CRITICISM.
- If you see any problems, you are free to edit as long as they use reliable sources, is neutral and follows any other relevant policy. Panamitsu (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are many sources that highlight misandry as a common trait in Feminist circles. Why isn't that in the first sentence in the feminism artcile. To be frank, this is malicious. You will ask me for sources and once provided, you will claim they aren't credible. Who determines what sources are credible? This is why wikipedia has a massive bias issue. 47.230.49.22 (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @47.230.49.22 Where are your sources? Predicting future events is often inadvisable because the predictions can be incorrect. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Concerning Accuracy and Understanding
Many times, misogyny inside of the community, "at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society".
As well as a questionable opinion, might not this non-NPOV be aimed at down-playing the true level of misogyny and forced masculinity within this right-wing movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Citations 10 and 11 do not support corresponding text..
10: SPLC does not say that some branches of MRM are not hateful. It says that some branches use legitimate grievances to draw new members in, without meaningfully addressing said grievances; "instead directing followers to blame women [...] for everything". (To quickly locate the relevant passage, search for the word "legitimate" in the source.)
11 very clearly considers MRM hateful. Not sure how it can be argued it ties to the sentence is is linked to. 91.26.88.218 (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Same guy who made the topic.
- After commenting, it occurred to me that 11 might have been meant for the first part of the sentence it's linked to. However, it does not (as far as I can tell) come from the SLPC, so, while fine as a source, it seems a bit awkwardly placed. 91.26.88.218 (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
1970s and The Myth of Male Power
In the mid-1970s, this movement began to focus on the oppression of men and less on the effects of sexism on women. This shift was influenced by author Warren Farrell and his book The Myth of Male Power. He emphasized how male gender roles disadvantaged men by forbidding them from being seen as caring or having emotion. The Myth of Male Power physically couldn't have done it in 70s because it was written in 1993 year. Farrell is indeed mentioned in the source, but not that way:
In 1971, educator Warren Farrell helped form the National Task Force on the Masculine Mystique within the National Organization for Women, an idea which quickly spread toover fifty local NOW chapters and provided a framework for the further development of the men’s movement. Farrell’s more lasting contribution to the growth of men’s awareness of their culturally limited options was his influential 1975 book The Liberated Man: Beyond Masculinity, which quickly assumed for men the place occupied in women’s liberation by Betty Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique. Its publication sparked the beginning of a separate men’s literature concerned with offering theories of and solutions to male oppression. Two viewpoints characterized this body of writing: acceptance of feminist criticism of masculine status and behaviors, and calls for the restoration of ‘‘traditional’’ masculine social roles. Among the more important works produced at this time were Herb Goldberg’s antifeminist The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege (1976), and the anthologies The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role (1976) and For Men against Sexism: A Book of Readings (1977).
I delete the sentence from the article. Reprarina (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)