Talk:Men's rights movement

"Marriage strike"

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

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

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

MRA is no less about gender equality than feminism

Talk pages are not forums for expressing personal opinion. Please discuss the article and how to improve it with reliable sources or copy editing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are many issues that affect male people. These stem from the delusion that when men shoulder the brunt of responsibility, for providing & protecting their dependents, such would be an expression of misogynist global "patriarch" conspiracy. IMO the article needs to show more respect for addressing discrimination against male people: in courts of law, in military draft, genital mutilation, victims of sexual abuse, homelessness, in education, as fathers, in the home... these are every bit GENUINE issues... not just "beliefs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perduta (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Articles aren't soapboxes. --NeilN talk to me 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) And "GENUINE issues" have "GENUINE references" and I look forward to your edits in this article. And please remember to sign your postings, unless insisting that you sign your postings is some sort of discrimination against male people, in which case, never mind. Carptrash (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Access to diaper changing facilities

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

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

References

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

Sectors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The whole "sectors" thing is a redherring. The sources can be summarized as saying: "the men's rights movement exhibits misogynistic tendencies." This could be parsed as: The men's rights movement has been described as exhibiting misogynistic tendencies". Unless it can be shown where there is equivocation in the sources the word sector should go and not be replaced with weasel wording--Cailil ^talk 17:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  From what I can see so far, only one source has broadbrushed the movement in that fashion (I asked for more above). If that is the case, it would seem UNDUE. Arkon (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  From going through the talk page archives, Sectors was added because the sources called out specific groups as being misogynistic. And instead of itemizing and calling out each group, it was settled onto as sectors. At least that's how I read the discussions. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Questionable structure of perspectives within the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading section

The further reading section is very unbalanced, it consists of primary texts that might or may not be of some importance for the MRM, but no secondary reading material about the MRM. None of the books listed in the further reading section are directly about the subject of the article. Only two books mention the MRM briefly, one of them critically (Benatar). The section flies in the face of NPOV. It's a collection of antifeminist primary sources some of which have nothing to do with the MRM with no counterbalance from secondary sources. I suggest leaving Farrell, Baumeister and maybe one of the Nathanson & Young books and removing the rest. Furthermore, I suggest that we add Messner (doi:10.1177/0891243298012003002), Maddison [4], Coston & Kimmel [5]. Basically the Google scholar top hits. --SonicY (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section is unbalanced as is, it definitely needs trimming and to have some mainstream academic sources added to satisfy NPOV. Kimmel's Angry White Men and Kenneth Clatterbaugh's Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity might also be good candidates for inclusion. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)