Men's rights movement
|Rights by claimant|
|Other groups of rights|
The men's rights movement (MRM) is a human rights movement, part of the larger men's movement, focused specifically on issues of discrimination and inequalities faced by men. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s, splitting into opposing pro- and antifeminist groups. The movement is made up of a variety of formal and informal groups that differ in their approaches and issues. The MRM is considered a backlash to the feminist movement, contesting claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women.
The MRM has been involved in a variety of issues related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including education, compulsory military service and social safety nets), health and female privilege. The MRM's anti-feminism has led to sectors of the movement being described as misogynist.
The men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some thinkers began to study feminist ideas and politics. The leaders of the men's liberation movement acknowledged men's institutional power while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity. In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: The pro-feminist men's movement and an anti-feminist men's rights movement. Men's rights activists have since then rejected feminist principles and focused on disadvantages and oppression of men that they have identified. In the 1980s and 90s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the traditional gender order in the family, schools and the workplace.
The men's rights movement includes a wide variety of individuals and organizations, both united and divided in various ways on specific issues.[page needed] Some groups are formally organized or incorporated, while others are casual alliances or the work of a few individuals.[page needed]
One of the first major men's rights organizations was the Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements, founded by Richard Doyle in 1971, from which the Men's Rights Association spun off in 1973. Free Men Inc. was founded in 1977 in Columbia, Maryland, spawning several chapters over the following years, which eventually merged to form the National Coalition of Free Men (now known as the National Coalition for Men). Men's Rights, Inc. was also formed in 1977. In the United Kingdom, a men's rights group calling itself the UK Men's Movement began to organize in the early 1990s. Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) was founded in 2005 and in 2010 claimed to have over 30,000 members.
Men's rights groups have formed in some European countries during periods of shifts toward conservatism and policies supporting traditional family and gender relations. In the United States, the men's rights movement has close ideological ties to neoconservatism. Men's rights activists have received lobbying support from conservative organizations and their arguments have been covered extensively in neoconservative media. Political parties focusing on men's rights have been formed including the Australian Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) and the Israeli Man's Rights in the Family Party.
Relation to feminism
The men's rights movement is considered[by whom?] to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism. The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which reject feminist and profeminist ideas. Men's rights activists[clarification needed] believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men. They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women.
Men's rights activists see men as an oppressed group and believe that society and state have been "feminized" by the women's movement. Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg, for instance, believe that all men are disadvantaged, discriminated against and oppressed and argue that power is an illusion for most men since women are the actual bearers of power. Men's rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism is interested in men's problems and men's rights activists have viewed the women's movement as a plot to conceal discrimination against men. Sectors of the men's rights movement have been critiqued as exhibiting misogynistic tendencies by academics and the Southern Poverty Law Center The SPLC noted about websites, blogs and forums related to the movement that "while some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many."
The men's rights movement is concerned with a wide variety of issues, some of which have spawned their own groups or movements, such as the fathers' rights movement, concerned specifically with divorce and child custody issues.
Men's rights organizations such as Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) state that men are subject to dowry harassment when women misuse legislation meant to protect them from dowry death and bride burnings. SIFF is a men's rights organization in India that focuses on the perceived abuse of anti-dowry laws against men. SIFF has stated that they feel that anti-dowry laws have regularly been used in efforts to settle petty disputes in marriage, and that their helplines receive calls from many men who say that their wives have used false dowry claims to get them jailed.
Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups. Men's rights activists argue that the legal system and family courts discriminate against men, especially in regards to child custody after divorce. They believe that men do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse and use statistics on custody awards as evidence of judicial bias against men. Men's rights advocates seek to change the legal climate for men through changes in family law, for example by lobbying for laws that would make joint custody the default custody arrangement except in cases where one parent is unfit or unwilling to parent. They adopted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues as a matter of basic civil rights. Some men's rights activists suggest that the lack of contact to their children makes fathers less willing to pay child support. Some others cite the parental alienation syndrome as a reason to grant custody to fathers.
Critics argue that empirical research does not support the notion of judicial bias against men and that men's rights advocates interpret statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it. Academics critique the rhetorical framing of custody decisions, stating that men's rights advocates appeal for „equal rights” without specifying the constitutional rights that they believe have been violated. Critics assert that the men's rights rhetoric of children's "needs" that accompanies their plea for equal rights helps deflect criticism that it is motivated by self-interest and masks men's rights advocates' own claims. Deborah Rhode argues that contrary to the claims of some men's rights activists, research shows that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents.
Men's rights groups in the United States began organizing in opposition of divorce reform and custody issues around the 1960s. The men involved in the early organization claimed that family and divorce law discriminated against them and favored their wives. Rich Doyle wrote of the view of the men's rights movement concerning the court handling of divorces and child custody processes:
Divorce courts are frequently like slaughter-houses, with about as much compassion and talent. They function as collection agencies for lawyer fees, however outrageous, stealing children and extorting money from men in ways blatantly unconstitutional... Men are regarded as mere guests in their own homes, evictable any time at the whims of wives and judges. Men are driven from home and children against their wills; then when unable to stretch paychecks far enough to support two households are termed "runaway fathers." Contrary to all principles of justice, men are thrown into prison for inability to pay alimony and support, however unreasonable or unfair the "obligation."
Laws and practices regarding spousal support, maintenance or alimony vary considerably by country and culture. On one end of the spectrum are Nordic countries, like Sweden, that by 1978 assumed that divorced spouses were not responsible for one another. Support might be provided for a transitionary period for the lower-wage earner or primarily care-givers, but only in about 6-8% of the cases and only for a limited time. In most western countries alimony is provided on an ever decreasing basis due to shorter marriages and women more likely to be wage-earners. Italy and many countries in Latin America, are on the other end. Women may be supported during legal separation, which is a state in which they wish to remain because of low chance of remarriage, religious reasons or to retain inheritance rights to their husband's property. Such women may be wives to husbands of privileged class. However, the rate of support is declining in Italy, as well.
Although the rate of payments of spousal support is declining, both due to the reduced rates at which alimony is granted and low rates at which alimony is generally paid, there are concerns regarding men's rights when women continue to receive support after they enter into new relationships and women are supported by men who are "financially strapped". In the United States, the current alimony laws are challenged for constitutionality, assignment of temporary vs. permanent financial support paid to a spouse, and fair and equitable treatment under family law; There are several men's rights attempts to reform alimony at a state and federal level, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.
Now that women make up a large percentage of the workforce, existing laws regarding alimony in the United States have come into question. A legal precedent for gender-blind spousal support, granting men's rights to alimony, in the United States was made in Orr v. Orr, where the Supreme Court invalidated Alabama's statutes by which husbands, but not wives, were required to pay alimony upon divorce. This statute was considered a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The percentage of alimony recipients in the US who were male rose from 2.4% in (1996–2001) to 3.6% in (2002–2006) and is expected to increase as more marriages feature a female primary earner.
Men's rights activists, citing a number of academic studies, assert that domestic violence by women is ignored and under-reported, because men are reluctant to describe themselves as victims. They state that women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men in relationships, that domestic violence is sex-symmetrical, and that judicial systems too easily accept false allegations of domestic violence by women against their male partners. Men's rights writer Christina Hoff Sommers has commented that "false claims about male domestic violence are ubiquitous and immune to refutation." Men's rights advocates have been critics of legal, policy and practical protections for abused women, campaigning for domestic violence shelters for battered men and for the legal system to be educated about women's violence against men.
Some academic critics have rejected the research cited by Men's rights activists and dispute their claims that such violence is gender symmetrical, arguing that the focus on women's violence stems from a political agenda to minimize the issue of men's violence against women and to undermine services to abused women. Donileen Loseke, Mary Cavanaugh and Richard Gelles cite as an example the challenge to the Minnesota Battered Woman's Act by the Men's Defense Association claiming that it was discriminatory because it protected women but not men.
Men's rights activists describe the education of boys as being in crisis, with boys having reduced educational achievement and motivation as compared to girls. Advocates blame the influence of feminism on education for discrimination against and systematic oppression of boys in the education system. They critique what they describe as the "feminization" of education, stating that the predominance of female teachers, a focus on girls' needs as well as a curricula and assessment methods that favour girls have proved repressive and restrictive to men and boys.
Men's rights groups call for increased recognition of masculinity, greater numbers of male role models, more competitive sports, and the increased responsibilities for boys in the school setting. They have also advocated clearer school routines, more traditional school structures, including single-sex classes, and stricter discipline.
Critics suggest that men's rights groups view boys as a homogeneous group sharing common experiences of schooling and that they do not take sufficient account in their analysis of how responses to educational approaches may differ by age, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and class.
In Australia, men's rights discourse has influenced government policy documents; less impact has been noted in the United Kingdom, where feminists have historically had less influence on educational policy.
Men's rights activists are concerned with false accusations of rape and sexual assault and desire to protect men from the negative consequences of false accusations. Quoting research including that by Eugene Kanin and the U.S. Air Force they assert that 40-50% or more of rape allegations may be false. They state that false accusations are a form of psychological rape. They assert that the naming of the accused while providing the accuser with anonymity encourages abuse.
Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom the United States and India have opposed legislation criminalizing marital rape. The reasons for opposition include concerns about false allegations related to divorce proceedings, and in India anxiety about relationships and the future of marriage as such laws give women "grossly disproportional rights". Virag Dhulia of the Save Indian Family Foundation, a men's rights organization, has opposed recent efforts to criminalize marital rape in India, arguing that "no relationship will work if these rules are enforced."
The men's rights movement asserts that males no longer hold male privilege to the exclusion of females, with two variations: those who argue that sexism harms men and women equally as both genders have different privileges, and those who believe that female privilege has become the norm to the detriment of men.
Men's rights groups have called for male-focused governmental structures to address issues specific to men and boys including education, health, work and marriage. Men's rights groups in India have called for the creation of a Men's Welfare Ministry and a National Commission for Men, as well as the abolition of the National Commission for Women. In the United Kingdom, the creation of a Minister for Men analogous to the existing Minister for Women, have been proposed by David Amess, MP and Lord Northbourne, but were rejected by the government of Tony Blair. In the United States, Warren Farrell heads a commission focused on the creation of a "White House Council on Boys and Men" as a counterpart to the "White House Council on Women and Girls" which was formed in March 2009.
Men's rights activists view the health issues faced by men and their shorter life spans as compared to women as evidence of discrimination and oppression. They state that feminism has led to women's health issues being privileged at the expense of men's. They point to higher suicide rates in men compared to women, and complain about the funding of men's health issues as compared to women's, including noting that prostate cancer research receives less funding than breast-cancer research. David Benatar has suggested more money should be put into health research on males in order to reduce the disparity between men's and women's life expectancy. Some doctors and academics have argued circumcision is a violation of men's right to health and bodily integrity, while others have disagreed.
Many academics have critiqued these claims, stating, as Michael Messner puts it, that the poorer health outcomes are the heavy costs paid by men "for conformity with the narrow definitions of masculinity that promise to bring them status and privilege" and that these costs fall disproportionately on men who are marginalized socially and economically. In this view, and according to Michael Flood, men's health would best be improved by "tackling destructive notions of manhood, an economic system which values profit and productivity over workers’ health, and the ignorance of service providers" instead of blaming a feminist health movement.
In 1971 in the United States, draft resisters initiated a class-action suit alleging that male-only conscription violated men's rights to equal protection under the US constitution. When the case, Rostker v. Goldberg, reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's rights group and multiple women's groups, including the National Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act, stating that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than equity.
Men's rights activists state that children of men of Indian descent have indicated that [[international child abduction has taken place in Canada, the United States and Europe into India where the national courts do not recognize foreign child custody orders. The country is not a party to the Hague Convention and men accused of dowry harassment may be arrested at Indian airports.
Men's and fathers' rights groups have stated that there are high levels of misattributed paternity or "paternity fraud", where men are parenting and/or supporting financially children who are not biologically their own. They hold biological views of fatherhood, emphasizing the imperative of the genetic foundation of paternity rather than social aspects of fatherhood. They state that men should not be forced to support children fathered by another man, and that men are harmed because a relationship is created between a man and non-biological children while denying the children and their biological father of that experience and knowledge of their genetic history. In addition, non-biological fathers are denied the resources to have their own biological children in another relationship. Men's rights activists support the use of paternity testing to reassure presumed fathers about the child's paternity; men's and fathers' rights groups have called for compulsory paternity testing of all children. They have campaigned vigorously in support of men who have been shown by genetic testing not to be the biological father, but who are nevertheless required to be financially responsible for them. Prompted by these concerns, legislators in certain jurisdictions have supported this biological view and have passed laws providing relief from child support payments when a man is proved not to be the father. Australian men's rights groups have opposed the recommendations of a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the National Health and Medical Research Council that would require the consent of both parents for paternity testing of young children, and laws that would make it illegal to obtain a sample for DNA testing without the individual's consent. Sociologist Michael Gilding asserts that men's rights activists have exaggerated the rate and extent of misattributed paternity, which he estimates at about 1-3%. He opposed as unnecessary calls for mandatory paternity testing of all children.
In 2006, the American National Center for Men backed a lawsuit known as Dubay v. Wells. The case concerned whether men should have the opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Supporters said that this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive rights as women. The case and the appeal were dismissed, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stating that neither parent has the right to sever their financial responsibilities for a child, and that "Dubay's claim that a man's right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy."
Social security and insurance
Men's rights groups argue that women are given superior social security and tax benefits than men. Warren Farrell states that men in the United States pay more into social security, but in total women receive more in benefits, and that discrimination against men in insurance and pensions have gone unrecognized.
- Men's studies
- Paternal rights and abortion
- The Good Men Project
- Draft evasion
- Reverse discrimination
- Women and children first
- Gavanas, Anna (2004). Fatherhood Politics in the United States: Masculinity, Sexuality, Race, and Marriage. University of Illinois Press. p. 11. ISBN 0252028848. "All these cases of perceived discrimination make up the men's rights view that men are considered, by government and society, to be more expendable than women."
- Stephen Blake Boyd, W. Merle Longwood, Mark William Muesse, ed. (1996). Redeeming men: religion and masculinities. Westminster John Knox Press. "In contradistinction to profeminism, however, the men's rights perspective addresses specific legal and cultural factors that put men at a disadvantage. Men's rights advocates, for example, target sex-specific military conscription and judicial practices that discriminate against men in child custody cases."
- See, for example:
- Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia". Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 4 (2): 39–52.
- Doyle, Ciara (2004). "The Fathers' Rights Movement: Extending Patriarchal Control Beyond the Marital Family". In Herrman, Peter. Citizenship Revisited: Threats or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries. New York: Nova Publishers. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-59033-900-8.
- Flood, Michael (2005). "Men's Collective Struggles for Gender Justice: The Case of Antiviolence Activism". In Kimmel, Michael S.; Hearn, Jeff; Connell, Raewyn. Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. p. 459. ISBN 978-0-7619-2369-5.
- Finocchiaro, Peter (March 29, 2011). "Is the men's rights movement growing?". Salon. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
- Messner, Michael (2000). Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8039-5577-6.
- Solinger, Rickie (2013). Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-19-981141-0.
- Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B. Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9.
- Dunphy, Richard (2000). Sexual Politics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-7486-1247-5.
- Messner, Michael A. (1998). "The Limits of the "Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movement's Discourse". Gender & Society 12 (3): 255–276. doi:10.1177/0891243298012003002.
- Newton 2004, p. 190–200.
- Newton 2004, p. 190-200.
- Lingard, Bob; Mills, Martin; Weaver-Hightower, Marcus B (2012). "Interrogating recuperative masculinity politics in schooling". International Journal of Inclusive Education 16 (4): 407–421. doi:10.1080/13603116.2011.555095. "The concept of recuperative masculinity politics was developed by Lingard and Douglas (1999) to refer to both mythopoetic (Biddulph 1995, 2010; Bly 1990) and men’s rights politics (Farrell 1993). Both of these rejected the move to a more equal gender order and more equal gender regimes in all of the major institutions of society (e.g. the family, schools, universities, workplaces) sought by feminists and most evident in the political and policy impacts in the 1980s and 1990s from second-wave feminism of the 1970s. 'Recuperative' was used to specifically indicate the ways in which these politics reinforced, defended and wished to recoup the patriarchal gender order and institutional gender regimes."
- Farrell, Warren; Svoboda, Steven; Sterba, James P. (2008). Does feminism discriminate against men? A Debate. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-531282-9.
- Farrell, Warren (2001). Father and Child Reunion:How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love. New York: Putnam. ISBN 1585420751.
- Lee, Calinda N. (2003). "Fathers' Rights". In Carroll, Bret E. American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia One. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 167. ISBN 978-0-7619-2540-8.
- Ashe 2007, p. 63.
- Chafetz, Janet Saltzman (2006). Handbook of the sociology of gender. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 168. ISBN 0-387-32460-7.
- Dunphy 2000, pp. 142–143.
- Karnad, Raghu (3 December 2007). "Now, Is That Malevolence?". Outlook magazine. Retrieved 28 March 2013.
- Polanki, Pallavi (17 July 2010). "Men Who Cry". OPEN. Archived from the original on July 21, 2010. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
- "Members of men's rights body meet". The Times of India. October 8, 2008. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
- Ruxton, Sandy; van deer Gaag, Nikki (2013). "Men's involvement in gender equality – European perspectives". Gender & Development (Routledge) 21 (1): 161–175. doi:10.1080/13552074.2013.767522.
- Menzies 2007, p. 77.
- Kenneth Clatterbaugh (2000). "Literature of the U.S. Men's Movements". Signs (University of Chicago Press) 25 (3): 883–894. doi:10.2307/3175420. "The men's rights movement has also been weakened by the resurgence of Republican neoconservatism. Why should one join a men's movement to oppose feminism, affirmative action, abortion rights, and women's growing authority in the workplace when one can do the same thing by joining the Republican party or calling up Rush Limbaugh to complain about "feminazis"?"
- Flood 2007, p. 430–433.
- Berman, Judy (November 5, 2009). ""Men's rights" groups go mainstream". Salon. Retrieved March 21, 2013.
- Connell, R. W. (2005). "Change among the Gatekeepers: Men, Masculinities, and Gender Equality in the Global Arena". Signs (University of Chicago Press) 30 (3): 1801–1825. doi:10.1086/427525. Retrieved March 21, 2013.
- Sawer, Marian (2002). "In safe hands? Women in the 2001 election". In Warhurst, John; Simms, Marian. 2001: The centenary election. St Lucia, Qld.: University of Queensland Press. p. 255. ISBN 978-0-7022-3303-6.
- [author missing] (26 December 2003). "Run-up to election shows Israelis are as fragmented as ever". USA today. Retrieved 23 April 2013.
- Bennet, James (19 January 2003). "Israeli Parties Clamor for Votes in Divided Society". The New York Times (New York: NYTC). ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 23 April 2013.
- "Israel's fringe parties take root". Eugene Register-Guard. January 2 2003. Retrieved 23 April 2013.
- Williams, Rhys H. (1995). "Constructing the Public Good: Social Movements and Cultural Resources". Social Problems (University of California Press) 42 (1): 134–135. doi:10.2307/3097008. Retrieved March 4, 2013. "Another example of contractual model rhetoric is in the language of the Men's Rights movement. As a countermovement to the feminist movement, it has concentrated on areas generally thought of as family law—especially divorce and child custody laws. The movement charges that maternal preference in child custody decisions is an example of gender prejudice, with men the ones who are systematically disadvantaged... Men's Rights groups... have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement... Similarly, along with the appeal to "equal rights for fathers"... the Men's Rights movement also uses a rhetoric of children's "needs"... The needs rhetoric helps offset charges that their rights language is motivated by self-interest alone."
- Flood 2007, p. 430-433.
- Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia". Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 4 (2): 39–52.
- Cahill, Charlotte (2010). "Men's movement". In Chapman, Roger. Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 354–356. ISBN 978-1-84972-713-6.
- Kimmel, Michael S. (1987). "Men's Responses to Feminism at the Turn of the Century". Gender & Society 1 (3): 261–283. doi:10.1177/089124387001003003.
- Flood 2007, p. 430–433.
- Dunphy 2000, p. 88.
- Flood 2007, p. 418–422.
- Flood 2007, p. 21.
- Pease, Bob; Camilleri, Peter (2001). "Feminism, masculinity and the human services". Working with men in the human services. Crow's Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-1-86508-480-0.
- Kahn, Jack S (2009). An introduction to masculinities. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 202. ISBN 978-1-4051-8179-2.
- Williams, Gwyneth I (2001). "Masculinity in Context: An Epilogue". In Williams, Rhys H. Promise Keepers and the New Masculinity: Private Lives and Public Morality. Lanham: Lexington Books. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-7391-0230-5.
- Whitaker, Stephen (2001). "Gender Politics in Men's Movements". In Vannoy, Dana. Gender Mosaics: Social Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 343–351. ISBN 978-0-19-532998-8.
- Clatterbaugh 1997, pp. 77, 88.
- Chris Beasley (20 May 2005). Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. SAGE Publications. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-7619-6979-2. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
- Kimmel, Michael; Kaufman, Michael (1997). "Weekend Warriors". In Mary R.Walsh. Women, Men and Gender. Yale University Press. p. 407. ISBN 978-0-300-06938-9.
- Menzies 2007, p. 71.
- Brod, Harry; Kaufman, Michael, eds. (1994). Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-8039-4903-4.
- Pease, Bob (2000). Recreating men: postmodern masculinity politics. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-7619-6205-2.
- Potok, M; Schlatter S (Spring 2012). "Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women". Intelligence Report (Southern Poverty Law Center) 145. Retrieved 2013-03-07.
- Goldwag, A (Spring 2012). "Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement". Intelligence Report (Southern Poverty Law Center) 145. Retrieved 2013-03-07.
- Shira Tarrant (11 February 2013). Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power. Routledge. p. 174. ISBN 978-1-135-12743-5. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
- Messner 1997, p. 41-48.
- Shanley, Mary Lyndon (2002). Making babies, making families: what matters most in an age of reproductive technologies, surrogacy, adoption, and same-sex and unwed parents. Beacon Press. pp. 46–47. ISBN 0-8070-4409-1.
- Kumar, A. "Men’s Movement in India: Story of Save Indian Family Movement" (pdf). Second Annual Male Studies Conference. New York: Foundation for Male Studies. http://www.malestudies.org/pdf/kumar.pdf.
- "Men demand fair play". Times of India. 20 November 2009. Retrieved 20 October 2011.
- Gilani, Iftikhar (6 April 2010). "Shoaib Malik controversy to hit Pakistan-India relations". Daily Times. Retrieved 20 October 2011.
- Dhillon, Amrit (24 December 2007). "Men say wives use India's pro-women laws to torment them". The Age. Retrieved 20 October 2011.
- Melville, Angela; Hunter, Rosemary (2001). "'As everybody knows': Countering myths of gender bias in family law". Griffith Law Review 10 (1): 124–138. "Several authors have observed that men's rights groups claim that the family law system and the Family Court are biased against men, despite the lack of supporting empirical research."
- Messner 1997, pp. 41–48.
- Pease, Bob (2002). Men and gender relations. Croydon, Vic.: Tertiary Press. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-86458-218-8.
- Crean, Susan M. (1988). In the name of the fathers: the story behind child custody. Toronto: Amanita. pp. 107–108. ISBN 978-0-921299-04-2.
- Clatterbaugh 1997, p. 77.
- Nolan, Barry (September 2012). "Attack of the 50-foot feminist agenda". Boston.
- Williams, Gwyneth I.; Williams, Rhys H (1995). ""All We Want Is Equality": Rhetorical Framing in the Fathers' Rights Movement". In Best, Joel. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems (2nd ed.). New York: A. De Gruyter. pp. 201–202. ISBN 978-0-202-30539-4.
- Coltrane, Coltrane; Hickman, Neal (1992). "The Rhetoric of Rights and Needs: Moral Discourse in the Reform of Child Custody and Child Support Laws". Social Problems (University of California Press) 39 (4): 400–420. doi:10.2307/3097018.
- Kamerman, SB; Kahn, AJ, eds. (1997). Family change and family policies in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-19-829025-4.
- Cabrera, NJ; Tamis-LeMonda, CS, eds. (2013). Handbook of father involvement: multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. p. 425. ISBN 978-0-415-87867-8.
- Williams, Gwyneth I.; Williams, Rhys H. (2003). "Framing in the fathers' rights movement". In Loseke, Donileen R.; Best, Joel. Social problems: constructionist readings. New York: de Gruyter. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-202-30703-9.
- Ryrstedt, Eva (2003). "Joint decisions – a prerequisite or a drawback in joint parental responsibility?". Australian Journal of Family Law 17 (2): 155–206. "Research has highlighted that it is usually disaffected fathers and men's rights groups, who have masked their own claims behind the rhetoric of the rights of the child to know and be cared for by both parents."
- Rhode, DL (1997). Speaking of sex: the denial of gender inequality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-674-83177-3.
- Ashe 2007, p. 57.
- Goode 1993, p. 40, 44, 64, 90-92.
- Goode 1997, p. 62-64.
- Goode 1997, p. 164-165.
- Levitz, J (2009-10-31). "The New Art of Alimony". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2011-11-25.
- Orr v. Orr, 440 US 268 (Supreme Court of the United States 1979).
- Raghavan, Anita (2008-04-01). "Men Receiving Alimony Want A Little Respect". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-02-03.
- Susan L. Miller (October 2005). Victims as offenders: the paradox of women's violence in relationships. Rutgers University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-8135-3671-2. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
- Doward, Jamie (21 December 2003). "Battered men get their own refuge". The Observer (London: GMG). ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
- Susan L. Miller; Terry G. Lilley (2008). "Female perpetrators of intimate partner violence". In Claire M. Renzetti and Jeffrey L. Edleson. Encyclopedia of interpersonal violence. SAGE Publications. pp. 257–58. ISBN 978-1-4129-1800-8.
- Molly Dragiewicz (12 April 2011). Equality with a Vengeance: Men's Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash. University Press of New England. pp. 84–5. ISBN 978-1-55553-739-5. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
- Donileen R. Loseke; Richard J. Gelles; Mary M. Cavanaugh (2005). Current controversies on family violence. SAGE Publications. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-7619-2106-6. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
- Menzies 2007, p. 85.
- Sommers, Christina Hoff (February 4, 2011). "Domestic violence myths help no one". USA Today. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
- Molly Dragiewicz (12 April 2011). Equality with a Vengeance: Men's Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash. University Press of New England. pp. 3–4, 29. ISBN 978-1-55553-739-5. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
- Michael Kimmel (15 June 2010). Misframing Men: The Politics of Contemporary Masculinities. Rutgers University Press. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-8135-4762-6. Retrieved 3 November 2012.
- Flood, Michael (7 July 2004). "Backlash: Angry men's movements". In Stacey Elin Rossi. The Battle and Backlash Rage on. Xlibris Corporation. pp. 261–342. ISBN 978-1-4134-5934-0. Retrieved 29 December 2011.
- Dobash, Russell P.; R. Emerson Dobash, Margo Wilson, Martin Daly (February 1992). "The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence". Social Problems 39 (1). doi:10.1177/107780102237407.
- Kimmel, M. S. (2002). ""Gender Symmetry" in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review". Violence Against Women 8 (11): 1332–1363. doi:10.1177/107780102237407. ISSN 1077-8012. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
- Rahim Kanani (May 9, 2011). "The Need to Create a White House Council on Boys to Men". Forbes. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- Mills, Martin; Francis, Becky; Skelton, Christine (8 June 2009). "Gender policies in Australia and the United Kingdom". In Wayne Martino, Michael Kehler, and Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower. The problem with boys' education: beyond the backlash. Taylor & Francis. pp. 38–55. ISBN 978-1-56023-683-2.
- Becky Francis; Christine Skelton (27 September 2005). Reassessing gender and achievement: questioning contemporary key debates. Psychology Press. pp. 18–19, 141. ISBN 978-0-415-33324-5. Retrieved 26 December 2011.
- Brotman, Barbara (October 30, 1992). "Sex Contract Shares Intimate Knowledge". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 1 November 2012.
- Michael Kimmel (1992), "Anti-Feminism", in Michael S. Kimmel and Amy Aronson, Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural and Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO (published 2003), pp. 35–37, ISBN 978-1-57607-774-0, retrieved 23 December 2011
- "False Accusations". National Coalition For Men. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
- Farrell, Warren; Svoboda, Steven; Sterba, James P. (2008). Does feminism discriminate against men? A Debate. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-19-531282-9.
- McElroy, Wendy (2 May 2006). "False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought". Fox News. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
- Farrell, Warren; Svoboda, Steven; Sterba, James P. (2008). Does feminism discriminate against men? A Debate. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-19-531282-9.
- Wendy, McElroy (2011 [last update]). "Privacy Rights Eroding Down Slippery Slope |". foxnews.com. Retrieved 23 December 2011.
- Farrell 1994, p. 161.
- "Rape case protection bid rejected". BBC News (BBC). 7 January 2004,. Retrieved 3 November 2012.
- Dunphy 2000, p. 142 excerpt: "The conservative and unashamedly patriarchal nature of the men's rights lobby .. is well illustrated by some statements by one of its self-proclaimed spokesmen in the UK, Roger Whitcomb .. he reserved particular anger for the House of Lords ruling on marital rape in 1991 ('a long-standing feminist dream')".
- "Why men's rights activists are against inclusion of marital rape". First Post. February 6, 2013. Retrieved March 10, 2013. excerpt: "The Government has not included marital rape in its anti-rape ordinance appealing that it is a complex issue that involves multiple stakeholders .. mens rights activists are constantly clamouring that Section 498(A), the Domestic Violence Act is being misused"
- Millar, Stuart A (2002). "Marital Rape - What a Can of Worms!". Strike at the Root. Retrieved 11 October 2012.
- Farrell 1994, p. 338:"Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen. If a man feels he needs to file for divorce, his wife can say 'If you do, I'll accuse you of spousal rape.' Spousal rape legislation is worse than government-as-substitute-husband. It's government in the bedroom"
- "Spousal Rape Laws". CNN. July 31, 1992. "Tom Williamson, President National Coalition of Free Men: "I don't think that there should be anything called marital rape laws. I don't deny that the elements involved with rape can occur in a marriage. They certainly do. But the problem with the concept of having something called marital rape is that it makes every man vulnerable in a bad situation to blackmail. It makes them vulnerable to false accusations for a variety of motivations that we know exists""
- Pandey, Vineeta (8 March 2010). "Husbands can't get away with marital rape: Government". DNA. Archived from the original on 31 March 2010. Retrieved 30 September 2012. "no relationship will work if these rules are enforced."
- Dhillon, Amrit (01 November, 2006). "Women confident law will end culture of abuse". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 11 October 2012. "The All India Harassed Husbands Association protested last week at the law. 'It gives such grossly disproportionate rights to women that men won't want to get married,' said member Akhil Gupta"
- Clatterbaugh 1997, p. 11.
- "What about tax, and father's custody rights?". The Times of India. May 17, 2011. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- "FHM: For Him Minister?". BBC News. 2004-03-03. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- Cheryl, Wetzstein. "Guys got it made? Think again, say advocates". Washington Times. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- "Indian husbands want protection from nagging wives |". Reuters. November 20, 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- Manigandan KR (Aug 9, 2009). "Boys fight for freedom!". Times Of India. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- Kallenbach, Michael (2000-06-16). "Yesterday in Parliament". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved May 5, 2010.
- Minister for Men. Hansard, UK Parliament. Retrieved November 24, 2011.
- Christian Haywood; Máirtín Mac an Ghaill (1 January 2003). Men and masculinities: theory, research, and social practice. Open University Press. pp. 134–5. ISBN 978-0-335-20892-0. Retrieved 30 December 2011.
- Menzies 2007, p. 86.
- Zernike, Kate (1998-06-21). "Feminism Has Created Progress, But Man, Oh, Man, Look What Else". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2011-12-30.
- Benatar, D (2012). The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 190. ISBN 1118192303.
- Denniston, George C. (1999). Male and female circumcision medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. p. 348. ISBN 0-306-46131-5.
- El-Salam, Seham Abd (2002/2003). "The Importance of Genital Mutilations to Gender Power Politics". Al-Raida (Institute for Women’s Studies in the Arab World) 20 (99): 42. "Women’s defense of men’s right to bodily integrity and their work against MGM will not have a negative impact on their struggle against FGM."
- Somerville, M. "Altering baby boys' bodies: the ethics of infant male circumcision". The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit. Toronto: Viking Press. ISBN 0-670-89302-1.
- Green, James (2007). The Male Herbal: The Definitive Health Care Book for Men & Boys (2nd ed.). Berkeley, Calif.: Crossing Press. ISBN 1-58091-175-7. "Circumcision: A Common Form of Disregard for Men's Rights… Glick emphasizes that infants are persons with full civil rights, and therefore no one has the right to impose circumcision on them—not even parents."
- Benatar M, Benatar D (2003). "Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision". Am J Bioeth 3 (2): 35–48. doi:10.1162/152651603766436216. PMID 12859815.
- Clark PA, Eisenman J, Szapor S (December 2007). "Mandatory neonatal male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa: medical and ethical analysis". Med. Sci. Monit. 13 (12): RA205–13. PMID 18049444.
- Patrick K (December 2007). "Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? No". BMJ 335 (7631): 1181. doi:10.1136/bmj.39406.523762.AD. PMC 2128676. PMID 18063641.
- Brusa M, Barilan YM (October 2009). "Cultural circumcision in EU public hospitals--an ethical discussion". Bioethics 23 (8): 470–82. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00683.x. PMID 19076127.
- Messner 1997, p. 6-7.
- Stephen Blake Boyd; W. Merle Longwood; Mark William Muesse (November 6, 1996). Redeeming men: religion and masculinities. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-664-25544-2.
- Carelli, Richard (March 23, 1981). "Supreme Court to begin hearing male-only military draft case". Toledo Blade. Retrieved 12 November 2011.
- Martin Binkin (1993). Who will fight the next war?: the changing face of the American military. Brookings Institution Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-8157-0955-8. Retrieved 12 November 2011.
- Rostker v. Goldberg at Cornell University Law School.
- Cannold, Leslie (July–August 2008). "Who's the father? Rethinking the moral 'crime' of 'paternity fraud'". Women's Studies International Forum 31 (4): 249–256. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2008.05.011.
- Majumber, Mary Anderlik. September 2005 "Disestablishment Suits". In Mark A. Rothstein; Thomas H. Murray; Gregory E. Kaebnick. Genetic Ties and the Family: The Impact of Paternity Testing on Parents and Children. JHU Press. pp. 172–79. ISBN 978-0-8018-8193-0.
- Salah, Anna (14 December 2005). "Teens may be forced to have paternity test". abc.net.au. Retrieved 27 October 2012.
- Shepherd, Tory (6 June 2012). "Men flock online for 'peace of mind' paternity tests". news.com.au. Retrieved 27 October 2012.
- "Who's your daddy?". Philadelphia Daily News. 5 October 2005. ""I think the best solution is DNA testing at birth," said Glenn Sacks, a syndicated radio talk-show host who focuses on men's issues"
- Dayton, Leigh (12 November 2008). "Fathers 'disrupt debate on DNA'". The Australian. Retrieved 27 October 2012.
- Horrin, Adele (30 June 2005). "The myth behind paternity fraud". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 October 2012.
- Traister, R (2006-03-13). "Roe for men?". Salon. Retrieved 2007-12-17.
- "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, case No. 06-11016" (PDF).
- Jessica Valenti (2012). Why Have Kids?: A New Mom Explores the Truth About Parenting and Happiness. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 103–5. ISBN 978-0-547-89261-0. Retrieved 11 May 2013.
- Fairyington, Stephanie (17 May 2010). "Paternal Rights and Abortion". ELLE[last update]. Retrieved 11 May 2013.
- Ferrell Christensen (26 May 2005). "Masculism". In Ted Honderich. The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 562–63. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. Retrieved 10 December 2011.
- Farrell 1994, p. 350.
- Ashe, F (2007). The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-30275-3.
- Clatterbaugh, Kenneth C. (1997). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: men, women, and politics in modern society (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-2701-3.
- Dunphy, Richard (2000). Sexual Politics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-1247-5.
- Farrell, W (1994). The Myth of Male Power. Berkley Books. ISBN 978-0-425-14381-0.
- Flood, M; Gardiner JK; Pease B; Pringle K (2007). International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. London: Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6.
- Goode, WJ (1993). World Changes in Divorce Patterns. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-05537-4.
- Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B. Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9.
- Messner, MA (1997). Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8039-5577-4.
- Newton, J (2004). From Panthers to Promise Keepers: rethinking the men's movement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780847691302.
- Benatar, D (2012). The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0470674512.
- Baumeister, RF (2010). Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. Oxford University Press. ISBN 019537410X.
- Parker, K (2008). Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care. Random House Digital. ISBN 1400065798.
- Nathanson, P; Young KK (2006). Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men. McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 0773577890.
- Nathanson, P; Young KK (2001). Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 0773522727.
- Summers, CH (2001). The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684849577.
- Vilar, E (1971). The Manipulated Man. Pinter & Martin. ISBN 9780953096428.