Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:12, 28 January 2007

Gender studies Unassessed

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

No, Ma'am

What about the group "No Ma'am" from the American television show Married With Children? VarunRajendran

Please don't make light of a serious subject in attempting to ignore or dismiss its validity by ridiculing or deriding it. Anyway, that so-called men's group on that particular sitcom is not at all the same as the groups/movement being discussed in this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.100.126 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 29 December 2006.

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. bastel 06:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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.

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. -Akiva Quinn 02:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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. Misplaced Pages:How to write a great article, e.g. a lead section, somewhat longer paragraphs (some critical voices would be nice to).bastel 03:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

POV

Not sure about this, but it seems this page has a subtle POV to it.

e.g. "This can lead to the mistaken perception that such measures are anti-women."

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. 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?bastel 03:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"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 - 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? --69.158.50.199 10:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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. 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

I am not sure but atleast in India following ways men are discuriminated against

1. women pay less taxes at the same salary levels
2. Women can adopt children men cannot
3. Women can legally force a man to marry her under the threat of Rape laws.
4. Women have special Buses and trains , men do not 
5. Women get free legal aid without economic criteria , Men do not 
6. Women's Adultery is not crim Men's Adultery is 
& these are just some of the ways in which men are dicsriminated againt Dysprosia 09:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the legitimacy of Men's Rights:

Where 75% of divorces are filed by women, and in 85% of these cases men get nothing more than a child support order out of it, this is a prima facie case for men's rights. I suggest that male feminists do not hold an NPOV with respect the the issue of "Men's Rights", and therefore should not be permitted to edit this topic. If feminist men can define "Men's Rights", then "Mens Rights" would necessarily be only what feminists define it to be. If it were deemed that "feminist men" hold NPOV with respect to Men's Rights, then perhaps Republicans should be able to define Democrats in Misplaced Pages.

Therefore, only legitimate established members of the men's rights movement should be able to edit the men's rights section. davidrusher

NPOV January 2006

{{POV}}

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

• Daddy rights: issues of special concern to men, mostly around divorce and family law
  
• Gay rights movement: including the huge gains made by men regarding civil liberties for homosexuals
  
• Pro-feminist men: who support the feminist movement but wish to do so from a masculine position
  
• Mythopoetic men: such as the Jungian archetype folks and readers of Robert Bly's Iron John
  

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? Rorybowman 05:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions:

"Daddy Rights" is another word for father's rights. Links in the MRM sections can point to FR.

"Gay Rights" is not a part of the MRM and conflicts with it directly. GR's are very feminist men. :This could be mentioned in the MRM discussion, with pointers to the GR section.

"Pro-feminism" or "feminist men", as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, is an anachronism and :again not part of the MRM. FM's are usually not particularly interested in MR, rather, they are :more focused on destroying the MRM, or trying to reshape it to become a subset of feminism. :Pro-feminist men are usually folks who work in government collecting child support, or as feminist

psychologists (as Warren Farrell once was); or as attorneys representing female clients, and are :frequently younger men in or just out of college, where they are programmed to "be" feminist men. :This category should be in the wiki::feminism section, with pointers to it in the MRM section.

"Mythopoetic men" are not a part of the MRM. Mythopoetics are men who are trying to find their :own masculine identities in a feminist world. They are not interested in "rights". MPM writings :tend to be philosophical exercises in Socratism or existentialism, and often end up placing men as :passive objects at the fringe feminist culture -- which is why MPM's often end up beating drums in :the woods, and other nostalgic male-like activities. MPM could be mentioned in this section, but :Wiki should have a seperate section for MPM where MPM's can fill it out according to their :understandings.

I point out here that one of the reasons why feminism consists of so many conjoined but wildly :opposing viewpoints( many think it is about equality, when in fact the majority of feminist :strains are against it), is that radical feminists went to great lengths to project the image of :equality, when in fact they are largely doing everything except equality. It is therefore :important to keep the different incompatible strains of "male thinking" separated according to the :"species" of the thinking and purpose.

I point out here that one of the reasons why feminism consists of so many conjoined but wildly :opposing viewpoints (many think it is about equality, when in fact the majority of feminist :strains are against it), is that radical feminists went to great lengths to project the image of :equality, when in fact they are largely doing everything except equality. It is therefore :important to keep the different incompatible strains of "male thinking" separated according to the :"species" of the thinking and purpose.

I hope folks understand why it is important to keep these various incongruous groups of men :clearly defined and separated. Where the MRM and feminist movements are so strikingly :incompatible, it is inappropriate to pretend that various forks of feminism are somehow a part of the MRM.

davidrusher

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. 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. -- 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. -- 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 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? Rorybowman 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the legitimacy of Men's Rights:

See my posting above under the "Mens Rights?" topic. Feminists do everything they can to erase the issue of men's rights from this planet (they actually nearly succeeded in removing the word "Misandry" from Webster's Dictionary -- an issue I argued and won with Webster's).

With Respect to Warren Farrell: Warren is a friend of mine, and I have been to various conventions and events with him. Warren was VP of New York N.O.W. for some years. His job was to do relationship counseling according to feminist psychological standards, which means blaming all disagreement on the male, and letting the woman run everything. As he put it, his payback was to have pretty feminist women lined up at his doorstep for a date, and all the work he could handle. But he could no longer stand the psychological malpractice feminists demanded, so he changed sides and wrote "The Myth of Male Power". Warren is not a masculist or a feminist (both imply innate biases according to the gender of the speaker). Warren stands for equality between men and women, which is what the legitimate Men's Movement stands for.

I strongly oppose permitting anyone holding feminist perspectives to edit or shape the Men's Rights section. Feminists do not hold NPOV with respect to Mens Rights, and therefore cannot accurately describe the movement as it truly exists.

As regards "masculism" and men's or father's rights: Both these issues necessarily rise from a male perspective. But masculism (which includes many inegalitarian beliefs) falls into radicalism not supported by the legitimate men's movement. Masculism is every bit as radical as is feminism. Both perspectives boil down to gender war. The legitimate men's movement is an equalitarian movement, that has in my 20 years of very active involvement worked for true equality between men and women, is neither masculist or feminist. By and large, the men's movement has largely worked to protect or defend marriage, albeit during the early years, the approaches they used were reactively defensive and did not come across as being related to protecting marriage. A slogan I came up with in the mid-80's became the standard slogan of the MRM. "We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family" is perhaps the most accurate description of what the men's and father's rights movement is all about. I hope this clears up a lot of misunderstanding about the MRM for those who are obviously struggling with what this movement is all about.

--davidrusher

Men's movement is now introduction to this

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? 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. -- Paul foord 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I might be able to help out here.

How it actually works out there: Most men are not interesting in men's or fathers rights until they are hit with divorce or paternity fraud/rape. Then they are extremely interested in it. Not all men are fathers, and therefore those men are not interested in father's rights. Sll fathers are interested in men's rights after being hit with divorce or paternity/rape. However, father's tend to think of their interests as being "father's rights", not "men's rights". So, these issues are muddled in the minds of many men out there.

However, for the purposes of pure classification, we can say that father's rights is technically a subset of men's rights. All fathers are men, but not all men are fathers.

To prevent duplicity in these two categories, I suggest keeping the fathers rights section limited to issues of child custody (divorce|illegitimacy|procreational rights|child abuse), move all sections not directly related to "father's rights" into the men's rights category, and refer these topics into the appropriate men's rights topics.

--Davidrusher 02:33, 26 December 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. -- 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. Rorybowman 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge: Men's rights is civil law. Father's rights is family law. — Dzonatas 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. -- Paul foord 12:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree these sections should not be merged. --Davidrusher 02:36, 26 December 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. - 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?

Better in what? I like the "Sledgehammer-Teacup" dichotomy. Men ARE better than women in certain fields, just as women ARE better than men in certain fields(on average, of course...). Robinson0120 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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. 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. Dysprosia 13:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Equality for women equals equality for men. Either you support equality of the sexes or you don't. "Equality for men" as distinct from "equality for women" makes no sense. Most if not all men's rights advocates support equality; in contrast, the "pro-feminist men's movement," as distinct from simply the many men who support feminism, focuses on blaming men for subjugating women and ridiculing men for claiming that any discrimination against men exists. As such, it is not part of the men's rights movement; quite the opposite, it is a force against the men's rights movement. It should definitely not be listed as part of it, and in fact as it stands the article contradicts itself by pointing out the criticisms this group of so-called "pro-feminist men" have of the men's rights movement. Blackworm 12:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many pro-feminist men in the men's rights movement. However, they do not represent the men's movement any more than someone who only opposes lynching is a civil rights advocate.

Most men alive today were raised steeped in feminism. They have no interest in men's or father's rights. When they are hit with a divorce, or a paternity suit by some woman who said she was on the pill, they get very interested in men's rights. But it takes them a long time to extricate themselves from feminist beliefs burned into their heads. I call these guys "recovering feminists". There are also many women who fit this description as well (most of them are second wives). There are also a good number of feminist men who troll the men's movement in an attempt to neuter it politically. These are usually men who in some way earn a living within the divorce industry. These guys are usually easy to spot because they lobby for perspectives that are obviously antithetical to equal rights, or they sound like they want equal rights but always end up blaming everything on men.

My opinion on compatibility: feminism (which includes feminist men) and men's rights are incompatible at the root level. While there are a couple of relatively small strains of feminism, such as egalitarian (equalitarian) feminism that advocate for true bi-directional equality, feminism at the root level is not equalitarian. If you look at what N.O.W. advocates, or the perspectives seen in wiki feminism section, there is literally nothing that is male-inclusive. Most everything is "vagina centered" and calls for social structures that operate exclusively of men. Yet, equalitarian feminists continue to battle over a word that is inequalitarian on its face, perhaps in the belief they can displace the entitled feminists that actually run the feminist movement.

If anything, equalitarian and "backlash" feminism are misnomers. By definition, feminism connotes "female centric" perspectives. So, "backlash" or "equalitarian" feminists are not actually feminists -- they are individuals who advocate for rebalancing men's and women's rights. It is interesting that, in contrast, the men's rights movement calls for equal rights, not inegalitarian "male centric" policies. By and large, the Men's movement and "equalitarian feminists" are upon full analysis, the legitimate marriage movement: men's advocates oppose irresponsible divorce and strengthening of the marriage contract.

In the larger sense: forty years of entitled feminism moved the pendulum well outside all reasonable boundaries of equality, particularly with respect to marriage and civil rights law. The men's rights movement is the "other shoe" coming down -- a movement working to pull the pendulum back where it should have been all along.

I hope this gives a better understanding to a situation that is extremely messy.

--Davidrusher 03:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say it like this but your opinion does not matter. Your statement is neither neutral nor is it verifiable. Misplaced Pages Talk pages are not for original research or personal perspectives.--Cailil 19:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

True, Cailil, but since Usher is a major proponent of the men's rights movement, he could simply add some material to the article and then source himself... Robinson0120 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I refer you to WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:POVPUSH. No matter how expert any one of us is we cannot just cite ourselves such work must be verifiabile and must not be seen as a violation of the No Orginal research policy. Being a proponent of men's rights does not neccessarily mean his work conforms to Misplaced Pages standards. The above point of view is contestable and, in its present form, unverifiable (specifiaclly: By and large, the Men's movement and "equalitarian feminists" are upon full analysis, the legitimate marriage movement: men's advocates oppose irresponsible divorce and strengthening of the marriage contract.). Please bear in mind that talk pages are subject to the same rules as articles.--Cailil 15:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

All: My statements are NPOV with respect to MRM. That is the only standard that can be applied. Additional background provided to provide a better understanding of what the MRM is, what it is not, and how the feminist diaspora works to bury the MRM movement or pretend that male perspectives on social issues are somehow invalid.

The MRM is not a large movement with a large body of published writers from which to draw from. There are only a handful of universities that even have a mens' studies course. Go to your local library and try to find more than 3 books by legitimate MRM writers in it. Therefore, there will not be a lot of individuals either interested in, or qualified to describe the MRM.

For those who might think the MRM section has sections that are undercited, unverified, or perhaps written from an NPOV perspective, I suggest that the MRM section cannot be held to a higher standard that the many paragraphs of uncited drivel in wikipedia::feminism. For example, the following Wiki section contains a huge collection of very broad statements and observations that are not cited. In fact, there are only 2 cites for the whole section. (Please note that below feminists who believe in "equality between men and women" are but one aspect of "feminism", whereas the MRM is entirely devoted to equality):

(quote)

Feminism in many forms

Some feminist theories question basic assumptions about gender, gender difference and sexuality, including the category of "woman" itself as a holistic concept, and some question the male/female dichotomy, offering instead a multiplicity of genders. Still other feminist theories take for granted the concept of "woman" and provide specific analyses and critiques of gender inequality, and most feminist social movements promote women's rights, interests and issues. Several subtypes of feminist ideology have developed over the years. Early feminists and primary feminist movements are often called the first-wave feminists, and feminists after about 1960 the second-wave feminists. More recently, some younger feminists have identified themselves as third-wave feminists while the second-wave feminists are still active.

In her book A Fearful Freedom: Women's Flight from Equality, Wendy Kaminer identifies another conflict between forms of feminism: the conflict between what she calls "egalitarian" and "protectionist" feminism. She sees egalitarian feminism as promoting equality between women and men through the granting of equal rights. Protectionist feminists prefer to focus on legal protections for women, such as employment laws and divorce laws that protect women, sometimes advocating restricting men's rights, such as free speech (specifically, the right to produce and consume pornography). Though the book predates third-wave feminism, Kaminer identifies both protectionist and egalitarian currents within first-wave feminism and second-wave feminism.

Some radical feminists, such as Mary Daly, Charlotte Bunch and Marilyn Frye, have advocated separatism—a complete separation of male and female in society and culture— others question not only the relationship between men and women, but the very meaning of "man" and "woman" as well (see Queer theory). Some argue that gender roles, gender identity and sexuality are themselves social constructs (see also heteronormativity). For these feminists, feminism is a primary means to human liberation (i.e., the liberation of men as well as women).

Most— certainly not all— feminists are women. There are exclusively male organizations sympathetic to the feminist view who believe the dominant model of manhood or masculinity is oppressive to women and limiting for men.

While many ideas are held in common between its various forms, there is debate about feminism concerning which of them should be labelled or considered part of the philosophy."

(end quote)

If any editor feels the MRM section should be held to a higher standard that the section on feminism, and every word documented to the nth degree, perhaps that editor is serving the interests of feminists in keeping the MRM section devoid of shape or definition? I would note to the editors that if feminists are permitted to interfere with this section, this will certainly become an issue for the MRM to take on, because Misplaced Pages should not allow feminists to force their POV on the MRM.

davidrusher

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.--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" 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

Rhythmic01 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated but shouldn't we verify if that is considered original research? NeoApsara 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by original reseach? 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?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. NeoApsara 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--Davidrusher 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the critics section is a mess. Feminists typically cite things in ways that are convenient to their perspective: claiming that men's advocates are "alarmist" does not represent the facts of the issue. The few documented studies on false domestic abuse allegations document the fact that at least 40% of them are false. So, men's advocates are not being alarmist. If one wants to talk about alarmism, the U.N. Secretary General's report on Violence Against Women was unanimously rejected by the Third Committee after an article I wrote proved that their central claim that "70% of women in India are beaten or raped" was pure fiction. You can see relevant articles on this at: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/12/domestic-violence-rumor-mill-runs-the-united-nations/ http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/19/feminist-takeover-of-the-un-is-an-issue-of-national-security/ http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20061204.php

The biggest problem we will face maintaining a men's rights section is to keep it on topic, and not a reflections of what the army of women's studies advocates wants it to look like.

Notice of reversion coming up

This article has had a large number of edits by one person in the past 3 days. Essentially, the effect has been to push an advertisement in the middle of the page, and to do some really odd formatting. I'm reverting those changes, back to the version by Yakuman on 3 September 2006. -- ArglebargleIV 03:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this artical being overhauled by a feminist.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on wikipedia!!! Someone should look into this!!! Mjal 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no restriction that you have to subscribe to a certain point of view just to edit an article -- that would be ridiculous. Getting editors with different points of views helps to attain NPOV, not detract from it. Dysprosia 10:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be some restrictions as to who can edit what, or some way to authenticate the POV of the editor. Allowing feminists (who do not have an NPOV) to edit the core of the men's rights section would be tantamount to allowing the KKK to edit the core of wiki holocaust section. We should not permit historical revisionists to redefine history or reality: however, their POV should be permitted in the critics section.

--Davidrusher 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Men's rights are still in the Dark Ages

The article illustrates the illogical garbage passing for "criticism" of Men's Rights:

In defense of women (all emphasis mine):

"In the majority of these cases , the women act in response to physical or psychological provocations or threats."

But not a defense for men (again, emphasis mine):

"Further, critics accuse men's rights advocates of defending male abuse, , and even rallying behind abusers. Critics allege men's rights advocates attribute the violence they concede men do to outside forces "

Outside forces, like psychological provocations?

The fact is that the double-standard is so ingrained in our society that the average person wouldn't even see the contradiction and the hypocrisy. I recommend adding a rebuttal after these two paragraphs that points out this very contradiction. Blackworm 12:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The first is a quote from a creator of the CTS spoken in context of intimate partner violence, which nobody here is responsible for outside of the extent of retrieving the quote for it's relevence to the article. The second is a characterization of a group's POV from a Wiki editor. Hardly a reflection of "society", "hypocrisy", or in context a "contradition" as it was written by an individual and somebody who didn't even speak the first quote. But, since it is uncited, I'm deleting it.NeoApsara 20:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you should leave it in, as it describes precisely the kinds of criticisms levelled at the men's movement. It should just be pointed out that critics of the men's rights movement fall trap to the very double-standard the men's movement tries to expose. Yes, the same people do excuse or minimize abuse perpetrated by females (the first quote) by claiming things like "psychological provocations" while refusing to accept such an explanation in the case of male-perpetrated violence. Some of the websites linked to from the article do exactly that. Furthermore, the critics as well as the author of the CTS quoted freely admit that such "psychological provocations" were not a part of the CTS study, and so their assertions on the subject are pure conjecture and non-expert personal opinion, and should be labelled as such. In any case, this page has clearly been hijacked by anti-men's rights people, likely female feminists, as others on this talk page allege. Blackworm 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

True Mjal 03:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing policy / conflict of interest / clarification requested Men's rights

All, I am a wiki newbie, so please forgive me if my skills are not great. I am an internet automation person for a major ISP, but this is all new to me.

I added myself as a co-founder of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, and this was redacted as a conflict of interest. Since my relationship with ACFC as a co-founder and national secretary for the first five years of its existence is a historical fact, I do not see how this is somehow a conflict of interest. During this time period, I organized the three largest protests in the history of the men's movement. I do not see anything in the spam or conflict of interest definitions that would lead to this conclusion.

I have uploaded a photo taken at the ACFC founding held at the National Press Club. I am on the far left: http://www.dadsnow.org//images/acfc-founding-pressclub.jpg

My photo is in all my articles. Compare my photo there to the press club photo and you will see I am, in fact, a co-founder of ACFC. http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/19/feminist-takeover-of-the-un-is-an-issue-of-national-security/

Therefore, I request that the redaction from the history section be reversed. I also request my blog link as a major writer be restored. You can ask anybody in the movement who is moving mountains, and most all will mention my work.

Please note: the men's movement is not large, like that of feminism. There are not many movers and shakers. And, unlike feminism, there is not a huge cadre of college-level activists who would nominate others on wikipedia. --Davidrusher 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I restored the blog link, but I don't understand what you mean by "redaction from the history section..." Hope you learn a lot/add a lot to Misplaced Pages! Robinson0120 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr Usher the reason links to your blog were original delted are probably explained here Misplaced Pages:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, the policy goes: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Perhaps an RfC would be appropriate in regard to this?--Cailil 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

statement characterizing feminism

>The majority of the feminist movement holds that heterosexual marriage is unimportant and easily substituted by divorce, welfare, child support, and other artificial supports.

This statement is extremely subjective opinion -not far from slander- unprovable, and is entirely inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Commonly known as "putting words in other people's mouth's", it is watering down the credibility of the whole page on which it appears. Jvol 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and as pointed out by others above this article is of poor encyclopedic quality. There is too much POV and opinion here. If this article does not conform to Misplaced Pages standards its accuracy will have to be disputed.--Cailil 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Same sex marriage - Dubious tags

As it stands the section on same sex marriage looks like original research. I'm concerned that it reads like an essay and its content is disputable. Are there any sources for this information? I've given this section some time and more thought {{I'm totally disputing it}} on grounds of WP:POVPUSH, WP:SYNT, WP:V, and WP:NONSENSE. It's not accurate in any way shape or form it presents an Editor's POV not 1 verifiable source and reads like a blog/essay. I've deleted the following for WP:NONSENSE, WP:NPOV and WP:V: "Feminist strategists realized it would place women in the position to control all aspects of reproduction, life, politics, and marriage." - if you want this reintroduced without reliable, independent refernece please RfC this article as I consider this to be a piece of particularly irresponsible writing for wikipedia--Cailil 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Proof:

The discussion in the SSM topic describes the actual effect that SSM would have on heterosexual men with respect to marriage: Female-female and children would be legitimate families supported by government, and men would be forced to fund it without having any rights whatsoever. This is the (obvious) effect of permitting same sex marriages or civil unions (the only difference between the two is whether or not a church blessed it and what you prefer to call it). SSM gives women the right to opt-out of heterosexual marriage, keep their incomes, get two or more additional child support incomes, backed up by various government subsidies. The economic advantages of women marrying each other are intuitively obvious. There is no question here that this is the case.

I first broke this issue in 2002, and ended up being called by various leading conservatives (such as Family Research Council -- Peter Sprigg and Bridget Maher) to advise them on this issue. It seems none of these people had figured out the secular meaning of SSM: they were approaching it purely from an religious/historical perspective. I ended up advising the ADF and CCF, who are fighting gay marriage, and since that time they have not lost a case. It seems that once courts see how SSM creates a very unequal landscape vis-a-vis the vast majority of heterosexual men, they reject SSM on equal protections basis alone.

It is a fact that the legitimate men's movement largely opposes SSM. There are some who don't realize the importance of SSM as a MRM issue. The only men who support SSM in my experience are feminist men, who are not legitimate participants in the MRM (Note: a feminist male cannot be seen as a legitimate member of the MRM. The MRM opposes the majority of modern feminist political objectives. Suggesting that a feminist man is somehow part of the MRM is like suggesting that one could work for an abortion center and be a pro-life activist at the same time.)

Since I first broke this issue, others both in and out of the movement have said pretty much the same things, and in particular, pointed out that protecting heterosexual marriage is strongly connected to protecting "fatherhood" and the natural right of men to participate in marriage and the rearing of their children.

see: http://www.newswithviews.com/Baskerville/stephen1.htm http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2004/usher022404.htm http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david36.htm http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dusher110705.htm http://glennsacks.com/blog/index.php?tag=gay-marriage

As to the overview about feminists adopting this approach, this is something that took place over many years, and is not related in any one feminist work. The single most powerful feminist quote the points to this realization is a featured quote by Sheila Cronan in the National NOW Times in January, 1988: "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." Feminists are very good at spinning things and hiding their political goals. If you read between the lines, they are telling all normal women that they must "identify themselves" as being lesbians, even if they are not, and that they must support the feminist lesbian political goal of SSM, or they cannot even identify themselves as being a part of the feminist movement.

Now, clear your head of what has been programmed into it during your years of upbringing in a feminist society, and read this N.O.W. statement on lesbian marriage, from a Men's Rights NPOV, and tell me that NOW is not out to destroy fatherhood and the rights of men. Please note here that N.O.W. focuses on "lesbian rights", and GLBT is brought in as a secondary issue. http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/marr-rep.html

Now, I am not suggesting that Misplaced Pages::Men's Rights::Same Sex Marriage should be defined by myself alone. Since there are so few real writers and thinkers in the Men's movement, and where myself, Steve Baskerville, and Glenn Sacks hold the same view, this position must be accepted as being the valid position of the MRM unless some other legitimate leader of the men's movement suggests this section is somehow incorrect. Certainly, what I added is not in conflict with Baskerville or Sacks. Farrell has not weighed in on SSM (and he won't because he is not interested in the issue).

I can understand why some Wiki Editors might have difficulty coming to grips with this. Gender issues is a very tricky field, and most of us were brought up to "think feminist". It will take time for the Editors to see that the MRM is small but very real, and right on the money, after you take the time to understand the wisdom and understanding that has taken the leaders of this movement many years to come to grips with.

I request that all dubious tags be removed. There is nothing dubious about what is in the SSM section. You may cite the articles listed above if you wish to add them (however, since I have written some of these articles, I feel uncomfortable about doing the cites).

--davidrusher

Mr Usher the men's movement is wider than the USA and also wider than your POV - I will remind you that it is your opinion that the men's movement is (philosophically) opposed to the women's movement - your statement that pro-feminists cannot be legitimate participants in the men's movement is not necessarily fact. I'm not entering a debate on that or any of the topics you raised for this reason: unless information can be cited and/or referenced from multiple reliable and notable published sources it is not encyclopedic I refer you to WP:RS. I cannot cite the above sources with good Wiki Concience because I believe they contravene Misplaced Pages Guidelines on Using online sources; as they are partisan they are not secondary sources - just primary ones. WP:V is about notable, objective, peer-reviewed sources.

I am sympathetic to your position because, as you correctly pointed out, there are not many MRM writers - however, I would point out to you that you're restricting your selection to North America which is bad for the article. I would propose a compromise; that a section summarizing MRM in America be created for the views shared by yourself, Glenn Sacks & Steve Baskerville. However, I completely dispute the comments on Same Sex Marriage therefore I recommend you RfC this article for outside encyclopedic opinion on that material's re-inclusion (I would abide by an RfC's consensus opinion, which ever way it went). I apologize if you found my dubious tags aggressive but unless you reference a statement on wikipedia someone will eventually question it--Cailil 20:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW in your above comment you use Feminism#Feminism_in_many_forms: this IS an example of bad writing (the final 3 paragraphs are WP:SYNT and POV) - thank you for pointing it out to me--Cailil 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I insist the section on SSM be restored. The deletion of this entire section is a clear cut case of feminist censorship and a violation of wiki standards. Cailil is citing the SSM section as being "nonsense", which is precisely the attitude of feminists towards MRM perspectives on social issues. Where SSM is such a major contemporary social issue, and where my analysis (which is the most advanced and widely accepted in the MRM)is so obviously sensible in terms of direct impact to normal men, I suggest that Cailil is acting as a feminist censor.

By Cailil's standards, the majority of the feminist excerpt from Wiki cited in this discussion is nonsense, and should have been deleted. Much of feminism is attitude and spin reshaping the world to meet feminist agitprop. Where Wiki so gladly repeats their nonsense without challenging it, I suggest that Wiki is not in a position to censor any well-founded analysis that defines the position of the legitimate MRM on SSM (or any other issue, for that matter).

Cailil cites no reason for believing the section on SSM is not accurate. Unless he can cite one legitimate MRM who says otherwise, and where I am considered the leading person on this issue in the MRM, Cailil is on very weak grounds to simply wipe the whole section out. I have cited 2 MRMs who oppose SSM (their reasons for opposing it are not as deeply analytical as my analysis of the structural change SSM would inflict on the vast majority of normal men). I do not know any gay men who are active participants in the MRM (there are plenty of gay men who are involved in the gay rights movement -- which as I have already proved, is not connected to the legitimate MRM in any way). Cailil removed this section without citing one valid reason for doing so. This is an infliction of either his POV, his feminist bias, his immature understanding of MRM, or a combination of all three.

MRM World View on SSM: Cailil claims this section is invalid because I did not cite any international MRMs in supporting the position. While I only cited things by U.S. authors, it is quite clear that what I added is, in fact, the world view of MRMs in other countries (none of whom support SSM, some who take no position, while all MRMs who take positions on SSM do oppose it heartily.

On Pro-feminist men: Cailil claims it is "my view" that feminist men are not part of the legitimate MRM. My posting was, in fact, a correct statement. Feminist men do NOT take part in MRM, but rather, they heavily criticize it (if they do anything at all). If Cailil can cite one feminist male who is a major mover and shaker in the men's movement, then I will rest my case. If pro-feminist men want to place their comments in the critics section, they are more than welcome to.

I WILL NOT permit feminists to censor or otherwise emasculate the men's movement into being what feminists want it to be. I am reverting this section to restore it as before. If Cailil wants to have this section modified or deleted, then he should escalate this for review.

In the meantime, since it is obvious that we have at least one feminist (Cailil) who is misusing Wiki standards to force a feminist world perspective on the MRM, and where he is attempting to prevent a real definition of the movement on Wiki by attempting to "single me out" and somehow being unqualified to present a credible overview of the movement, I will do an article about this over the weekend, and publish it on at least a dozen major websites. I will invite all major MRM's to fix the wikipedia MRM page. Apparently at least one of the folks editing this section need an education from MRM's. This is our section, and no feminists will be allowed to mess it up. I request that Cailil's editing privileges be revoked. He has proven himself to be a feminist censor, not a balanced editor.

--davidrusher

Tagged for needing to be Globalized

I would like to point out one further problem with this page - its information and view point is not global. It does not mention any of the Men's rights issues or facts from Europe (particularly the Uk & Ireland). Notably the singer Sir Bob Geldof is a very prominent men's activist on this side of the Atlantic, although he does not conform exactly to the men's rights paradigm set-out, here he is for the gender reform of divorce laws (to make parenting gender neutral). He would not be part of Davidrusher's "legitimate marriage" type of men's rights activist but he warrants inclusion as do men's rights activists from every other political and geographical position. The page also needs to present verifiable information of Men's rights in Asia and Africa. Until such time as this happens I'm tagging the whole article with{{Globalize}}--Cailil 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles