Talk:Violence against men

Wiki Education assignment: Global LGBTQ Rights and Representation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryankirzner22 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Laurencraven.

Propose deletion

This article is obviously bunkum, it's WP:POINTY, about as pointy as it gets. Looking at sources, they are misrepresented. After taking the time to read the first few sources, it is evident that they clearly do not support the claims they are linked to. The article's claims are wildly at odds with mainstream academic discourse around the subject of gendered violence. I'm a bit confounded as to why it wasn't deleted at the first two nominations where consensus was to delete, and with good reason. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably better to improve the article than propose deletion then Imaginarium Monkey (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that needs to get deleted is ur account Goldberg246 (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. See conversations below.

Cleanup needed

Greetings,

since the deletion seems rather on course to not get through, I thought I'd start a discussion here while focus is on the article still. I agree that it's a mess in its current state, and needs cleanup. I've watchlisted it already, and will take a look at what I can contribute when time allows. In the meantime, feel free to remove anything you deem inappropriate or misrepresented. Maybe leave a quick note here so we can coordinate. I'll start by removing the Holocaust mention, since it is not in the Androcide article and the source cited says "It should be noted, that the Jewish genocide carried out by the Nazis was a “root-and-branch extermination” campaign and that gender was not a dominant consideration." Only at the very beginning there may have been some discrimination; it gives undue weigth keeping that here.

Pinging Dr vulpes, DanielRigal and Tambor de Tocino as potentially interested participants from the AfD discussion. -- LordPeterII (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I do agree with you but not sure how to contribute. this article seems biased in the sense that it overwhelmingly emphasizes violence by women against men when the literature I read seems to underline×s the fact violence against man is mainly perpetrated by men (war, killing, rapes...). Let me know if/how I can help. Cheers Astragales (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LordPeterII - I'm going to remove claims about men being over-represented in gendered violence, mainstream academia on the subject says the exact opposite...so those claims need excellent sourcing ie: seminal works on gendered violence...not a grab bag of random, fringe, selectively interpreted or completely misinterpreted sources. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, I made some edits but I'll back and try to find better sources for things. If I can't find anything then I'll remove it if its not in line with the goals of the article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

DanielRigal and Tambor de Tocino should not be allowed to edit the article as they are using it as a soapbox to introduce their own anti male bias and misandry. They are disruptively edditing it by remvoign sources and introducing biased language and false interpretation of sources.

– Just FYI, the preceding statement was made by 130.226.157.37; I have warned them on their talk page that this is not acceptable. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LordPeterII Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Claims not backed by sources

Hi all, looking to remove the dubious and pointy claims in this article. I tried to remove several pointy or misleading claims in the lede, but was reverted by Discospinster. This claim, for example "Men are over-represented as both victims and perpetrators of violence" - We are talking gendered violence here, where does the cited material make this claim, exactly, which page and sentence? Really such a controversial claim made in such glaringly stark contrast with mainstream academia on the subject of gendered violence should be very well sourced, preferably from a seminal academic text. As it is most of the lede appears to be cherry picked and/or misrepresented. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

One of the core facts in criminology is that men perpetrate more violent crime (80%) than women and they primarily victimize other men. That statement you quoted is exactly correct. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's violence generally, not gendered violence. I think the claim needs some context. The article should not be conflating gendered violence and violence in general.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, this claim seems odd "Sexual violence against men is treated differently than that committed against women in most societies and is largely unrecognized by international law" I mean, I've read so many studies about women not being taken seriously or being dismissed when reporting crime. Again I think such a claim needs really strong sourcing, like a seminal text, not just a grab bag. And also needs context and be specifically about gendered violence, not just general crime or violence. There's already articles about crime and violence, we're talking gendered violence that specifically targets a certain gender, the claims and cites should reflect that. I guess the key issue for me is that the article generally makes false equivalences between gendered violence experienced by women and gendered violence experienced by men. Much of this article is discussing general violence, street fights, war etc...not gender based violence at all.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, as Messerschmitt would say, is that men's violence against men is normalized to the point that gender is erased. There are plenty of scholars who point out that violence against men (by men or women) is treated differently. I don't think this article needs to be or should be like violence against women. We can reflect the literature on this topic without trying to make gender-based violence about men. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)violence against women, but what about men"

Yes, indeed. I guess the issue I have here is that this article reads like it was created as some kind of f-you to feminists penned by some horrid MGTOW type. Much of what is included is not male specific, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide for instance, were genocides, how an editor took it upon themselves to decide gender was a major factor is anyone's guess. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the tone isn't like 100% in your face about it but it's there and it can be subtle at times. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed 100% the tone is loaded at points throughout the article, but it's subtle. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed that part of the revert and added some more statements in it's place that are backed by journal citations. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think they were much needed improvements. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of introduction edits

Hey @EvergreenFir, I wanted to highlight some of the material I removed and my reasoning behind it. Not upset or anything just wanted to give you thought process and bounce ideas back and forth on this because this is a lot to work with and I did make some mistakes.

• In general I remove sentences that say "Renowned scholar Bob said x,y,z." because I find it to just be a lazy way to add words to a sentence. Unless they're really important or famous, but more often than not they not.
• I removed the citation and mention of Richard Felson because his work isn't really completely aligned with the citation, for example he has promoted the idea that rape isn't about power but just sexual urges.
• I removed the line "Reporting on violence against men shows disparities; people are less likely to report a man hitting another man to the police than a man hitting a woman" because I didn't think it was a good apples to apples comparison so I wanted to find an experiment that compared woman on woman and man on man violence to integrate it into the article and expand it. I probally shouldn't have removed this yet until I can find something better to replace it with so you were right on that one so thanks.
• For the "few legal provisions" line I changed that because the source was talking about India and there is an obvious global and cultural differnce at play. Do you have any ideas of how to balance that? I wasn't really sure where to start.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think they are obvious and much needed improvements, thanks. The way the article has been framed is WP:POINTY to say the least. I think removing language that infers there's some kind of anti-male conspiracy by law enforcement is a must. The section linking genocide to gendercide based on what appears to be a blog needs to go to. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree on the anti-male conspiracy by law enforcement, it's got to go. It's why I've tried to focus on using academic journals as sources, there is a bias against men in some cases (there's way more bias against people of color and women) but it's not a vast anti-male conspiracy. Do you know anyone else or other communities we can invite to help us with this article? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I'm only recently returned to editing Wikipedia after a long break. I'm working on an "intensive" Masters degree, but I'm happy to keep chipping away slowly at the article when I have time. I certainly agree now that there is a legitimate article in there amongst the histrionic men's rights stuff. Just needs all the hyperbolic, conspiratorial men's rights stuff removed and/or replaced. I think the tone for this article needs to be very finely tuned, to avoid it reading like one awful anti-feminist equivocation. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Attributing sources, particularly for an article like this, seems important for WP:WIKIVOICE considerations and WP:NPOV generally. Removing attribution may make this article look more like a personal essay. Sources that may help with a worldwide perspective include Crime & Criminal Justice (UN), Reports on world crime trends (UN), and International Government Data & Statistics: Crime (UC Berkeley). Beccaynr (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, good sources. I think the issue was that dubious and false claims were being dressed as legitimate using the old "Jimmy Bobscot said" when Jimmy Bobscot was just some fringe blogger or an MRA nutjob or some such. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing blogs and websites in favor of academic journals

I've been going over the article and replacing blogs and newspaper articles with references to academic journals. I think this is a good step in improving the article. If I removed something you felt was really important just add it back alongside the replaced reference. I feel it's important that with this subject that we are really careful what we cite but at the same time I don't want to block readers off from a reference due to a paywall. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice work. I've removed a few things I thought would be uncontroversial to remove. Let me know if you feel I've gotten any of it wrong. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think your edits on the LGBT section were really good. That section was part of a student assignment, so I think shifting away from a few cases of violence against and moving towards the larger structural problems is the right move and fits with our goals. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks same goes, the work you've done on the 'Perceptions and aspects' section is great, exactly what was needed in terms of tone and sourcing. Now we're getting somewhere. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup of anti male bias and rollback of false removals of sources and edits

Commenting that men are over representing as perpetrators is nothing but anti male bias, as men as perpetrators has absolutely nothing to do with them as victims and is nothing but anti male victim blaming. There is not reason for that line to be there as it only serves as an insidious way to lessen the concept of men as victims.

However if the line needs to be there it should be "Men are over-represented as both victims and perpetrators of violence." and not "Men are over-represented as both perpetrators and victims of violence." as this is a page about violence about men and editing it to be male perpetrators first shift the focus from being victims to being perpetrators. As such I would ask the anti male people disruptively editing this page to cease their attacks on this page.

Further, the links to the SCUM manifesto and throw rocks at boys are directly and strongly related to violence against males and should not be disruptively edited away like some are trying to. The Scum manifesto is a core piece of anti male radical feminist litrature that directly promotes violence against males written by a radical feminist who proceeded to shoot and murder one man and shoot another. Its a direct contributor to violence against males and radicalization of violent feminists. The second link is an example of literally and directly advocating violence against boys so there is no way one could argue its not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.44.83 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"The Scum manifesto is a core piece of anti male radical feminist litrature". No it simply isn't. It is the work of a severely mentally ill person who went on to attempt to murder somebody. I'm not here to broadly defend radical feminism in all its various forms but we can't define it by this fringe craziness. The "rocks" business is an argument about a stupid T-Shirt. This is trivia. It trivialises the subject at hand. Find some better examples if you like but not these. DanielRigal (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it simply is. It have been quoted and celebrated by a vast number of feminists, made into movies games and much much more. It's simply indisputable that its extremely important and core piece of feminist literature. Whatever she is mentally ill or not is irrelevant and has nothing to do with it being a core piece of feminist literature. It's indisputably famous and heavily used by radical feminists and as such an important piece in them advocating violence against men. It's also indisputably advocating violence against. Those two things are the only relevant aspect in consideration for its inclusion.

And I have seen nothing to substantiate it's fringe craziness given how commonly cited it is. I would like you to validate that claim in some way.It's litterally one of the most sold and read feminist pieces out there. I don't know on what basis you call it fringe.

And those t-shirt are significant in illustrating how commonly accepted violence against men are. They litterally advocate violence against boys to children. It was a significant controversy and important in illustrating how little care there is about violence against males. Your argument seems to boil down to you thinking it's stupid and not liking it, but that does not seem a valid reason to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.44.83 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll give you the mail (or male if you will). If my wife hit me, I'd probably fall over laughing. Just saying. Cheer up mate, you'll be right. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a joke. No one should ever hit anyone. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Those kinds of sexist jokes just goes to show that you are not editing this article in good faith. Wikipedia should not be a platform for your toxic chauvinism.

I'm just an IP, so I won't do anything, but I would encourage other users to consider reporting this user and reverting their recent changes, as he has been removing well-sourced content just because it seemingly goes against his point of view. 188.213.136.3 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a chauvinist, lol. Grow up. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Apsolutly disgusting joke, and not something you should joke about at all. Why do people like you always manage to be sexist against both women and men at the same time? I agree with the other person. You should not be editing this article. 90.129.210.87 (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It is funny though. And Jesus wept. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sexual Victimization of Men in America

The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions contains relevant data that I think should be included in the article. The National Crime Victim Survey's 12-month prevalence estimates of sexual victimization and the National Survey of Youth in Custody's statistics for sexual victimization by facility staff are particularly relevant for this article. See the below quotes:

> The NISVS’s 12-month prevalence estimates of sexual victimization show that male victimization is underrepresented when victim penetration is the only form of nonconsensual sex included in the definition of rape. The number of women who have been raped (1 270 000) is nearly equivalent to the number of men who were “made to penetrate” (1 267 000). As Figure 1 also shows, both men and women experienced “sexual coercion” and “unwanted sexual contact,” with women more likely than men to report the former and men slightly more likely to report the latter.

And:

> In the National Survey of Youth in Custody 2012, about 9.5% of male and female juvenile detainees reported sexual victimization in the 12 months before the interview (or since detained, if < 12 months). But gender differences were observed: females were more likely than were males to report sexual victimization by other youths (5.4% vs 2.2%), and males were more likely than were females to report sexual victimization by facility staff (8.2% vs 2.8%) 188.213.136.3 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Autoconfirm your account and edit it yourself Goldberg246 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Rework

Perceptions and aspects

So @Tambor de Tocino I think for this section we should expand a bit into the sources of stereotypes and unconscious bias. That was sort of what I was trying to get with in my previous edit but after rereading it I agree it wasn't the best, but I still think we should either add some more material on stereotypes and unconscious bias or make a new section for it. What do you think? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It's a hard area to tackle, and sorry if I accidentally undid some of your work feel free to reinstate. I find that section a real dogs breakfast, the idea that social attitudes affect the way violence against men is perceived is very real, it's a matter of drawing out what is specific to men rather than just generally poor attitudes from police and society in general. Many of the issues that effect men also effect women, like dismissive policing or abusive institutions. Again, as with the rest of the article I think following the best sources, a neutral tone, a bit of commonsense and a heap of context is needed. As evidenced from the original state of the article and much of the IP commentary, there's clearly been more than a few attempts to turn this article into a giant anti-feminist equivocation by misogynist MRA's and the like. If the article is to be kept, it needs to be very neutral, well sourced and given proper context, not just a platform for men to post fringe ideas (and frankly often revolting ideas) about how shit they think women are, drawing out every tiny perceived injustice...like circumcision? lol. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Domestic violence section

I just wanted to let people know I expanded the domestic violence section of the article. I was checking my work and pressed submit before I typed in the changes. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I just went through and more or less completely re-wrote that section. I removed claims cited to a Daily Telegraph editorial/opinion piece. Removed sentences that were poorly writen and hard to understand. The first journal article did not say anything that it is used to cite. Most important to note IMO is that there was massive equivocation going on there someone clearly acting in bad faith had completely misrepresented the figures in order to make it sound like there is parity between genders on this issue, which if you look at the facts from reliable source like the UN and government stats from Australia, USA and UK is clearly absolute nonsense, not even in the same ball park as reality. Also, female sexual violence being understudied and unrecognised means the stats on the claim are exactly that, understudied and unrecognised. Of course please pull me up where I got it wrong and reinstate where you think I've got rid of something valuable. Thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nah looks good to me. In general I think it's generally a good idea to include at least one or two nonacademic sources to each section of the article. Not everyone can access or properly understand academic language so I like having a few sprinkled in to increase accessibility. We can add them later after we screen them there's no rush. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

True, good idea adding a variety of reliable sources. I think another issue broadly with this article is equivocation, by omitting contextual information the article has ended up reading like we're saying there's a parity or a reasonable comparison to be made between men's and women's experience of gendered violence, when there is not. Like for example the section we've been working on, it was completely at odds with mainstream academia on the issue. This happens again and again throughout the article. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely a reasonable comparison between men's and women's experience of gendered violence. Men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence while women are more likely to be victims of the most severe and lethal forms of domestic violence. This was reflected in the article and supported by peer-reviewed academic sources before you removed them. 90.129.210.87 (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Care to share the source and the specific paragraph that makes such claims? That claim is refuted in several excellent sources that reflect the consensus view among mainstream academia. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll rejoin this conversation when work slows down but i wanted to chime in to say IP editor should stop relying on CTS studies and go read Kimmel's rebuttal of the gender symmetry argument. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you so blinded by your sexism that you can't even remember what you removed a few hours ago? Let me remind you: You removed this table: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14303/tbl/tbl1.2-eng.htm among a lot of other good sources I can't be bothered to dig up. The numbers speak for themselves but the report also says:

> In 2014, slightly more men (4.2%) than women (3.5%) reported being victims of spousal violence during the preceding 5 years. This translated into about 342,000 women and 418,000 men across the provinces. Similar declines in spousal violence were recorded for both sexes since 2004.

That should sound familiar to you because you removed similar text from the article. I would also like to draw your attention to this https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 paper which says:

> Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

There is however no point in engaging further with this as you are not doing this in good faith (as shown by your sexist joke and how you respond when called out on it), so I will leave this page now. It just confirms that Wikipedia is not good for topics that people feel too strongly about. I hope someone else has the energy to fight you on this, so that this page maybe could be neutral and informative one day. 90.129.192.94 (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That's some really interesting and important statistics. Can you tell me what they adjusted for in the odds ratios? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision

I'm not so sure about this section. I reckon most the men I know have been circumcised, no ones ever got upset about it, not even slightly. We used to joke about it "are you a helmet or a skivvy?". It's nothing like female genital mutilation which would be more akin to cutting the penis off entirely. I think its inclusion is silly, stupid even. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

We can get rid of it, that section was hard to wrangle. It's either a bunch of stories about isolated cases of forced circumcisions or just on the topic of circumcision. I could be wrong but I'm going to assume there aren't mass forced circumcisions happening. I would just add a link about it to the See Also section and if something comes along that's well developed we'll add it in. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Cutting of a part of a child's genitals is definitely violence. There are millions of men who don't share your views which in of themselve are an example of violence against men not being taken seriously. I think the section was good as it was before it was removed. 90.129.210.87 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The topic is already a part of the series on violence against men and there is an entire article on the topic. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Get real, IP. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A way to handle that is simply to keep the section short and rework it while piping to the in depth article on forced circumcision at the top of said section. This is fairly common across other articles. Regardless there is merit in discussing circumcision at large as there is academic literature on adverse health effects it can have and it is definitely gendered violence, despite not being seen as such in the US or religions which habitually practice it. 24.203.119.44 (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Mass killings

Cleaned up the mass killings section and added some sources. As with before I want to try and find some non-western historical accounts of this happening, all I found was the case for Rome which does well in the article but could be expanded a bit. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Legend, much improved. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• In the mass killings section I did a minor revert and changed conscription back to forced conscription. From my reading (and I could be wrong) forced conscription by an invading army seems much more violent than normal conscription by the state. It also is more in line with the other sources in that section. If we want to expand on military conscription broadly we can add it to the list of things to in the next wave of edits. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  All conscription is by definition forced conscription. I fail to see any value in distinguishing conscription by an invading army from any other kind of conscription. 90.129.210.87 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, there are differences between registering for the draft and being forced at gunpoint to fight and kill members of your nation. If you want to expand you're more than welcome to. Just make sure you have proper references, we've been leaning on academic journals mostly for this article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  As much as I hate to agree with our friend here, I believe conscription is forced, state mandated military service. But I also hear what you're saying, being captured and forced into an invading army is different...perhaps "forced military service" would be more accurate. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Who said we can't all find common ground :-)

  I'm not saying it's not, but as the article stands in the context of gendered violence we talk about conflict areas and war in that section of the article a lot. The literature I've found talks more about how there is mass murder or forced conscription of males and then taking women as war booty. So I'm just keeping things on theme. As I said before we can add a section to the article about conscription and there's already an article about it which we can poach from. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  lol. Fair enough, keep as is then. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Police killings

Refreshed this section, added some sources. Tried to include articles which had a focus outside of the USA and EU but it wasn't easy. It should be a good space to expand into later on after we get the bones of this article taken care of. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Really starting to shape up into a neutrally worded and well sourced article.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Reworked sources needed

More recent reliable source citations are needed. Sources from 15 or more years ago often have more recent ones with modern data. For example number of juvenile boys forced into sex by female guards at juvenile detention centers. A prisoner can never have consensual secpx with a guard when the guard can retaliate at will against the prisoner. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:11CB:8225:9E04:C76E (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree we need more modern citations, when I went though and changed the sources I would read a few papers on a topic and take the one that had the most citations or was the best article for the statement. The plan is after we get the article stable and structured to then go back and update the citations with more modern ones and add some non academic journal references as well. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is one source referring to a Fed government report on the subject. https://kidsimprisoned.news21.com/sexual-assault-juvenile-detention-facilities/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:11CB:8225:9E04:C76E (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting domestic violence section

So @Tambor de Tocino doesn't seem to understand that this is an article about violence against men so including stats about female victimization is irrelevant.

Also don't see the point in separating "domestic violence" from "female violence against men" they should just be in the same section. Goldberg246 (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, lets be cool and not start fighting. We're working together to build an article not rip each other down. I disagree, domestic violence can happen in homosexual or poly relationships and the section on women on man violence is wider than just domestic violence. When working with this many layers I think it's important to be as inclusaary as possible, add as much focused material as possible then go back and cut stuff away or move it around. @Tambor de Tocino and I have been doing that so far and it's been working. I'll add a bunch of stuff and they'll pull stuff out, I won't revert their edits but I'll go back and add on top of it. This process builds better articles, we spend more energy working towards something instead of trying to win a revert war. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Goldberg246 Hey mate, please read WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I'm willing to give you a chance to correct this behavior, but if the personal attacks continue I will not interact with you at all. I'm going to revert your recent changes as you edit summaries lacked any reason, they were just full of personal attacks. Please bring your changes to talk and I'll happily discuss them with you in a friendly and civil fashion. Thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• There seem to be some gaps in this and the related main article, e.g. Mutual combat and other family violence myths. (1983). There appears to be a nexus between this topic and violence against women, that is more complex than straightforward statistics. Beccaynr (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hi there Beccaynr I'm not sure I see what you are getting at. Your link just takes us to a list of studies. Could you expand a little? Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think there are avenues for research that may help support fair and proportionate coverage of the topic. For example, the concepts of "mutual combat", "primary aggressor", and "self defense" may relate to challenges for law enforcement and challenges for prosecution. I do think it is helpful to include statistics about violence against women as compared to statistics related to violence against men to help understand this topic, but there are also other aspects that this article, and the related article, could perhaps explore. With regard to so-called "mutual combat", for example, sometimes both parties are fighting, or sometimes someone is acting in self defense, and there are laws that try to discern the "primary aggressor", e.g. A 10-Year Study of the Impact of Intimate Partner Violence Primary Aggressor Laws on Single and Dual Arrest (J Interpers Violence, 2021). Basically, going beyond victimization studies could add some encyclopedic depth to this complex topic. Beccaynr (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Cool, thanks. Sounds interesting.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of circumcision section

I reverted an edit that was merely based on feelings but had my edit reverted. What is the basis for this? Why should the section not be there? Is it a problem in the sources? Python Drink (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the original reason for removing it is pretty bad. Pinging @Tambor de Tocino. Madeline (part of me) 12:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

FGM is included in the article Violence against women so for consistency there should be a section on circumcision in this article. The debate about comparing FGM to circumcision should be left to the reader to discover in the well sourced articles about these practices not by removing any reference to circumcision in this article. It doesn't matter whether certain editors don't think circumcision is 'violence against men' but whether reliable sources have debated the practice in this context. After a brief reading of articles dealing with this debate I can see no reason (and no consensus) why the section on circumcision has been removed. Robynthehode (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Consistency between articles that appear to be counterparts generally isn't a great reason for doing anything on Wikipedia. Each article is taken on its own. Likewise "leave it to the reader". We need reasons to include more than we need reasons not to include. That said, as someone pointed out above, it's part of the "series on violence against men" template (or forced circumcision is, at least). Rather than a reason to omit, I'd say typically the main article on a subject should include summaries of its subtopics per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Not advancing an opinion on whether the now-removed text is the best way of doing that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• The section was removed because it's obvious and patent none-sense. Around 40% of men are circumcised, I doubt anyone other than a few fringe MRA's has ever even thought about it. It's definitely not considered violence against men by mainstream subject matter experts, circumcision is very common...among Jews, Christians and Muslims it's a common cultural and religious practice ...it comes from the Torah and Old Testament, Abraham's covenant with god. the sources were not reliable and reflect a fringe view. Sure, some people may have tried to call circumcision violence against men, people say stuff, if I dig around the net long enough I'm sure I can find similar quality sources that say the earth is flat, some basic common sense and skepticism needs to be applied to this ridiculous claim.

Now, onto the false equivalence between Female genital mutilation and circumcision. There may be a comparison in the minds of some MRA's and other fringe men's groups, but in reality there's nothing in common between the too. They used to call FGM "female circumcision", but professionals in the field pushed for the term FGM to be used because "female circumcision" is wildly misleading. FGM is horrific, it involves gauging out the entire clitoris, removing the entire external genital, and sowing the vaginal opening closed. Many girls die because of it. The male equivalent is total castration scrotum and penis completely removed. On that note, a section on castration and eunuchs could be a legitimate inclusion for this article. Circumcision is not a legitimate inclusion in this article, the claim is completely laughable. But I can't stop anyone from trying to argue the case for ludicrous and completely false claims being included if they insist. I hope you guys understand what I'm saying here. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether that section addressed the issue well is a matter of its own, but Every second bloke is circumcised, never heard a single complaint about it in my entire life. doesn't rank very high on the scale of good reasons to remove information from Wikipedia. Madeline (part of me) 06:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

When all is said and done, circumcision is simply not violence against men, it's a false claim. I've explained in more detail above. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy to discuss any reasons you think it should be included. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino and Maddy from Celeste: I agree that this is something to be discussed. We have Forced circumcision, an article that discusses the problem, which is notably not the same as regular male circumsision. The removed section had some very questionable sources (like this one), but also some proper academic ones, like this one. I personally see the latter one (and related papers) as sufficient to include the section; but we need to make sure to explain that FGM is always violence, while male circumsision is only in very specific contexts, mostly as part of wars or armed clashes (from what I have gathered). --LordPeterII (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it could probably be re-added as part of the section Wartime sexual violence? --LordPeterII (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Possibly that one incident in Kenya where Luo people were circumcised in what appears to be a tribal shaming could be included in war section, but is an isolated event like that due? (bit of trivia: Barak Obama's ancestry is Luo). Nothing else in the section was supported by reliable sources. None of the sources used make the claim that circumcision is violence against men, and really if a claim like that was to be included, it would need significant academic coverage, a consensus among subject matter experts that circumcision is violence against men. That academic literature and consensus doesn't exist, because the claim in regard to regular old circumcision being violence against men is obviously absurd. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't really talk about the subject of this discussion. All you did was veer off to talking about FGM is worse and bash MRAs. -- Python Drink (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just been looking at it and it is not clear cut (no pun intended). The removed section was small and not egregious (again, no pun intended). I'm not sure that it belongs at the top level rather than in an appropriate subsection. The one problem is that it starts off by framing it as a general criticism of circumcision itself rather than as a criticism of doing it to a non-consenting child. I see this as parallel to the issue of non-essential surgery on intersex children. It's not the surgery itself that is the issue. It is that the kid doesn't get to choose whether they want it or not. If we bring the section back then we need to tweak that a bit. Just adding the word "involuntary" to the first sentence would probably be enough.

One very weird thing I found along the way is that neither the Forced circumcision nor Ethics of circumcision article make any reference to the fact that some (certainly not all!) of the noise around circumcision is based in antisemitism and islamophobia. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Sources people. This is becoming quite a hilarious discussion if you think about it, I hope it's giving others a bit of a chuckle, but lets put it to bed. Sources. Sources. Sources. Where is the body of academic work and subject matter experts that back this claim "circumcision is violence against men"? I've seen nothing that comes close to backing this claim. It's bunkum. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's what a quick search of scholarly articles turned up (10 mins) from google and without any access to academic databases. Whether you position yourself on one side of the debate or another, there is a debate on the question (with a wide variety of opinions) and arguments have been advanced by credible sources ranging from ethical scholars to medical sources. Whether FGM is worse or not is irrelevant in this context and it is not necessary (and probably not desirable) to make a comparison between the two to offer a good treatment of the subject.

  https://europepmc.org/article/med/12402747

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2128663/#ref2

  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1468796819896089

  https://www.nocirc.org/legal/smith.php 24.203.119.44 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  The MRA stance that circumcision of the male foreskin is somehow gendered violence is a fringe view, I believe it's even a fringe view among MRA's. None of the articles you've supplied make the claim that circumcision is violence against men. I assume you didn't read these articles? There's at least one that is a blog post (not a reliable source) - It's important to read mainstream academic materials and come to a conclusion, not come to a conclusion then use google search to confirm your beliefs. Well cited fringe views about circumcision can be discussed on the circumcision article, not an article about violence against men (though I doubt this claim really belongs anywhere, it's a nonsense claim). The WHO recognises the value of foreskin circumcision as a preventative health measure, as does the AMA: "Circumcision decreases the incidence of urinary tract infections in the first year of life, and also protects against the development of penile cancer later in life. The circumcised male also may be somewhat less susceptible to HIV infection and certain sexually transmissible diseases." I think that really should put the argument to bed. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino: "but is an isolated event like that due?" It doesn't appear to be an isolated event. It's true that Forced circumcision does not seem to be any problem in "The West", but we must not hastily discard events in e.g. Africa as not relevant.

Anyway, you asked for sources, and you are right in that. I've identified one of these in my post above that one, but there's also this, again on the Luo, and again here, here and here. And per the subsection on Yugoslavia, we have also reports of this as a war crime here. I'm unsure about this, since I've not been able to read it. Yes, in-depth scientific literature is primarily about the Luo (didn't know that Obama trivia btw, interesting); but the Forced circumcision article has several examples of this in other clashes between religions or cultures. It's not that the practice of circumcision should be considered a violent act per se (as it seems some MRA do), but that when forced upon unwilling adults, it can become a form of violence against men.

Also, your point about the probable health benefits of circumcision does not end the discussion: Yes, it's true that circumcision in itself is not a dangerous practice (as FGM is), but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a form of violence. Many actions do not result in permanent trauma, but are still considered violence. In conclusion, I see clear evidence that this information should be re-added, although in better form. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I read that last book chapter you linked. It feels pretty exemplary of anti-circumcision views, so we could probably use something from that with attribution. It reads like an essay with a fair bit of speculation, though, so I'd be cautious of citing without in-text attribution. Madeline (part of me) 20:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess then it's about how much prominence those events are given. I'm definitely opposed to including the unqualified claim that circumcision in and of itself is violence against men - that is not a verifiable claim. The 'Wartime sexual violence' section already refers to the Luo gentle mutilation, perhaps that section would be appropriate for the explicit claims about forced circumcision in conflict. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree it should be put under 'Wartime sexual violence', most (reliable) sources talk about it exclusively in the context of wars or armed conflicts. But it should be explicitly stated, with a link to Forced circumcision, precisely because that's not a thing you'd expect would fall under "sexually mutilated". --LordPeterII (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I forgot to address the AMA and WHO stuff. What I'm saying is leading national and international health organizations recognise and endorse the therapeutic and preventative use of circumcision. This is in stark contrast to claims that regular circumcision (something nearly half of all males have had) is violence against men. I think that does put that specific claim to bed. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think those specific events and forced circumcision as a war tactic can be worked into the article in the manner you are suggesting. It's the claim that circumcision in general is violence against men that I oppose the inclusion of as an unverified and false claim. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah @Tambor de Tocino you're right about that, I misread that "health" argument then. Circumcision in itself is not regarded as violence. There's some discussion on whether or not parents should decide for their child, but that's a fringe discussion in science and not relevant here, as it seems to be more about legal things and Child custody than "violence against men". Only the war (crime) part is supported by sources. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

That last one is part of a book that addresses circumcision in general rather than forced circumcision of adults. It's from a reputable scientific publisher so I do think we can/should include something about this point of view, with due weight of course. Madeline (part of me) 17:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: Can you give a quote where it says "circumcision is violence" or "violence against men"? We are talking about this book still, right? I agree that circumcision is not just "obviously good"; I personally believe there may be downsides to it. But there's still a difference between "downside" or "side effects", and "violence". And from the abstract it reads more like it's discussing the former. If the source discusses potential health downsides to circumcision (as opposed to claimed health benefits), it should definitely be on Wikipedia – but I'm rather thinking it should go to Circumcision directly. This article here should only deal with cases where it's explicitly claimed to be a violent act, not just a bad thing to do. Like, if you actively chose circumcision and later deeply regretted it, it wouldn't be violence. Just like you might be convinced by someone to take drugs or get a tattoo, and later find out that these things weren't as great as you thought. --–LordPickleII (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, now that you mention it, that chapter doesn't directly call it violence. Chapter 19 of that same book does, though: Both the Hellenic Jewish Philo in the first century C.E. and Moses Maimonides, also known in the Jewish tradition as the Great Rambam, in the twelth century wrote of the consequences of violently removing the most sensuous part of a man’s sexual organ before he is old enough to understand or consent to this loss.; Circumcision achieves this by violently breaching the maternal-infant bond shortly after birth….
Here is an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics calling circumcision of infants a violation of human rights. Most likely a lot more will emerge with more thorough investigation, but I have to go now. Madeline (part of me) 21:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, yes that comes close; but I'm not convinced that this is expert consensus. It may be debated, but it doesn't seem plausible given that this talks about circumcision in infancy again: Adding "some say neonatal circumcision is a human rights violation" to this very narrowly scoped article feels off. It sounds like we are implying that parents and doctors don't prevent this dangerous practice. I do believe it could be added to the article, Circumcision. But it doesn't really fit here, imo. –LordPickleII (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

... aand I just found Ethics of circumcision, which probably is the more appropriate main article. Idk, maybe we can discuss this further, but I'm getting too tired now. Until later! –LordPickleII (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree LordPickleII, the claim that circumcision is violence against men is clutching at straws. If we need to deep dive the farthest corners of the internet to find a single source to back this claim it is obviously undue/unverifiable. I'll contest this one all the way as it is obviously a false claim (in a friendly and collegial manner, of course 😊). Keeping in mind that even the most spurious claim will have some mention somewhere if we dig through the web hard enough and long enough, but that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The claim should be a common mainstream claim that was easily found reading mainstream reliable sources by subject matter experts (fringe views on circumcision can be discussed on articles about circumcision). Coming to a conclusion and then scouring the internet for the most marginal inference to a fringe claim is not how Wikipedia sourcing and verification is supposed to work. Read the mainstream literature on a subject, reflect material in an encyclopedic manner - not - come to conclusion, spend days trying to find a single random fringe source to confirm our pre-held beliefs and assumptions. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I, as a reader, would find it odd if circumcision was not mentioned at all. Also, some of the argumentation in both this thread and the one above is appalling. Arguments along the lines of "well I don't mind it" are just are poor as if I jumped in and deleted the section on conscription because both I and all my friends are pro-conscription.

Now, moving towards a solution, a quite honest description of the issue would presumably be something along the lines something like this:

Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons is a subject of a long-running and vigorous ethical debate. Such procedures have been criminalized in several countries, most notably South Africa and Sweden, unless performed for religious reasons. In 2012, the International NGO Council on Violence against Children identified non-therapeutic circumcision of infants and boys as being among harmful practices that constitute violence against children and violate their rights. The German Academy for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (Deutsche Akademie für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin e.V., DAKJ) recommend against routine non-medical infant circumcision. The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations. The Danish College of General Practitioners has stated that circumcision should "only [be done] when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation." These views clash with arguments based on religious freedom, as well as an argument that criminalization would be predominately ineffective, would lead parents who insist on the procedure to turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals, and would further the stigmatization of or encourage the persecution of minority groups.

(shamelessly cobbled together from Circumcision with minor modifications, needs to be rephrased before use). -Ljleppan (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: I'm not against a section on Circumcision per se, but we need to make sure it fits within the context of this page. If you consider homicide, rape, androcide and similar things as undisputed violence against men, then circumcision is at best disputed in comparison. Simply because the debate is mostly an ethical one: Is circumcision necessary? Ofc you basically "hurt" a person by removing some of their skin; but there are very likely no lasting consequences (if done by a professional), and few males will be traumatized later by it, compared to the case that they experience any of the other sorts of violence mentioned here.

Now, above was mostly a personal reflection; but as pointed out, sources only agree on circumcision as violent in the context of conflicts. Everything else is a debate, as your proposal correctly states – and mostly an ethical one. But just because something is ethically questionable, it's not automatically violence. I find your points about it being criminalized in some countries more convincing, as that is a "clear" instance of the practice being considered harmful. Same for the quote otherwise it is a case of mutilation, that sounds like it is deemed violence. I reject The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations, as that is an individual statement which definitely not aligns with medical or ethical consensus: Female Genital Mutilations are condemned almost universally, and carry an undisputed higher risk of serious harm. So yeah, not against a modified proposal here, but imo it needs to be a bit narrowed due to the page focus. –LordPickleII (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Focusing it down sounds good, it ended up being longer than I thought anyways. Basically, I'm advocating for a short introduction along the lines of "there's this associated complex topic, where a commonly performed action is viewed as violence against men by some but not others" with a {{main}} to a relevant article (Ethics of circumcision?) Ljleppan (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: how would you feel about the below, combined with {{main}} pointing at Ethics of circumcision? Not sure which section it would go under, tho.

Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons is a subject of a long-running and vigorous ethical debate. Such procedures have been described as constituting violence against children and violating their rights, with some medical organizations labeling circumcision performed for non-medical reasons as mutilation. These views clash with arguments based on religious freedom, as well as an argument that criminalization would be predominately ineffective, would lead parents who insist on the procedure to turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals, and would further the stigmatization of or encourage the persecution of minority groups.

The refs would be those used to support similar statements in circumcision. Ljleppan (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've still not seen a single reliable source that makes the claim that circumcision, regular old circumcision, is violence against men. Failing that the claim is unverifiable. There doesn't appear to be any mention in any reliable source anywhere on the net, even digging the deepest darkest corners, let alone a mainstream consensus among subject matter experts, as is required for inclusion of such a claim. There's simply no getting past the fact that it's a false claim that cannot be verified. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how reqular old circumcision (whatever that means) is relevant when the paragraph I'm proposing is about Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons. Ljleppan (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

By regular old circumcision, I mean the type that nearly half of all men have had, not the stuff we were talking about in Kenya with the Luo people. I hope I haven't cause you any offense. I simply haven't seen any reliable sources that call regular circumcision "violence against men" or any variation on that. There's parts of the article that discuss non-consensual circumcision in conflict etc. I don't feel like it's warranted to go into the pros and cons of circumcision at this article, it would be drawing a very long bow. Those issues are discussed on the circumcision articles, this article is about violence against men. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino so what's you specific objection to the above proposed para, sourced as described above? Note the exact verbiage used, where a specific type of circumscision is described by medical practitioner groups as violence and mutilation? Ljleppan (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I explained my issue above. I think that this content may be due on an article about circumcision, but not here. This edition would be reaching our own conclusion here in regards the articles subject, violence against men. Including some off topic discussion about debates around circumcision and then drawing a conclusion that it is somehow gendered violence would be original research. Debates about the pros and cons of circumcision can be and are discussed on articles relating to circumcision. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Robynthehode: VAW contains a section on FGM. It’s strange to argue that cutting around one gender’s private parts constitutes gender-based violence (VAW in this case), whereas cutting around another gender’s private parts is not gender-based violence. Therefore there needs to be some section, call it circumcision, call it castration, call it male genital mutilation, I don’t care., and this section could elaborate why it is or is not VAM, why people think either way.
@Tambor de Tocino: Your comparison is fundamentally flawed. Removing a man’s reproductive organs irrevocably deprives him of the ability to procreate. I’ve only seen removal of a woman’s womb and/or ovaries as a last resort to “treat” cancer, so as part of a medical procedure though. Your argument that there are some marginal medical benefits is out of place: It’s usually not medical practitioners suggesting circumcisions, leave alone coercively/violently forcing such a procedure to be performed. (I wonder is there even a health insurance covering expenses?) Ljleppan’s later replies outline this.
If I may draw your attention to the article Violence, the lead paragraph. The mere fact that the general population doesn’t subsume circumcision under VAM doesn’t mean it wasn’t violence. I’m afraid it’s still a taboo calling it violence because it might be considered religious insensitivity. Scientist may avert drawing wrath or attention to them and thus avoid using charged words like violence. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 10:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

These are simply your personal opinions. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It should not be removed the sources in that section are clear about it being violence: * Stoffers, Carl (September 24, 2015). "The Bloodstained Men chop away at infant circumcision". New York Daily News. Retrieved September 1, 2016.

• Ahlberg, Beth Maina; Njoroge, Kezia Muthoni (2013). "'Not men enough to rule!': politicization of ethnicities and forcible circumcision of Luo men during the postelection violence in Kenya". Ethnicity & Health. 18 (5). Taylor and Francis: 454–468. doi:10.1080/13557858.2013.772326. PMID 23758644. S2CID 6196941.
• Vojdik, Valorie K. (2014). "Sexual violence against men and women in war: a masculinities approach". Nevada Law Journal. 14 (3). William S. Boyd School of Law: 923. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2271222. SSRN 2271222.
• Men and Boys and Sexual and Gender Based Violence (SGBV). South Africa: Restless Development. October 2014. Discussions with youth peer educators and staff at Restless Development South Africa: challenges and recommendations.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 10:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No consensus for removal; return to status quo

In the above discussion it's become rather obvious that there is no clear consensus for the removal of a section on circumcision. As such, we should retain the status quo before the originating edits, i.e. reinstate the section. I will do the relevant edits once I get home from work, unless someone gets to it before myself. For continued discussion, I suggest those in favor of removing the content formulate an RFC on this talk page. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'd have preferred not to take it to RFC, but as the claim is not backed by reliable sources, If the section is reinstated then I beleive the inclusion of these false and unverified claims needs be looked into further. Nothing personal, I really think this claim that circumcision is violence against men is simply not backed by any reliable sources. See how it goes, all the best. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed how consensus building works in Wikipedia, as you presumably are well aware. For future reference, when someone reverts your bold edit (removal of a section), the correct thing per WP:BRD is to establish consensus before reinstating your edits as you did here. While you did not in this case establish a clear consensus for whole-sale removal of the section, I'm sure people would be more amicable towards editing it to address any more detailed concerns you might have. Indeed, I combined the reinstatement of the section with a bold edit to a version that is close to what I proposed above. Ljleppan (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Military conscription and war

I expanded Military conscription and war section, mostly cut and paste from the Conscription and sexism article. I also moved the Wartime sexual violence section into this section. I've added a photo of a women's march against male conscription. I think this is important to to give context and demonstrate women and feminists longstanding support for men and peace and their longstanding opposition to war and violence against men. That's enough procrastinating for the day. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino: It's a good start (a lot better than an empty section lol). I'm unsure of whether Wartime sexual violence really fits there better than it does under Sexual violence, it's tricky because it basically is a part of both. I think currently, the context on feminism is a bit too pronounced: We really only need a short explanation why this can be considered "violence against men", and most other things can be read in the linked, main article. I think They say conscription of men normalizes male violence, conscripts are indoctrinated into sexism and violence against men is the most important sentence here (which ofc begs a little context, in that this was said by feminists). I believe the last paragraph starting with While not all feminists are anti-militarists, opposition to war and militarism has been a strong current within the women's movement could simply be cut as not relevant for this article. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually think it would be better to move Wartime sexual violence back. Because currently, it looks like Conscription and sexism would be the main article for that entire section, and you'd think that it also covered wartime sexual violence, which it does not. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What if we just rename the section simply "War" Tambor de Tocino (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I like this bit, gives context. "While not all feminists are anti-militarists, opposition to war and militarism has been a strong current within the women's movement" but if you think it should go then I'm fine with that. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino: Yes, "War" works, as now the "main article" fits. My issue with that sentence is that it only talks about feminism and anti-militarism, which is not important for this article which deals with neither. I mean, that's why we have the "main article" link there, for people who want more context. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remove it. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to it. Thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Not always women opposing conscription. See White_Feather campaign with women shaming men for not serving in WWI, even to the extent of shaming WWI veterans during the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:4C7F:C53C:4358:E964 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but generally speaking the feminist movement has opposed war and conscription, as can be easily verified in mainstream academia on the subject - it's simply a well known historic fact. I know it's hard for some MRA's to accept, but women are not evil, most women love and respect the men in their lives, their sons, lovers, fathers, grandfathers etc. Same goes the other way, most men love and respect women. This article is about violence against men, not how shit MRA's think women are. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I just took the time to read about the white feather, it was created by a male military officer Charles Fitzgerald. He enlisted the enormous group of...just thirty women to give the feathers as a propaganda stunt, it appears it was not wide spread. Charles Fitzgerald, the misandrist! lol. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tambor de Tocino: I think you need to differentiate between "women" and "feminists". IP is not wrong in that women have not always opposed war. Like, if you go back to before the feminism movement even started, or even further far back in history, war might have been considered necessary, and that only males would go to war accepted. But yeah, that would mean going back pretty far in time; and as this article is mostly concerned with the present, I think we can leave that out. (As a side note, don't suspect a MRA advocate everywhere. These two initial IPs were disruptive, but others might mean to be constructive.) –LordPickleII (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I did cop a lot of abuse from IP's to start with. You are right though, not all IP's are disruptive. I should assume good faith. Having said that, no one said all women or all feminists oppose war, so the comment did feel like another MRA jibe. I'll remember to assume good faith. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I did some edits to the conscription section, but I'm left with a concern that it doesn't really discuss conscription as an act of violence against men. Sentences such as [Critics] say conscription of men normalizes male violence, conscripts are indoctrinated into sexism and violence against men, and military training socializes conscripts into patriarchal gender roles. frame it as a catalyst for men committing actions against others (largely irrespective of gender, as the text reads now), rather than as violence against men. This is mostly a tonal issue, but I'm not sure how to address it. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As a thought, does the literature support a framing via something like "conscription puts men in an increased danger of being subjected to violence during a war"? Ljleppan (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Conscription affects more than 419,000,000 men in just the top 7 most populous countries: Brazil population 215,105,687, Russia population 145,100,000, Egypt population 103,794,548, Iran population 85,750,977, Turkey population 84,680,273, Thailand population 66,832,317, South Korea population 51,638,809, Algeria population 45,400,000 and Ukraine population 41,130,432. Those countries are more than 10 percent of world population at over 839 million persons from List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population. 5 percent of world population of men are affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5822:31D6:B377:FE12 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Can this be added: "Conscription reduces college graduation rates and reduces lifetime earnings." with the following reference?

The journal reference has the impact on college graduation rates and future earnings impact. From the abstract:

1. decreases the proportion of Dutch university graduates by 1.5 percentage points from a baseline of 12.3 per cent.
2. reduces the probability of obtaining a university degree by almost four percentage points.
3. The effect of military service on earnings is also negative and long-lasting. Approximately 18 years after military service, we still find a negative effect of 3 to 4 per cent.

Hubers, F., Webbink, D. The long-term effects of military conscription on educational attainment and wages. IZA J Labor Econ 4, 10 (2015)

2600:1700:D591:5F10:B9C2:D41E:48B6:5F27 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Comment regarding phrasing / focus

A lot of the prose appears to be driven by violence targeting women, such as with these sentences Globally, women are far more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner than men with 47,000 women murdered by a male family member every year globally. In the United States, in 2005, 1181 women were killed by their intimate partners, compared to 329 men. (refs and maintenance tags omitted). Since the focus of the article is on male victims, this would read as better-aligned with the article title if the driving part of the sentences was changed to men, perhaps along the following: Globally, men are less like likely to be murdered by an intimate partner than women with 47,000 women murdered by a male family member every year globally. In the United States, in 2005, 329 men were killed by their intimate partners, compared to 1181 women.

Also, I'd remove stats that are only reported for women: knowing that an estimated 47,000 women were killed by family members does not help a reader understand violence against men, unless presented together with a male-targeting number. Unless that number is available for comparison, I'd propose something along the lines of Globally, men are less like likely to be murdered by an intimate partner than women. In the United States, in 2005, 329 men were killed by their intimate partners, compared to 1181 women. Ljleppan (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: Support the first proposal of a changed sentence structure, makes sense and doesn't change the content. As for the second part, maybe we can find stats for men as well, so I'd wait with that; but if none can be found, it also does make sense. –LordPickleII (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've done a once-over. I ended up removing that specific statistics, because it failed verification as phrased. No objection to reintroducing it (properly phrased) if someone can find the comparative statistic for men. Ljleppan (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ljleppan, nice work, really tidies the article up. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Huge improvement

Hi all, just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone who has been working on improving this article recently. I just read the entire article for the first time since restructuring and it's like a new article, the tone is neutral, the article is cited properly and reflects mainstream academia on the subject, proper context is given to claims, it's a huge improvement...Great work everyone. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, thanks to all! Likely the best outcome of any AfD I have witnessed, and a testament to the community's ability to tackle difficult topics :D –LordPickleII (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sexual violence and rape

The sexual violence section would greatly benefit from some discussion on both the legal definitions of "rape," (where some legal definitions have not applied to women-on-men forced sexual intercourse) as well as the other problems unique (or at least more prevalent) to male rape victims. Potential sourcing for the latter includes:

• Turchik, Jessica A., and Katie M. Edwards. "Myths about male rape: A literature review." Psychology of Men & Masculinity 13.2 (2012): 211. discussing way in which sexual violence has been sustained and justified through history and modern times
• Javaid, Aliraza. "Male rape myths: Understanding and explaining social attitudes surrounding male rape." Masculinities and social change 4.3 (2015): 270-294. Discussing how male rape myths shape society’s responses and attitudes to male victims of rape
• Walfield, Scott M. "“Men cannot be raped”: Correlates of male rape myth acceptance." Journal of interpersonal violence 36.13-14 (2021): 6391-6417.

etc. - Ljleppan (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The sexual violence section needs to include "The Human Rights Campaign found 21 percent of heterosexual men and over 40 percent of gay or bisexual men experienced sexual violence.[21]" part near the top of the section. Here is the quote from the earlier section if this page. "According to the Human Rights Campaign, 26 percent of gay men and 37 percent of bisexual men experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner, compared to 29 percent of straight men.[21] Additionally, 40 percent of gay men and 47 percent of bisexual men have experienced sexual violence other than rape, compared to 21 percent of straight men.[21]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5822:31D6:B377:FE12 (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please fix typo

"Male law enforcement officers show a greater reluctance to file charges or reports when a man is the victim on domestic violence." should change "on" to "of" in the end part "victim on domestic violence" of the sentence. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:8C0B:DCB:8F8F:3A64 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC - Do reliable sources support the inclusion of circumcision in the violence against men article?

Looking at the inclusion of this section Violence_against_men#Forced_circumcision. Do reliable sources support the inclusion of this section on circumcision in the article on violence against men? Tambor de Tocino (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• No - There does not appear to be any reliable sources included that describe circumcision as gendered violence, or violence against men, or any variation on that phrasing. Circumcisions inclusion in this article appears to be based on editors drawing their own conclusions from original research. None of the academia I've read on this subject describes male foreskin circumcision as gendered violence or violence against men or any variation on that description. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support describing the debate - We have reliable sources indicating that:
  • The Danish College of General Practitioners has defined non-medical circumcisions as mutilation [2] ([1])
  • The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) states Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity. ([2])
  • According to British Medical Association (BMA), a spectrum of views exists as to whether it is beneficial, neutral, harmful or even superfluous ([3], p. 19)
  • According to Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed ([4], p. 18)
  • Multiple Nordic chidrens' rights ombudsmen sought a ban on non-therapeutic male circumcision because they thought circumcision of underage boys without a medical indication to be in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child ([5])

While these are, in the light of opposing viewpoints, insufficient to state in wikivoice that (non-medical, routine) circumcision would conclusively be violence, they clearly establish that such views are held by medical organizations and other relevant parties. This conclusion of there being a genuine debate is supported by further reliable sources (Two debates surround circumcision: (1) whether circumcision of newborns should be routine, and (2) whether non-therapeutic circumcision should be performed at all., [6], p. 45) While there can certainly be discussion on how, exactly, to frame this debate in the article, a blanket removal of the discussion appears completely undue. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Leaning no based on the sources presented in this discussion thus far. I think that the examples provided thus far by Ljleppan seem to be WP:OR as far as the connecting circumcision to "violence against men"; the sources are unequivocal about their opposition to circumcision, but stop short of calling it violence or diagnosing the phenomenon as part of a broader pattern of "violence against men". Obviously, if a reliable source could be provided that does conclusively make that connection I would reconsider my !vote. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rosguill would you accept [7], entitled Forced male circumcision: gender-based violence in Kenya or [8], entitled ‘Not men enough to rule!’: politicization of ethnicities and forcible circumcision of Luo men during the postelection violence in Kenya, or [9] stating

  Forced circumcision as sexual terrorism and a war crime Rape and sexual violence are acknowledged to be serious problems in war. 42 A report from the Agence France-Presse noted that forced circumcision was used as a terrorist tactic in the civil conflict in Kenya in 2008,1 and that the same was true of ethnic and religious conflicts in Indonesia, Pakistan, The Sudan, Turkey and Uganda. Acknowledging and condemning the use of forced circumcision in war and civil conflicts will help to brand it as sexual terrorism and a war crime. [..] The first step is to acknowledge that forced circumcision is a widespread and serious human rights abuse. To acknowledge that forced circumcision often accompanies forced conversion, ethnic cleansing and genocide will sensitise the world community just as acknowledging the prevalence of rape in war is helping to bring condemnation on this abuse

  Ljleppan (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  See also [10], stating [This article] highlights how male circumcision – like its counterpart female genital mutilation – is nearly always a strongly political act, enacted upon others by those with power, in the broader interests of a public good but with profound individual and social consequences. [..] During the Turkish occupation and subsequent genocide in Armenia in 1915, during which some 1.5 million died, Armenian men and boys were forcibly circumcised..

  Overall, we have plenty of sources that identify that some of the relevant authorities call the practice it "gender-based violence", "mutilation", etc. and it certainly is "disproportionately committed against men or boys". Ljleppan (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think this still sort of toys with OR, as it does not identify it within the lens of "violence against men" but rather just wartime violence more broadly. There's the separate issue which is that these additional sources are about forced circumcision as war crime, whereas the paragraph at issue for this discussion appears to primarily be about circumcision performed on minors who are unable to provide consent. So, you may be able to construct a relevant section with these and additional sources, but they don't appear to license the inclusion of the specific section this RfC was convened about. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  To clarify your !vote, you are opposing the current content/focus in the circumcision section, but not the existence of a circumcision section in toto? Ljleppan (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Luo men being mutilated was included (I don't know when or why that was removed) and I support it's inclusion in the "Wartime sexual violence" section. But, to include circumcision generally would mean we are including an unverified and false claim, there's simply no evidence to verify or support such a claim. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  The problem with folding this under the sexual violence section is that we have the International Criminal Court explicitly ruling forced circumcision is not "sexual violence", but rather a distinct human rights violation. See Glass (2013) from the refs. Ljleppan (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  At this time, I definitely oppose the section at-issue as it was written when the discussion was opened, and also oppose its inclusion on the basis of the sources discussed in this thread. I think that the incidence of circumcision as wartime sexual violence suggests that it is plausible that sources may exist connecting circumcision to "violence against men" as a societal phenomenon, but the sources presented in this thread don't actually appear to make that connection and thus fall short in my view. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Noting for the record, given the IMO less-than-satisfactory sources proposed to support the inclusion of a section on circumcision, that the OR-free way to write an article about a broad social phenomenon such as this one is to look up the literature regarding the topic (in this case, "violence against men") and organizing the article to reflect the balance of content in such sources. Examples of medical literature describing circumcision as violence that affects male children is not enough, we need reliable sources that discuss the topic as part of the broader topic of "violence against men". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, the presented sources don't really connect it to the larger topic of violence against men, making it WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes (summoned by Bot). The topic does seem to warrant some careful reference to the debate, based on such as the July 2012 open letter to the government of Germany signed by hundreds of doctors and lawyers, describing male circumcision as sexual violence; that non-therapeutic circumcision has been prohibited as violence against children; as well as due to articles such as:
  • "Circumcision Is Unethical and Unlawful",
  • "Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation"
  • "Investigating the Secular Body: The Politics of the Male Circumcision Debate in Germany" Lindenfall (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding two comments: that it is thus discussed in those circles (above) indicates to me that the notion is not to be dismissed, and is worthy of reference on these pages, and many acts of violence have been or still are societal customs, yet they remain violence by definition.Lindenfall (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Surely the place for the circumcision debate is the circumcision article? There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources or subject matter experts calling circumcision "violence against men" or anything like that, let alone a consensus among academics working in the field. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Tambor de Tocino Other than in the sources i provided above, which each makle that statement? Lindenfall (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Lindenfall, do those sources specifically discuss it as part of a broader phenomenon of "violence against men" (I've hit a paywall, unfortunately) ? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Rosguill Each is specific to this specific topic. I'd merely sought out scholarly claims of circumcision as violence against men, after recalling that joint Drs and lawyers letter to the German government. Lindenfall (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Lindenfall, I had time to look into two of your sources: this article in ReOrient and this one in Journal of Medical Ethics (available via The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR access). Neither one explicitly describes male circumcision as violence against men. If the other sources you cited do, could you please provide quotes? Otherwise, it doesn't seem as if you've correctly answered the questions above from Tambor de Tocino and Rosguill. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment For the reference: I've boldly renamed the article section "Forced circumcision" to better reflect what we're discussing here. -Ljleppan (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think the correct and proper way to proceed here is to leave it alone. You already restored the "status quo" with new content, that was pushing it, but I didn't kick up a fuss. I'd ask you to keep it collegial and civil. That's a reasonable request, I think. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Improvements to content during discussion regarding their wholesale removal are standard procedure, see e.g. WP:HEY. Ljleppan (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, fair enough. Does look like you are shifting the goal posts though when you say you're going to reinstate the status quo, then you don't actually do that but instead add new content, which is not the status quo at all and then you continue making changes to this supposed "status quo". Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  From Requests for comment "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or [Wikipedia:Edit_warring|edit warring]]. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." I politely ask you to refrain from boldly editing the content you added while it is under discussion. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, may. This naturally depends greatly on the type of RfC being considered. In my view, in this case the question you've put out is effectively a section-specific AfD: do we include any discussion about this topic at all. As with any editing, the underlying goal here is to end up with the best possible article. As with WP:HEY in the context of AfD's, if the issue can be solved through editing during the "deletion discussion," then surely that's preferable and much more respectful of everyone's time. The other option where we first hold an RfC on a section entitled circumcision, and then start again with a slightly different section on forced circumcision seems counter-productive. But if there's consensus that the section should be completely frozen for the duration of this discussion, then I'll naturally follow that consensus.

  I'd also ask you to strike your comments above for the part where you've now multiple times accused me of being uncivil including moving the goalposts. This is at the least toying the line w/r/t casting aspersions and you've already been reminded on this talk page to assume good faith about other's edits. I have been nothing but civil, and all my edits are done with the intent of producing the best possible article. Ljleppan (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes: When I first saw this on the list of RfCs I was very skeptical, but Lindenfall's sources have convinced me. Loki (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes: Include Circumcision as violence against men as it violates bodily autonomy which the UN says is a fundamental right and inflicts 6 weeks of intense pain on a newborn baby boy (see curcumcision for the lack of pain management post operation lack of pain management). A newborn baby boy has no ability to consent to cutting off skin. Being done by a medical doctor does not change it from violence to non-violence. Multiple national medical societies condemn it which should be enough reason to include it in a violence against men topic. It is a discussion of the circumcision procedure and its immediate after effects. Longer term effects on if diseases are prevented, etc. are excluded from considering if the circumcision operation and its immediate effects are violence against men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:41AC:2FDE:35F9:1DDE (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support including the debate per Rosguill. Lindenfall's evidence seems to constitute WP:OR|original research]]. 185.104.136.65 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• no reliable sources support the claim I thought claims on Wikipedia needed to be supported by reliable sources? Many comments here just say the commenter thinks the content should be included, does not discuss the sources. There aren’t any sources supporting this claim.

References

RFC - Should forced sterilization in India be included as an example targeting mainly men?

The_Emergency_(India)#Forced_sterilisation Has this which could be included here as a violence against men example.

Forced sterilization of 8.7 million men parts highlighted. Note that government agencies, police included, forced men to be sterilized.

In September 1976, Sanjay Gandhi initiated a widespread compulsory sterilization program to limit population growth. The exact extent of Sanjay Gandhi's role in the implementation of the program is disputed, with some writers holding Gandhi directly responsible for his authoritarianism, and other writers blaming the officials who implemented the programme rather than Gandhi himself. It is clear that international pressure from the United States, United Nations, and World Bank played a role in the implementation of these population control measures. Rukhsana Sultana was a socialite known for being one of Sanjay Gandhi's close associates and she gained a lot of notoriety in leading Sanjay Gandhi's sterilization campaign in Muslim areas of old Delhi. The campaign primarily involved getting males to undergo vasectomy. Quotas were set up that enthusiastic supporters and government officials worked hard to achieve. There were allegations of coercion of unwilling candidates too. In 1976–1977, the program led to 8.3 million sterilizations, most of them forced, up from 2.7 million the previous year. The bad publicity led many 1977 governments to stress that family planning is entirely voluntary.

• Kartar, a cobbler, was taken to a Block Development Officer (BDO) by six policemen, where he was asked how many children he had. He was forcefully taken for sterilization in a jeep. En route, the police forced a man on the bicycle into the jeep because he was not sterilized. Kartar had an infection and pain because of the procedure and could not work for months.
• Shahu Ghalake, a peasant from Barsi in Maharashtra, was taken for sterilization. After mentioning that he was already sterilized, he was beaten. A sterilization procedure was undertaken on him for a second time.
• Hawa Singh, a young widower, from Pipli was taken from the bus against his will and sterilized. The ensuing infection took his life.
• Harijan, a 70-year-old with no teeth and bad eyesight, was sterilized forcefully.
• Ottawa, a village 80 kilometers south of Delhi, woke up to the police loudspeakers at 03:00. Police gathered 400 men at the bus stop. In the process of finding more villagers, police broke into homes and looted. A total of 800 forced sterilizations were done.

2600:1700:D591:5F10:41AC:2FDE:35F9:1DDE (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

* Citations are in The Emergency (India)#Forced_sterilization page.

* Government forcing violence, a forced medical procedure, on men to achieve government policy objectives. Reproductive rights removed from men, even temporarily if it's possible to reverse a vasectomy, is government violence against men.

2600:1700:D591:5F10:41AC:2FDE:35F9:1DDE (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

DV

The claim that women are more often victims and men more often perpetrators has been thoroughly debunked by hundreds of studies, including every National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey put out by the CDC. The NISVS clearly shows that men are more often the victims of female perpetrators. 68.55.35.100 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

All issues with CTS-like measures aside, the NISVS says no such thing: [11], [12] EvergreenFir (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)