Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about Men's rights movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Child Custody edit/revert

Hi there,

Re: your message: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Men's rights movement. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)"

I'm sorry if you think my edit was unconstructive. I edited the Child custody section because I find it constructive to ensure high article quality. The issue was subject to discussion on the talk page at the end of 2013, and no new arguments were forthcoming, neither pro nor con, since my last post in that discussion. Having left it a year to hear new arguments seemed sufficient. I'v also discussed the matter on the relevant Notice Board, where it was opined (I'm paraphrasing this now, it was worded differently at the notice board) that if a conclusion is not stated directly in a source, the claim can be deleted; if there is some merit to the claim, it can be stated with qualifications. Could we discuss that?

Regarding vandalism, you should assume 'good faith vandalism', at least =o) Jokes aside, I thought ensuring the ecyclopedidity of an article was the opposite of vandalism. That's why I edited. The previous discussion ended with no more posts with any opposing view points. You can't ask much more from editors than that, barring mind reading.

T. 88.91.200.83 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello "T", you are rehashing an issue that was discussed in 2013. As I wrote then and will repeat to you now: The source is reliable and directly supports the statement. The relevant quote is: ...the men's rights movement, which has taken up joint custody as the rallying cry for fathers of all persuasions. Taking the statistics on custody awards as incontrovertible evidence of judicial bias against men, they pay no heed to the fact that the vast majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it. I understand that you disagree with the Crean source on that point. We usually don't judge the correctness of reliable sources and if we did, it would be easy to find sources that support Crean's general statement. I also encourage you to read User:Slp1's reply that "it is trivial to find multiple additional sources from multiple jurisdictions that confirm that there are critiques that custody statistics are misused because they don't take into account situations where the parents have agreed that the mother should be be primary caregiver." Again, you are very welcome to find RS that specifically dispute Crean's point about the MRM. Is it the "do not seem to want it" part that you find distasteful? If it is, I support striking it because there are probably more reasons than that. The important part of the statement is that MRAs misuse custody statistics as evidence of discrimination and ignore the fact that many fathers do not contest custody. Please get consensus for your changes the next time. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour, Sonicyouth86,

Thx for taking the time, and above all thx for doing the research to present the actual quote from Crean.

"Hello "T", you are rehashing an issue that was discussed in 2013." No, I'm not rehashing it, I'm continuing it. It's just that in 2014 I had some other ting to do. But there's no rush, right?

Let me state up front that I'more than happy to be guided by the principle of article improvement, to be convinced by the better argument, to seek and abide by consensus and to leave actual penmanship to actual native EN speakers, which I am not.

Re the source: "As I wrote then and will repeat to you now: The source is reliable and directly supports the statement." As I wrote then and will repeat to you now: For me, this had nothing to do with Crean, it pertained my perception that some editor's used the quote to support a claim apparently far too wide to be supported by the source. I did see that wider claim as, I'm not sure, either OR or SYNTH.

Re the issue: "The important part of the statement is that MRAs misuse custody statistics as evidence of discrimination and ignore the fact that many fathers do not contest custody." Thank you, that is very clarifying. My agreement, though, comes with a feeling of "why didn't you say so" ("you" being "they who wrote it", btw) - perhaps the section would improve if that point was stated with more clarity? I mean, the whole sentence is a but run-on, isn't it, and still does not actually do a good job of bringing out "the important part of the statement" (to take your words as corroboration)?

Re the quote: "it is trivial to find multiple additional sources from multiple jurisdictions that confirm that there are critiques that custody statistics are misused /.../" (SLP1) Well, then perhaps replacing Crean with a newer, and preferably more academic source would no longer leave this point open to dismissal?

RE what fathers want "Is it the "do not seem to want it" part that you find distasteful? /.../ " It was indeed what stirred me to activity; I don't think "distasteful" came to mind, but that's neither here nor there - it just seemd such an extraordinary claim, liable to present fathers in a very bad light, if the lighting were bad enough. I support a factual tone in the article, and so I feared that a passage such as that would leave it open to criticisms of being anti-male in tone, which would blunt the impact of other good work in the article.

RE other RS I don't know that those six words merit a rewrite or qualification, in light of what the main issue is. For fun and games there is the following: "The Guy's Guide to Feminism" (Kaufman and Kimmel). (I think I found some odd online e-book version, there were no page numbers, but there it is, under a heading:) Custody and Child Support

".... these days most men want to share custody after separation. /You know, not long ago many guys were more distant from their children /.../

It's pretty different now. Fathers are more like to see their relationships with their children as the most rewarding of their lives - pre. and post- divorce."

But this perhaps only illustrates that you can find quotes about anything if you put in the time and clickery. It's not too heavy on references. And it adresses only those six words - "want" being the operative - and not the main issue.

Re solution " /.../ If it is, I support striking it because there are probably more reasons than that." I must admit, I would not be unhappy if it were. Though it's only a grain of sand in a big heap, even a minor improvement is an improvement, if it is an improvement. Before I make any suggestions, I'd like to hear if you think we're heading towards the right track.

T 2001:4610:A:5E:0:0:0:16E1 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

New month, new chances! So, while we wait ... does anyone else have any input? T. 2001:4610:A:5E:0:0:0:16E1 (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Doing the research to present the actual quote from Crean? I quoted that very same sentence in 2013. Look at my comment on November 6, 2013 (18:13 UTC). I also gave you that quote on the OR noticeboard a few days ago. Had you really read my and other editors' replies, you wouldn't have missed the quote. I'll remove the "do not seem to want it" part. It's supported by the reliable source but it isn't worth the drama. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, belatedly, my thanks; this was very graceful of you. You did all the work, and you deserve all the credit. T 2001:4610:A:5E:0:0:0:713F (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

MGTOW?

There is a (what I would describe as) radical portion of the MRM that identifies itself as "MGTOW." I think this page could be more informative if information was included on this portion. What are the opinions of others? Xoviat (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources of MGTOW. Until such coverage exists, we can't include information about MGTOW in the article. (If I'm wrong and there is coverage in RSes of MGTOW, then this doesn't apply, and the submovement could be appropriately written about subject to NOR/DUE, etc.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

MGTOW is not associated with the mens rights movements. they do not actively campaign for mens rights at all. although they are anti-feminist they have essentially chosen to fight feminism by ignoring romantic relationships (and in some cases even women themselves) all together. its a movement of 'dropping out' so to speak, of a situation they feel is rigged. so its not really a political movement its something of an anti-political movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In the news

http://laist.com/2014/03/29/mens_group_objects_to_glendale_wome.php
Carptrash (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds a bit WP:UNDUE. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Critiqued for" vs "accused of"

My primary intent with that change, which has been undone, was to remove the word "for", which takes it as fact that sectors of the MRM are misogynistic. The point was to make it clear that such a view is being expressed by the sources, not in Wikipedia's voice. Critiquing the use of blue in a painting could be neutral, as it is inarguable that a painting either does or does not have such a color, but this is a different situation. I'm open to a word in place of accuse, but I'm having difficulty thinking of one that would fit with the preposition of. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe RS have established that sections of MRM are indeed misogynistic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Which sections would they be? a couple lone nuts? if that's the case let's add a section to the article about feminism about Valerie Solonas, her S.C.U.M. Manifesto, and how the president of National Organization for Women at the time praised her for saying 90% of men should be euthanized, and the remaining 10% enslaved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that Solanas's manifesto is widely perceived as satire in the vein of A Modest Proposal (an idea backed up by her own statements and believed by its publisher,) and ignoring the fact that even if we take it seriously, there's a massive difference between a position that is described by multiple reliable sources to be held by a large part of a general movement and a single author, the contents of articles about feminism have nothing to do with this article. We decide what is in this article by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, not by what some other article says. The fact that other shit exists that may or may not violate our policies is not an argument to make this article violate our policies. If other articles are broken, go fix them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research claims RE: prison section

Given the reverts occuring over the inclusion of edits by 174.21.222.16 (talk · contribs), I'm adding this talk section so we don't keep reverting one another without consensus. I'm a little confused how a citation of facts directly related to an article section is off topic? This section is on men's rights concerns about gender gaps favoring women in prison sentences -- a citation directly related to this is clearly any factual information on prison sentence differentials. This is no different than an article on women's rights sourcing material statistics on wage rates, or an article on income inequality sourcing material about statistics of income rates based on demographic data. Facts, if directly related to the subject or the section being discussed, are WP:NOTOR.Spudst3r (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

My $0.02 (though I reverted mainly on the basis of edit warring without consensus): the material is not about the men's rights movement and their positions on issues, it's about the issue itself and thus more appropriate for Incarceration in the United States or Incarceration of women in the United States. If there's a reliable source which discusses the men's rights movement in relationship to this study, however, I wouldn't have an objection to citing it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Citations can span multiple articles, and you're right, that statistical evidence is also relevant for the Incarceration in the United States group of articles. However, directly related compilations of facts or citations, even if not addressed directly to the subject of the article itself, are appropriate for inclusion if they help to expand encyclopedic detail on an article section or subject.

To expand further, we can see this citation is no different from this section of the feminist movement article, where a section on hetersexual relationships summarizes a citation that states: "Several studies provide statistical evidence that the financial income of married men does not affect their rate of attending to household duties.[11][12]" In that article the source used was titled "Housework in Marital and Nonmarital Households" from a Sociology journal, and clearly isn't addressing the feminist movement either, but is appropriate for inclusion because its citing facts relevant to that article section: the feminist movement in relation to heterosexual relationships. Similarly, in this article, the prison section is about the men's rights movement concerns with gender differentials in sentencing. Directly related factual information on the subject of gender differentials in sentencing is clearly fair game for an encyclopedic analysis of these claims, and should be encourged if it is appropriately sourced. (Not to be hyperbolic -- but if we accepted the strict intepretation being applied to this article on how sources can be used, I reckon half the articles on Wikipedia would need to be rewritten.) Spudst3r (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The material is fine in an article about prisons. However what was being done here with it is original research. Only material DIRECTLY related to the topic of articles is worthy of inclusion (see WP:NOR). This is an implacable policy reason not to include this (and no amount of wikilawyering changes that). The material belongs at Incarceration in the United States not here. It's time to move on--Cailil ^talk 20:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's OR, or at least an UNDUE representation of research. There's lot of other research that shows women are given harsher sentences for certain crimes, namely ones that are counter to expectations of femininity, like infanticide. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great information if its true. The point of additions like this is to accurately compile factual statements. The way to resolve this is to keep these edits, and do research to add more nuance. Facts are not meant to be countered against bias through reverts, but rather, through collecting and finding sources that give fair WP:DUE to all crime statistic data on differentials in sentencing. I have no problem incorporating the fact you just wrote if you can provide a reputable source.Spudst3r (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cailil (talk · contribs) So just to clarify though, then does that mean this section's usage of statistics not directly related to the feminist movement article topic constitutes original research also?. I ask because I can guarantee I will almost certainly get reverted for vandalism if I called it original research. (I know this sounds like sour grapes creeping into this article's talk page, but multiple editors have already voiced NPOV concerns about the existence of double standards being applied to this article. -- I think the relative treatment of how sources are treated between both articles is very relevant.)

If this edit isn't allowed because this article must only describe the men's rights movement and not its issues, then I think the problem is that men's rights page redirects to the men's rights movement page. As such, this page has interchangeably been edited to reflect both the dimension of the men's rights movement, but also to describe its issues. If this page permits the description of men's rights issues, then I fail to see how this edit is original research or not directly related to the topic, if the topic of gender disparities in prison sentences is considered ok? If it's not then is the solution here a new article for it?Spudst3r (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Previous efforts to argue statistics and facts have failed here for the same reason: the sources support the facts but they do not connect the facts to the men's rights movement. What is required in this article is that every source describes the material with regard to the stance of the men's rights movement. Wikipedia is not here to argue the case, it's here to describe the published arguments that have been made in the case. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So if a citable source mentions a fact such as the one added as an argument for or against men's rights, then the content would be acceptable to add? Spudst3r (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you are getting at, but I can repeat myself. <grin> All sources should discuss the MRM. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like spudst3r's point/question/comment is that if all sources in this article should discuss the MRM, then should all sources at the feminism related article(s) therefore be required to discuss feminism. (I'm translating just to help the thread along, acknowledging this has almost certainly come up more than a couple times before). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) yes, that is a correct characterization of my concerns. Binksternet (talk · contribs) What I'm getting at is that I'm interpreting your comment to mean that the information 174.21.222.16 (talk · contribs) added here which lead to this revert incident would have been acceptable for adding (or at least, not reverted on the basis of WP:NOR) if the source citation made for the content added was not the study itself, but rather a reputable source using that study to advance an argument discussing men's rights. I ask because given how often WP:NOR claims comes up on this page having a clarification of how to appropriately use factual data will be helpful.Spudst3r (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

When I saw the addition by the Seattle IP, I immediately saw that it was a violation of WP:NOR. The source did not discuss the stance of the MRM. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Spudstr's question is irrelevant and (unintentional) flamebait (this is not the time or place to have a discussion about what other articles should or should not do - we've had that before and it ends in flamewar). I've never edited the Feminist Movement article and it doesn't matter a toss for this discussion what other articles contain, but yes all material in each article must be related to the subject. These are not essays but I understood how that might be confusing. That said other stuff might exist elsewhere but that's not a valid argument for discussing the point here, which is that the piece reverted is original research and it stays out - re-insertion will break this page's probation and probably incur sanction under WP:ARBGG (furthermore continued circular and tendentious argument for breaking the rules may also depending on the admin reviewing - that's fair warning). Other article's problems need to be handled at their talk pages not here. Move on to something productive this matter is dead--Cailil ^talk 10:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum the piece added also fails copyvio as it is actually a copy-paste of the majority of the article's abstract at the papers.ssrn.com page rather than actually reading the piece and doing the due dilligence. The whole paper (which is available from both Harvard and the University of Michigan) doesn't mention Men's rights, the MRA, Men's movement etc. The whole piece is about women in US prisons - so a proper treatment of it might belong (see WP:DUE) at Incarceration of women in the United States, nowehere else. Encyclopedia writing is not like essay or newspaper article or blog writing. We don't say 1+2=3. We say 1 and 2 and 4 if and only if reliable sources say this--Cailil ^talk 14:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Disclosure: This page came to my attention through an off-site forum on abuses of process at WP. What has been expressed above is an extreme and indefensible overreach on the meaning of WP:OR. The role of an editor is to select, curate, and contextualize information; it would be impossible to build an encyclopedia without engaging in these functions. The essential definition of OR is material that is not verifiable. "Directly related" does not mean a source must mention the topic by name, only that the direct relation to the topic is verifiable. Relation to the topic can be established transitively by two or more sources together. Combining sources to make an editorial decision is not SYNTH, as SYNTH is a policy only for statements in the text of an article. As a neutral example, consider World War II, which discusses diverse topics including WW1 peace terms, The League of Nations, the Greco-Italian War, the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact of 1941, the Rape of Nanking, Soviet repression in Poland, The Holocaust, naval artillery, the Enigma machine, Stalin, Communism, nuclear weapons, and post-WWII reconstruction, and just about everything else in 20th-century history. Abundant sources draw connections between these topics and WWII, and those connections are durable. Any other sources discussing these topics are equally related to WWII, even if they don't mention the war explicitly. The line is drawn on what to include on the basis of encyclopedic interest and WP:DUE, not twisting the semantics of a single word from WP:OR. Getting specific again, we have sources that say gender disparity in sentencing is an issue important to the mens' rights movement. Therefore, any material about gender disparity in sentencing is directly related to the topic of the article. Move the goalposts to arguing that its WP:UNDUE. Rhoark (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Some useful points of comparison that present value-neutral research relevant to their political article topics are Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Health and Socialist_economics#Elements_of_socialism_in_practice Rhoark (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we please have a rebuttal to the above post demonstrating how policies are being twisted here?

2601:D:CF00:16F:4550:5385:2DF2:CD0F (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

missing issues and statistics

In the entirety of this article, there is ONE statistic - a statement that says MRA's claim rape reports are false at a 40-50% clip, which is a fringe claims among mainstream MRA's. Every other mention of statistics in this article is delicately worded to says "MRA's use statistics to..." followed by "empirical research disproves this". Hard numbers are also missing.

● No mention of how men die 4.5 years sooner than woman and are 60% more likely to get cancer, yet we spend four to eight timea the amount of money on women's only heath funding.

● Circumcision is barely mentioned (it "may" be an issue). ● No mention of male disposability ● No mention of male suicide rates being 3 1/2 times that of a women (and up to 25th more for young men) and the efforts to rectify that. ● Education among boys is glossed over:

  ○ No mention that boys are 3 times more likely to be given powerful      stimulants for ADHD. 
  ○ No mention that 70% of D'S  and F's go to boys and 80% of suspensions are boys. 
  ○ No mention that only 36% of new college students are men.

● No mention of the correctional system and the biases against boys and men, that for every 100 girls there are 1430 boys in correctional facilities. ● I don't even recall seeing compulsory selective service registration. ● No mention of forced child support even in instances where the kid is not the man's - in fact, even if the women defrauded the man, or worse, raped him. Several cases of teen boys have been reported credibly where young teen boys victims of rape by older women have been sued for child support and forced to pay. ● No mention of the suppression of academic freedom when MRA speakers go to college campuses. ● No mention of how the "preponderance of evidence" standard at college campuses in sexual assault cases disrespects due process of men. ● No mention of the double standard whereby men who where as a equally drunk as their female partner were expelled for non-forcible rape, solely because the burden of Consent is on a man.

Who is controlling this page in such a way that allowed it to become this biased sad sack disgrace of an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:CF00:16F:4550:5385:2DF2:CD0F (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

the way to deal with missing statistics and issues is to find reliable sources and edit with them. Wikipedia is not a place where you get to tell other editors what needs to be done. If you are concerned with who is in control of the article, make some edits and find out. Carptrash (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about the men's rights movement, its activities and claims. So while you shouldn't add stuff like "men die 4,5 years sooner" it's perfectly fine to add stuff like "men's rights activists say that men die 4,5 years sooner because they are oppressed(reliable source)". You can't add random statistics about men's health outcomes or men's education. You need to describe what men's rights activists say or think about the statistics according to reliable sources. Btw, what about the unsourced circumcision section? I looked at some MRM sites and it appears that they think it's unfair that people regard female genital mutilation as a more harmful practice than circumcision. But it's difficult to find reliable secondary sources. Is mic.com [4] reliable? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Vox and the "libertarian conservatism" claim

More recent surveys have shown that supporters of the men's rights movement tend to have libertarian conservative leanings. I have removed this claim based on the following analysis of its citation.

The surveys of "the men's rights movement" cited in the Vox article are as follows:

This trinity is not uncommon. A survey taken last year of the Men's Rights subreddit found that 94 percent of their membership identified as "atheist" or "religiously indifferent." Another, broader study of the Men's Rights movement on Reddit found that 84 percent identified as "strongly conservative," with particular policy preferences along a libertarian, not traditional, bent.

Which is to say:

Only two surveys are cited, both specific to Reddit; it seems inappropriate to generalize them to the entire base of supporters of the movement, especially given the obvious issues with selection bias in Internet surveys. The current Wikipedia article gives the impression that there is a large MRM contingent in India, which seems like it would largely be missed by a survey like this (assuming terms like "libertarian conservative" even make sense in that context).

Clicking through the "Another, broader study" link shows that it is indeed just a survey, and it does not show anything like the 84 percent identified as "strongly conservative" claim. The link goes here, where results for "political affiliation" are presented without reference to the terms "liberal" or "conservative", and apparent support for the Democratic Party strongly outweighs that for the Republicans.

For what it's worth, though, the 84 percent claim does appear in the summary of the first survey. For some reason, instead of any direct link to the survey results or community discussion thereof, we are given a link to a self-published blog on FTB by Stephanie Zvan. Reading these results, we also see claims that the movement is 98% white and overwhelmingly in favour of marijuana legalization and overwhelmingly against several other "progressive" issues. All of which ought to raise warning flags.

In fact, Zvan actually addressses this at the end of her blog post, noting the incongruity with the other survey's results. She offers a correction indicating that even she does not believe the "84 percent strongly conservative" claim. It is widely believed that the survey in question was vandalized, as Zvan notes.

Additionally, when I Googled for MRM libertarian conservatism in search of a possible replacement source, I found strong disagreement within that same Reddit community with the source, branding it a hit piece. While it is true that political groups often reject labels that accurately describe them from an NPOV, I think this needs to be at least considered - especially when the supposed evidence for those labels consists of online surveys, one of which is widely believed by the community to have been falsified.

In short: the article obviously misrepresents the surveys, made by a single source that's strongly protested by the group in question (with coherent argumentation, not simply some "I'm not X-ist" bluster), appears not to have done even as much due diligence as fully reading Zvan's post, and which confuses the two surveys it cites with each other regarding the results. Further to that, Wikipedia was misrepresenting the article's claims by inappropriate generalization. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Although it's worth noting that a group objecting to a descriptor isn't enough reason to discount it (we're written from a neutral point of view, not a sympathetic one, and we frequently describe groups in ways they don't agree with) you are correct that an online, voluntary survey of one particular community is absolutely not enough for us to describe the whole movement as libertarian. It'd be different if there was a broad, rigorous study that made the same conclusion, but it doesn't look like there is. Thank you for making the change. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
If the survey is inappropriate for the "libertarian conservatism" statement, then it's equally inappropriate for the atheism statement. I suggest that we remove the atheism part as well or restore the libertarian claim. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears the claims have resurfaced.

2601:D:CF00:16F:4550:5385:2DF2:CD0F (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a resurfacing of the particular claim here. I agree with User:Sonicyouth86 re the atheism bit, so I'm going ahead to remove that as well. Aside from the dubious sourcing, the relevance also seems dubious - there's no indication here of how religious beliefs inform views on gender issues, whereas the connections to politics are more intuitive. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

MRA is no less about gender equality than feminism

Talk pages are not forums for expressing personal opinion. Please discuss the article and how to improve it with reliable sources or copy editing.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are many issues that affect male people. These stem from the delusion that when men shoulder the brunt of responsibility, for providing & protecting their dependents, such would be an expression of misogynist global "patriarch" conspiracy.

IMO the article needs to show more respect for addressing discrimination against male people: in courts of law, in military draft, genital mutilation, victims of sexual abuse, homelessness, in education, as fathers, in the home... these are every bit GENUINE issues... not just "beliefs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perduta (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles aren't soapboxes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And "GENUINE issues" have "GENUINE references" and I look forward to your edits in this article. And please remember to sign your postings, unless insisting that you sign your postings is some sort of discrimination against male people, in which case, never mind. Carptrash (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Marriage strike"

This is in the list of "issues", but doesn't read like an issue - it reads like MRAs observing a statistical trend and explaining it. I'm sure there are theories in the MRM about why this apparent "strike" is occurring - those are what needs to be covered here. Either that, or maybe this could be rolled into the Divorce section (from what I've overheard, a major part of the MRA motivation for not getting married in the first place is the risk of divorcing on unfavourable terms - but I don't know if this can be reliably sourced). 70.24.4.51 (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur - the sources on 'marriage strike' explain it in terms of men's rights causes such as (perceived) family court bias, but they don't present the strike itself as a men's rights issue. I shall move this into the divorce section as you suggested. Also I've deleted parts of the 'marriage strike' section describing statistical decline in marriage rates and men's changing views of marriage, because these are only indirectly related to men's rights. If anything we should cite directly relevant MRM statistics such as custody rates (vs. percent seeking custody) and alimony rates (vs. income) by gender. Would Wiki policy support including such statistics to demonstrate the extent to which the various MRM issues are (or aren't) backed by reliable sources? AfungusAmongus (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki policy would only support such statistics if they are linked directly to the MRM. So if source Y said something like "Men's rights activists are concerned with decline in marriage rates because _____________" then something can likely be included, but anything else that doesnt mention the MRM explictly would be WP:SYNTH. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sectors

@EvergreenFir: Could you tell me where in the sources it says "All the sectors"? --Kyohyi (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the cited sources (excluding unreliable sources like the Glenn Sacks blog) write about the misogynistic men's rights movement (e.g., Kimmel: "It's also distinct from the self-consciously anti-feminist and misogynist men's rights movement...") without implying that there's some part of the MRM that isn't misogynistic. Do you want to to provide more RS which refer to the MRM as misogynistic? How many in addition to the ones already cited? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

SY86's point is good. And don't know of any sources supporting the weasel words either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the previous sentence in the Kimmel citation, it's clear he's only giving an opinion. Further, this seems to be written in promotion of a competing "mythopoetic men's movement", which as far as I can tell he's personally involved with. Kimmel is also the spokesman for NOMAS, which I've heard MRAs describe as antagonistic to them. So I don't really see how he can be considered an unbiased, COI-free source here. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As for weasel words: if the sources aren't talking about sectors at all, then the Wikipedia article shouldn't invent phrasing like "all the sectors". That's adding an implication that each individual "sector" (is that even defined here?) was examined by the sources and judged the same way, when actually the sources simply made a blanket generalization. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Sonicyouth's example is a perfect example of WP: SYNTH, Kimmel says MRM (general) is Misogynistic, Kimmel does not say any MRM is not misogynistic, therefore all MRM are misogynistic. An "All" statement is exhaustive, and inclusive. A General statement is merely inclusive. All you need is one source by itself which satisfies it being exhaustive and inclusive. In fact using multiple sources would likely lead to WP: SYNTH. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think "sectors" initially got into the article as some objected to describing the entire MRM as misogynist. I'm not sure if any RS discusses various sectors of the MRM - certainly there is discussion of the difference between broader men's movements like Mythopoetic men's movement and Men's movement, Men's liberation movement etc, but I agree usage of the word "sectors" is problematic if subsets of the MRM are not explicitly defined and detailed by RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: Unfortunately, you appear to confuse the MRM with the men's movement. The later has several strands, the MRM is one of those strands. You seem to suggest that there are several MRMs (≠ men's movements) but that is your personal opinion and WP:OR. Kimmel and all other RS describe the MRM. If you want to suggest that there's more than one MRM, you need WP:RS to support that. So no, Kimmel discussing the MRM is not "a perfect example of WP:Synth."

@70.24.4.51: Kimmel isn't involved with the mythopoetic men's movement. No, sources aren't biased just because they are critical. All RS about the MRM are critical, doesn't mean they're "biased". Kimmel is an academic who has published more books and peer-reviewed articles on the subject than any other academic. By the way, biased sources are perfectly fine: WP:Biased. Please do not repeat the COI accusations directed at Kimmel who is a living person. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: I didn't confuse anything, I took your argument above and showed you how it is synthesis of disparate material. I'll quote you back at yourself for clarity. "(e.g., Kimmel: "It's also distinct from the self-consciously anti-feminist and misogynist men's rights movement...")" Here's where you make the statement about Kimmel's opinion of MRM (general), you follow up with " without implying that there's some part of the MRM that isn't misogynistic" This is your argument of exhaustiveness. Your inclusion of his statement, with your argument that he does not imply that there's some part of the MRM that isn't misogynistic, to support that "All" MRM is misogynistic is synthesis. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"It" in the quote refers to the mythopoetic men's movement. Not some mythical other MRM. Do you understand that? Kimmel is talking about all strands of the men's movement and saying that the mythopoetic men's movement differs from the "self-consciously anti-feminist and misogynist men's rights movement." I'm not saying that all MRM are XYZ because there's no evidence that there's more than one MRM. Kimmel is saying that the MRM, i.e., the subject of this page, is misogynistic. You are trying to discredit the source by saying that Kimmel doesn't say that "all MRM" are misogynistic, thus implying that there's more than one MRM, but there isn't. It would be complete nonsense to write "all MRM are this and that" because there's only "the MRM", not "all MRM". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you are missing the point. The "it" is not relevant. What's relevant is that he's using Mens' Rights Movement as a general non-exhaustive statement, and you are adding your opinion of his lack of saying that there is anything non-misogynistic into an exhaustive statement. You need to affirmatively prove that position, not rely on an absence. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem not to understand that the Kimmel source supports the statement that the MRM is regarded as misogynistic. Not "sectors of the MRM", but "the MRM". You are arguing that "the MRM" doesn't mean "all the MRM", thereby implying that there's more than one MRM. But, again, that is your opinion. I'm merely pointing out to you that the sources support something like "The MRM is misogynic" rather than "Sectors of the MRM are misogynistic." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that's relevant to the point I was making. I never questioned that the Kimmel source supports the statement that the MRM is regarded as misogynistic. I questioned whether we had a source that said the MRM is exhaustively misogynistic. The difference between the two is a generalized statement applies to most, but maybe not all. And an exhaustive statement applies to all. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The point you're making is that the men's rights movement isn't "exaustively misogynistic" and that only "some sectors" are. I explained that most of the cited sources do not support the "some sectors" phrasing. Rather they support something like "The men's rights movement is misogynistic." Notice that I'm not arguing that we should say "exuastively misogynistic", sigh. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that if we are using one source for this statement, no matter the quibbling above, that it would be UNDUE? Arkon (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to nine references. Most RS that discuss the MRM describe the movement as misogynistic or something similar so I'm willing to provide addition RS if needed. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the only supporting statement actually mentioned in this conversation is from Kimmel. Could you quote the rest please? Arkon (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I quote the sources that say that the MRM is misogynistic and you quote the sources that say that "sectors of the MRM" are misogynistic. Deal? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall arguing for that wording. Make your argument or don't. Arkon (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

But you restored it. I did make my argument by explaining that most of the nine references don't support the "sectors of the MRM are" phrasing. Instead they support a "The MRM is" phrasing. I quoted Kimmel as an example. I'm willing to quote more RS if you are willing to also make an effort and find RS that support the version that your reverted to. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That was because it was the consensus, stable version that's been in the article since (at least) early March. You know, normal wikipedia practice. Now do you wish to continue to build the walls around your battleground, or try to gain consensus for your desired change? Arkon (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please point me to the consensus for the "section of the MRM" wording. It's normal Wikipedia practice to provide RS for edits, per WP:Burden. Can you present RS for the current wording? I'll let other editors decide who has a battleground approach and who has actually contributed something sourced to this article and discussion. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. It's in the archives when this was discussed previously. In fact, you participated. I'll keep an eye out if you supply the sources for your change, and make my judgement then. Until then I have no desire to play whatever game you think this is. Arkon (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There were many, many discussions about the characterization as misogynistic and there was an RfC (I didn't participate btw) to clarify if the MRM (or sectors of it) should be described as misogynist (the result was: yes, obviously) but there was no specific discussion and certainly no consensus regarding the "sectors" phrasing. Sure, I know that you have no desire to provide sources to support your edit but perhaps someone else does. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with SY86, I don't see anything in the RS defining discrete sectors of the MRM. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be forgetting the Father's rights Movement, which is mentioned in this article, and in it's own is defined as being part of the MRM. That's the most glaringly obvious one at least. Arkon (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fathers' rights movement is a separate movement with overlapping interests - I don't think its accurate to describe them as a subset of the MRM. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting point to me. Who/what groups do you think are a subset of the MRM? Arkon (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any have been explicitly defined by RS. The RS in relation to the FRM does not define them as a subset of the MRM. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We have content concerning India's Men's Rights Movement, and the United Kingdom's men's rights movement, as well as the US. These would very clearly be separate groups. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

From a geographical perspective sure, but from an ideological one? PearlSt82 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Different regions have different cultures, do we have sources that analyze them together? I know Kimmel makes a general statement, but from what I understand he's US based. Does his analysis include India, and UK? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The cited sources are all clearly discussing the men's rights movement, as in the international phenomenon. The misogyny claim is currently sourced to a Russian, a Canadian, and several Australian and American sources. An author's country of residence or nationality has nothing to do with it anyway. For example, Ruzankina is Russian and Maddison is Australian. But both discuss the MRM in general terms (not just the geographical manifestation), its beginnings in America, its subsequent development, MRM issues and rhetoric, its ideology. They cite several sources from several countries. If you think that this page is too general for your taste, feel free to create country specific pages if you can find enough RS. But we do not dismiss sources based on your assumption that Kimmel and Maddison and Menzies and all the other RS don't mean MRM when they say MRM or aren't qualified to make general statements about the MRM. The "some sectors" wording isn't supported by the sources, it just isn't. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to accept a generalized statement if we have sources to prove it. And I'm not necessarily questioning that the sources say it, but I don't particularly have the resources (time primarily) to go dig through, or get a hold of the nine sources listed to see if one of them actually makes that claim. An authors residency and nationality may or may not have bearing, however they may or may not take a world view in their analysis. And that is what I asked above, does Kimmel's work apply outside of the US, and how do we make that conclusion. If we are relying on multiple sources to cover various region/countries, then we can run afoul of WP: Synth. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Could I see an example of where the sources "criticizing" the MRM as "misogynistic" actually establish this claim, and rise above the level of simply name-calling? 70.24.4.51 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole "sectors" thing is a redherring. The sources can be summarized as saying: "the men's rights movement exhibits misogynistic tendencies." This could be parsed as: The men's rights movement has been described as exhibiting misogynistic tendencies". Unless it can be shown where there is equivocation in the sources the word sector should go and not be replaced with weasel wording--Cailil ^talk 17:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
From what I can see so far, only one source has broadbrushed the movement in that fashion (I asked for more above). If that is the case, it would seem UNDUE. Arkon (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
From going through the talk page archives, Sectors was added because the sources called out specific groups as being misogynistic. And instead of itemizing and calling out each group, it was settled onto as sectors. At least that's how I read the discussions. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think, on reflection, that my main problem with the wording is how the passive voice is used: Some sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist. This shifts the emphasis away from those doing the describing, and suggests a general consensus. I have no doubt that there are people out there who have been quite explicit about calling the entire MRM misogynist - but if the sentence were written in active voice, the problem with making this observation would be clear: it's weasel-worded, and a "who" template would swiftly be applied. One should not have to roll over the sources and try to come to a conclusion about what the "describers-as-misogynist" have in common, or whether any of them are particularly notable. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting removal of text from lead

I think the first paragraph of the Movement section supports this (for a start). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "history section" - Questionable structure of perspectives within the article

Now, I do acknowledge that this article follows almost exactly the same structure as that of Feminism, but that's also exactly the problem.

The concept of MRM is that feminism started out beneficial but eventually became misandric. By extension this would mean that early MRM started out misogynistic (since it opposed a beneficial feminist movement) but eventually became beneficial since it opposed misandry.

So if both articles start with the early history of the movements, then that means it makes feminism look good and MRM look bad, since people doing brief reads of huge articles will focus on text near the top.

In the interest of fairness, I suggest rearranging the sections of the articles so that the legitimate points made by the modern MRM sit above misogynistic history that is of questionable relevance to the MRM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.52.136 (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about fairness so much as it is about reflecting reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The "forerunners" aren't even related to the MRM though. MRM is an egalitarian response to how feminism has created legal and cultural double standards favouring women, especially in jurisdiction. Those double standards didn't exist (at least not in the favour of women) when these "forerunners" existed; the "forerunners" were an anti-egalitarian movement, as far as you can get from the MRM. Hence, while both make an enemy out of feminism, the purpose and context of the two movements are completely different. Now, unless somebody can demonstrate that the "forerunners" are actually related to the Men's Rights Movement in terms of both motive of the movement and the former begetting the latter, I shall remove the "forerunners" section. People wishing to preserve this information may create a separate article for it, or find one it belongs in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.86.6 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should wait a bit. While there surely were MRMs quite unlike MRAs of today, this only goes to show that goals can change, as it happened with e.g. feminism, "pro-afro-american" efforts (excuse the awkward label, it's meant to cover history from Wilberforce to Obama), medicine, breeders of belgian shepherds ... Change, or development, is probably actually the norm, not the exception. And while there may be no direct continuity or membership overlap, this history goes to show that men have been aware of and concerned with gender issues well before the late 20th century. This is important for men to know.

T 85.166.160.236 (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It still wasn't a men's rights movement though, it was an anti women's-rights movement. The two movements have contexts and goals that are so different, they're inverse of each other. One movement was set in a misogynistic society, one was set in a misandric one. One movement was started to preserve sexism, one was started to abolish it. They're as different as they can be, I can't see how any connection between the two could be justified. It would only fit alongside the MRM in an antifeminism article, since both movements have strong feelings against feminism (albeit for different reasons). Speaking of which, I notice that there is actually an antifeminism article, but it doesn't contain a lot of the information given in the "forerunners" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.32.219 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources say it was the MRM, or its predecessor. RS also say that they are linked. No reason to remove it. Comparing it to the feminism article is false equivalency. Deal with what the sources say about this topic, not how the article looks compared to others. PS - WP:SILENCE is broken. No consensus for this removal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

To add, The concept of MRM is that feminism started out beneficial but eventually became misandric. By extension this would mean that early MRM started out misogynistic (since it opposed a beneficial feminist movement) but eventually became beneficial since it opposed misandry. is WP:OR. Need an RS to back up that rather bold claim. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Show me that there is a relationship between the two things that goes further than arbitrary assumption that the two are related. I've requested a proof(not the preaching of a source, unless the source itself has a proof) of a relationship, and in the interest of keeping information clean I'm just going to keep on removing the section until there is one. Come on, many wish they could debate with their own reasoning rather than sources, and yet now that it's the style of debating required here, you're not playing along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.37.140 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No, our own opinions and analysis don't matter here - see no original research. We go by what reliable sources say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As others have said, our own opinions and analysis don't matter. Equally, it doesn't matter what other Wikipedia articles look like. Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect the contents of reliable sources, and those sources describe the history of the MRM in the way this article did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Men's rights activists contest claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women.."

this is inaccurate and should be removed from the article , sources for this claim ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderdrago (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The intro summarizes the rest of the article, and individual portions of that statement are sourced throughout the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is supported by the Relation to feminism, parts of the Movement, and the "female privilege" section (which is completely redundant btw). Please read the rest of the article before changing the leas section next time. --SonicY (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. Another red editor whose entire wikipedia output is in this one article. Don't expect too much from him/her. Better just make that "him." Carptrash (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Access to diaper changing facilities

In 2013, a government study found that 90% of fathers who lived with children under five years old bathed, diapered, or dressed their children every day or several times a week.^[1] Despite this study finding high levels of father involvement when it comes to changing diapers, many public buildings, restaurants, and retail businesses do not provide equal access to diaper changing facilities for men; with diaper changing tables often provided in the women's restroom, but not available in the men's restroom. Actor Ashton Kutcher has publicly spoken out about the lack of diaper changing facilities available to fathers, sparking a national debate about the issue.^[2] Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Miami-Dade County are some of the early adopters of legislation requiring public buildings to be outfitted with diaper changing tables available to both men and women.^[3]

Is this an area of concern for the MRM? I tried to update the page with this issue a few days ago and my change was reverted because I couldn't point directly to the MRM. This is definitely a source of inequality between men and women! If this is an area of concern for the MRM, or an issue they've already spoken to, can someone point me to a reliable source so this can be added back to the issues list on the main article page? Thanks! Shazen27 (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

References

^ Jones J, Mosher WD. Fathers’ involvement with their children: United States, 2006–2010. National health statistics reports; no 71. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2013.[1]
^ "Ashton Kutcher says dads diaper, too!"[2]
^ "Potty parity: Dads fight for diaper-changing tables in men's rooms" [3]

This issue is among those addressed at Masculism. Given that the definition of masculism encompasses "the rights of men", it may be prudent to start considering whether a merge with that article is warranted. Rhoark (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about what secondary reliable sources describe as related to the MRM, not what Wikipedia editors personally think are men's rights issues. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can find reliable secondary and tertiary sources that report on the matter of Men's Rights Activists protesting female-only diaper changing facilities then feel free to add it, as long as it meets the standards, but I must remind you of the fact that talk pages are not a forum. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPill

Under the sections History - Movement: Other sites dedicated to men's rights issues are Roosh V's Return of Kings, the Fathers Rights Foundation, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and subreddits /r/MensRights and /r/TheRedPill.

It is factually incorrect to classify TheRedPill as a site dedicated to men's rights issues. They explicitly say: "[...]and it does not help men become more in-control and actualized versions of themselves free of feminine primary social conditioning. Which, alongside optimizing sexual strategy, is the primary intent of red pill theory."^[1]

Here is an anti-MRM person saying pretty much the same thing: "/r/TheRedPill is a subreddit that spun off from other communities built around pick-up-artistry, based upon the idea that to succeed sexually with women, one must “swallow the red pill” and accept misogynistic “truths” about the nature of women. [...] More than just a sexual strategy, it aspires to be a lifestyle and a way of looking at the world that maximizes the happiness of men through sexist viewpoints.[...]/r/MensRights is a subreddit for men who believe that men’s rights are currently infringed upon and they wish to combat this in society. [...] They frequently focus on issues such as paternal custody rights, male rape, the gender wage gap (something most MRAs dismiss entirely) and what it perceives to be gender-based double-standards. These are issues that The Red Pill never focuses on, preferring instead to muse about the base nature of women and how to “game” the system in their attempts to conquer them."^[2]

In other words, RedPillers do not advocate to change laws or try to change the opinion of people outside their community. They do not really care about inequality between men and women. It is purely a self-actualization movement that focuses on increasing the happiness of their members. The general solution they propose is not: 'society should change', but: 'you should change.' MRM is the opposite.

I think it is important for an encyclopedia to use the proper terms for things. The proper catch-all term for both MRM and TheRedPill-sites is the manosphere, but not all manosphere sites are MRM (the manosphere consists of all sites dedicated to male issues & viewpoints, where men's rights is only 1 specific men's issue). It would be just as silly to classify a website dedicated to women's health issues as feminism. So there should be a clear distinction made between the manosphere and MRM. Aapjes (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... This needs better sources. The current statement connecting r/redpill and the MRM is to an article at The Daily Beast, which is an WP:RS. Neither of the sources mentioned for the counterpoint are usable. Reddit posts are WP:UGC and should very rarely be used at all, and virtually never as sources of fact. Additionally the quote you mention doesn't specifically say anything about MRM, so while I see your point, using that to suggest that there is a difference would be WP:SYNTH. Additionally, a quick search for the word "rights" on that page shows a comment by a mod specifically comparing r/redpill to /r/menrights site metrics, implying that they are categorically similar, according to that mod, at least, but again, not a usable source.

The piece by The Flounce raises many interesting points, but it also doesn't appear to be usable. It's secondary, which is good, but their about page is a dead link, and their FAQ doesn't suggest much in the way of editorial oversight that would suggest this is other than an opinion piece. The author's comment that the two don't have a lot of overlap is cited to a another reddit post. So we're back where we started. We have a reliable source saying they're related, and an opinion piece saying they're not, and a forum post that is not entirely clear. Grayfell (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Beast article simply states that TheRedPill is part of the MRM, without any sources or arguments. In fact, the writer makes a glaring error in the part of the article where he states that TheRedPill is part of the MRM: "Once you know where to look, it turns out the number of websites devoted to the different flavors of the MRM is legion. A large number of subreddits cater to the movement, including Reddit-Men’s Rights and Reddit- TheRedPill. Other sites, such as Return of Kings, somehow manage to peg the practice of picking up women at bars as a key element in the struggle for men’s civil rights." Picking up women is a key part of the TheRedPill forum, yet the author says that this is true for Return of Kings, but not for TheRedPill. So he doesn't seem to understand what TheRedPill stands for. How can this then be a WP:RS?

The first link I used is not a random post on Reddit, but a statement by the moderator of the group on the nature of that group. That statement pretty clearly says that their main purpose is different from the definition that Wikipedia gives of the MRM movement: "The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who are concerned about what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression". I think that the way a group or movement self-identifies is always relevant. That doesn't mean that their views are automatically correct or universally shared, but IMO it can never be acceptable to write something on Wikipedia that the group themselves object to, without at least mentioning their objections. The second link wasn't intended as a source for the Wiki page, but more to show that the anti-MRA 'side' do not all believe that TheRedPill is part of the MRM. I also looked around a bit more and found this on Wikipedia: "The idea of the red pill is also used as one of the core ideas of the subreddit called The Red Pill, which uses the pill metaphor in reference to men realizing the truth regarding the differences between the sexes and the truth of attractions between them"^[3]. The fact that there is no mention of men's rights in this statement means that Wikipedia is currently inconsistent on this matter, IMO.

I have been unable to find WP:RS that discuss the relationship between the groups. It's all blogs or manosphere sites. However, that also means that the current statement is just an opinion that doesn't belong on Wikipedia and should be changed to be WP:NPOV. Aapjes (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has helpfully added some additional sources supporting the connection. This Business Insider source specifically makes a distinction between /r/redpill and MRM groups, and I have rephrased the other article to reflect that. The phrase "the red pill" is commonly used by MRAs, which many, many sources comment on, so it's an understandable misconception. Even the BI source makes it clear there is overlap. The quote you originally use is about the mods willingness to ban people who debate points they considered settled (or just because they think it's unproductive) and isn't directly about MRM, although I suppose that could be what they are referring to. If the mod post really is about MRM, it's not obvious, so this needs WP:SECONDARY sources, otherwise it's synth from a very questionable source, which is never going to fly. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"The phrase "the red pill" is commonly used by MRAs, which many, many sources comment on, so it's an understandable misconception" The phrase refers to the moment when people come to the belief that the gender roles for men in society are beneficial to women (with the caveat that a decent number also believe that it benefits a minority of men, often called 'Alpha' men). The sources on the Red_pill_and_blue_pill page say the same, so I had to change your revision again, which didn't match those sources. The concept of the Red Pill (realization) doesn't require that the person with these beliefs wants to change the situation (advocacy). Only the latter is MRM IMO. It's actually a rather unique characteristic of the manosphere that there are a decent number of men who either want to become 'Alpha' men (/r/redpill & Return of Kings) and thus want to benefit from the perceived inequality or attempt to reject the gender roles by avoiding long term relationships with women (MGTOW). Neither group necessarily advocates for the rights of non-'Alpha' men.

This is my personal understanding though and not sourced. One of the major issues is that there seems to be a lack of in depth analysis by the media into the movement or scientific research into their beliefs. As such, many sources do not make a distinction between the sites, which makes them unsuitable sources IMO. After all, these different websites are clearly not exactly the same, so any statement of their similarity without pointing out their differences, indicates a lack of sufficiently in depth analysis. This is a larger issue with WP:RS IMO. I remember that at the beginning of the Internet revolution, national newspapers would make gigantic mistakes in their stories about the Internet, due to a lack of knowledge. This knowledge built up over time and they are now WP:RS on that subject. But the idea that sources that are generally WP:RS, are so on every subject is highly questionable.

Anyway, the meaning and use of the phrase "the red pill" in general is irrelevant to the question of whether a sub forum like /r/redpill is part of the MRM, which depends on their beliefs and actions. IMO, a self-actualization movement is very different from an advocacy movement and at the very least, the distinction should be made clear. This doesn't mean that a definitive choice has to be made to state whether or not /r/redpill & Return of Kings is part of the MRM, but the statement that these movements are definitely part of the MRM is not NPOV. Aapjes (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

References

"The men's rights movement... reject feminist and profeminist ideas"

Under the 'Relation to feminism section': "The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which reject feminist and profeminist ideas"

This statement suggests men's rights movements are always positioned in opposition to feminism. This isn't true - the unifying factor among men's rights movements is that they oppose gender inequality that disadvantages men - which isn't inherently a challenge to feminism at all. Feminism and Masculism are often indirectly pursuing the same goal (gender equality), rather than pushing gender supremacy (with some exceptions among 'extremists'). Could somebody consider tweaking this please? 206.132.97.132 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If you consider citing mainstream published academic sources. The current formulation of the lede does, your claims do not. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The portion of the wiki article quoted is not in 'the lede', and the International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities cited doesn't state that 'The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which reject feminist and profeminist ideas.' If the text cited doesn't make this blanket statement, not only is it an incorrect reference but it's an unsupported statement even by Wikipedia's guidelines. 77.99.12.140 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The first line of the entry "Men's Rights" says "The concept of men's rights generally embraces a variety of points of view that are overwhelmingly hostile to feminism or pro-feminism." If anything, we toned it down.

If you're going to lie, don't bother posting. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian, I'm not lying so kindly refrain from childish accusations. That 'generally' is pretty important. It's the difference between 'often', and 'always'. The way the reference is used in this article doesn't temper the statement with 'generally'. It simply states men's rights groups reject feminist ideas. You'll also note that text is referring to 'the concept', not any specific groups. So again, it's incorrect to use this reference in this way. It's lazy, frankly. How about at the very least including the 'generally', as per reference? 206.132.97.132 (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Might be interesting to note that while many of their views are anti-feminist (or more specifically Radical Feminism), MRA's have expressed respect for the viewpoints for Christina Hoff Sommers before and if memory serves me right, they do also hold similar views of Camile Paglia. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they more anti-radical feminist than anti-feminist? If you actually look at woman following feminism (the true dictionary term, not the radical feminists) and compare it to the majority of the MRM, I can find little that (bar a minor disagreement or criticism) they severly clash on.121.210.129.173 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Normal feminist scholars consider Paglia and Sommers to be anti-feminist. The idea that MRAs respect Paglia and Sommers is in keeping with this definition. Paglia and Sommers both are in favor of retaining elements of traditional social hierarchy that elevate the male figure. No wonder MRAs like them. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what you call a 'normal feminist scholars', Paglia is questionable as a feminist but Sommers is definitely still a feminist and she herself is against the idea of radical feminists as they are of her ideas. Really, it's just a different sub-groups fighting and to say MRA's are innately Anti-Feminists is technically a false/too broad a statement if they actually agree with feminists. Please, elaborate on how the mentioned feminists are upholding the traditional social hierarchy and what you define as 'traditional'. From the comments of MRA's I've seen, it seems more to me like they respect the fact people like the mentioned feminists for their questioning of radical feminism's views rather than upholding a traditional social hierarchy. 121.210.129.173 (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sommers is not "definitely" still a feminist. She self-identifies as an "equity" feminist but other feminists - and the vast majority of reliable sources on this subject - make it very clear that she's an anti-feminist. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. See the long list here of scholars of feminism who have described Sommers as working against feminism. That's what I mean by normal feminists; the mainstream view of scholars who study feminism. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a random linguistic comment - "Scholars" in the intro should read "Some scholars". Inferring that some scholars means all scholars is an obvious fallacy. Feel free to delete this, but I figure wikipedia should come off knowing what it's talking about, rather than extending fallacies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.131.134 (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about Templates

What is the protocol for deciding which templates to use at the bottom of a page? Having finished this article, I went looking for more to read, but the templates were of little help. The "Masculism" one was a natural fit, and "men's rights movement" is one of the included links. But the other two just feel kinda... off. I suppose the inclusion of the "Discrimination" template was due to the lede's mention that "Some sectors of the movement have been described as misogynistic," though I'm not sure how we justify categorizing a movement based on how parts of it are described by its fiercest critics (I doubt many people would approve of adding a "Fascism" template to the George W. Bush page, for instance). Lastly, I'd consider the inclusion of the "Domestic Violence" template to be the most bizarre -- while the MRM does address issues of domestic violence, with special focus on violence against men, that is only one of quite a long list of issues, as seen in the article itself. Why do we select that template and only that template for further reading? We should either provide templates covering all of the issues listed in the articles, or limit ourselves to the templates most obviously applicable to the topic at hand. PublicolaMinor (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The relevant pages would be Wikipedia:Navigation templates and MOS:FOOTERS. MRM is related to discrimination from multiple perspectives. In addition to it's association with antifeminism and discrimination by men, the MRM is also centrally concerned with possible discrimination of men by women and society. The accuracy of those perspectives isn't really the important part, since both are treated as defining traits by sources, and the template is just a convenience for further reading anyway. The template is useful for that reason. Masculism is obvious. The Domestic violence template is less clear-cut, but it does contain a number of articles on topics connected to MRM, such as Domestic violence against men, Marital rape, Men's rights in domestic violence, Misandry, and Misogyny. Since it is intended to be a convenience, I don't see any problem. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

/r/TheRedPill

From my understanding, the misogynists at /r/TheRedPill consider the MRM and /r/MensRights to be betas who reject gender biotruths. Would it be fair to categorize to as part of this movement? I'm sorry if I got anything wrong, it just seems to me that Roosh V and /r/TheRedPill hate MRM's rejection of biotruths.

However, how I see it, the MRM believes women have unjust privilege at the expense of men and the Red Pill Movement believe that men are being feminine and they believe that's wrong. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 08:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This matches my observations, but the sources are still too vague to go into that level of detail. Right now, sources treat them as overlapping groups. Since there are no membership cards or loyalty pledges, these websites and subreddits have no monopoly on the MRM label, and participation is fluid and anonymous. Per the discussion above, some weaker sources do make a distinction between the groups, but others emphatically lump them together. Part of the confusion stems from the phrase "red pill", which is widely supported as being commonly used by many MRM groups, while "/r/theredpill" is a smaller subset with some significant differences. However, lacking more definitive sources (independent, secondary ones) there's not much more to say about it. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Men as rape victims section

A recent section was added on Men as rape victims, and then quickly removed due to lack of RS [[7]]. While I agree that the source was shaky as a source on the numbers and statistics presented, it does highlight the need for a section like this. Some better sources for such a section that I could find on short notice that corroborate the claims made include:

http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

https://rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/hard-truth-girl-guy-rape/

http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2015/06/male-rape-charity-has-had-its-funding-slashed-zero-where-are-all-outraged-men

as well as this whole section on female on male rape in Rape of males, where it is stated categorically as under studied. Just thought I'd chuck some sources at the wall if anyone has the time to undertake a section like this as this is a common thing that MRAs often bring up. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere} 18:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Only the newstatesman.com article mentions the Men's rights movement in any depth. I think the Rape of males article would indeed be the appropriate place for the other stuff.PearlSt82 (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats fair, i was more talking about statistics in general would probably need to be cited along with MRA claims, and so providing some handy sources would help.

As for more on males as victims from MRAs See this paragraph from Rape culture#Criticisms which puts the point that MRAs often try to make (obviously this would have to be reworked, but is useful):

[Christina Hoff] Sommers and others[87] have specifically questioned Mary Koss's oft-cited 1984 study that claimed 1 in 4 college women have been victims of rape, charging it overstated rape of women and downplayed the incidence of men being the victims of unwanted sex. According to Sommers, as many as 73% of the subjects of Koss's study disagreed with her characterization that they had been raped,[88] while others have pointed out that Koss's study focused on the victimization of women, downplaying the significance of sexual victimization of men,[87] even though its own data indicated one in seven college men had been victims of unwanted sex.[89] Sommers points out that Koss had deliberately narrowed the definition of unwanted sexual encounters for men to instances where men were penetrated.[90]

Certainly the section should have a link to the main article Rape of males somewhere in it as well. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere} 19:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits

This edit [8] was recently reverted twice. The inclusion of "consider to be" or other similar WP:WTW seems to be a ongoing issue. I found one previous discussion here: [9] but the main argument for removal (which I included in my edit summary) was not addressed. The phrase The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who are concerned about issues of male disadvantage does not imply "male disadvantage" exists, only that those in the movement believe it does. We would similarly write "The alternative medicine movement is concerned with acupuncture and aroma therapy" or "the witchcraft movement is concerned with spells and potions" - neither implies the beliefs or practices are valid (which is something we should and do examine in the article.) It seems like a straightforward change. Are there other examples where we qualify the beliefs of a group? Perhaps those discussions raise relevant points. D.Creish (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the examples you've given are exactly equivalent. Acupuncture and aroma therapy exist (although their efficacy is doubtful.) There is no article on the 'witchcraft movement' as far as I know. Are there any specific articles you could point to where something similar is described in the way you're advocating? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Easy enough. Christianity

Christianity s an Abrahamic monotheistic[1] religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament.

or how about Collectivism

Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the significance of groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.—and tends to analyze issues in those terms.

We don't say "supposed teachings considered to be presented in the New Testament" (per WTW) or "alleged significance of groups." We get into the validity of the beliefs in the articles, which is what I'm suggesting here. Stating the beliefs of a group does not imply we or the consensus of sources believe they're accurate. D.Creish (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Both cited sources refer to discrimination or disadvantage against men, without weasel words such as "what they consider to be". The article should reflect the fact that men face discrimination and disadvantage. AfungusAmongus (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Other previous discussions on this issue can be found here and here. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the OP here, 'consider to be' are weak ineffectual weasel words which ultimately say nothing as the opinions of MRA's are the only thing that we are reporting on in this sentence anyway. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere} 11:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

[1] Jones J, Mosher WD. Fathers’ involvement with their children: United States, 2006–2010. National health statistics reports; no 71. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2013.[1]

[2] "Ashton Kutcher says dads diaper, too!"[2]

[3] "Potty parity: Dads fight for diaper-changing tables in men's rooms" [3]

[4] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/35aj75/mod_the_red_pill_is_not_democratic_it_cannot_be/

[5] ttp://theflounce.com/three-things-crackeds-article-mras-gets-horribly-wrong-mrm-still-total-horseshit/

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill#See_also

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]