Talk:Men's rights movement

A suggestion

Hi, I stumbled here from a certain highly controversial article. I just want to make a suggestion for this article, it'll require some work. What I suggest doing is trawling through news stories try to find a main set of issues and build the article around those, maybe with reference to major news stories and responses. At present the article reads very list like. HalfHat 15:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what it used to be before the last incarnation of the article was deleted.80.111.44.31 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This version is better sourced --5.81.52.82 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that grouping MRM issues into a few broad categories (perhaps keeping them as distinct subsections) would clarify the article. Adoption, dowry, custody, divorce, paternity fraud, divorce, marriage strike, and reproductive rights are all part of Family law. Circumcision, rape, domestic violence, prison, and conscription are about Violence. Education, government support, social security, and insurance might be a miscellaneous category such as Discrimination. What do you think? AfungusAmongus (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the article itself, I find it needs more than that. The list of 'Issues' being so long and many of them redirects being directly underneath shows perhaps it actually needs it's own space. It is currently not very readable, but there are a few other issues I'd like to bring up that could be put right with this and a solution driven from both.

I had a rather shocking time reading the opening. The opening seems fairly neutral till the last sentence. It seems to have sources put at the end but the way it's laid out is extremely misleading to the casual reader. It doesn't explicitly say who these scholars are, and only mentions the souther poverty law center. The nebulous 'commentators' and 'scholars' is completely unhelpful and seems merely used to prop up a statement said by a spokesperson at the SPLC(I would also challenge if the SPLC affiliated party was acting as a spokesperson in the citation after a casual glance but this is outside the scope of what I'm suggesting. If they were not acting as an official spokeperson, all mention of being criticized by the institution should be attributed to the affiliated party themselves, but I'll leave that to people with far more time and interest in the topic.). There is a plethora of criticism on the topic where it could have it's own section with proper citations. I would suggest AGAINST using a similar 'reactions' style of section like over at Feminism which seems a little disingenuous in how it labels subsections. There is a LOT of points expressed from many of the editors who seem passionate about the topic(actually this is somewhat unfortunate. This article doesn't seem neutral in a few aspects) and I think these changes would actually also bring a compromise to a few other disputes. A neutral issues for mens rights article and including a neutral 'critique' or other type of section in the main article. FlossumPossum (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask, since when did we start using incredibly biased blog sites as sources ? Salon ? I hardly call that legitimate... Whats next Jezebel ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westside12345 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Review of sources on three issues

[Note: I've adjusted my comments for improved readability since no one has responded yet]. I made an edit to this article the other day which was intended to clarify two points: first that the MRM is not merely a backlash against feminism, and second that the MRM does not necessarily support traditional gender roles.[1] The edit was reverted, and so I decided to look into the source material. At this point I've reviewed a number of sources and listed relevant snippets below. A third point raised my interest as I went: how writers on this topic distinguish the "Men's rights movement" from other groups or viewpoints. This seems to be central to the way that people discuss the MRM. I've posted some material on this definitional aspect below as well.

I'm "showing my work" here in case others are interested to participate. With a bit more thought, I may make make further attempts to edit the article. Note: I see an editor did something similar: User:Ismarc/MR/Basis. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender roles

• "There is a general agreement among the various strands of the men's movement in Australia (and elsewhere) that traditional masculinity is restricting, damaging and limiting to masculine identity and possibility (Flood 1996). Indeed, it has been argued that dominant representations of masculinity are now more in line with notions of "Sensitive New Age Guys" who are in touch with their own feelings as well as those of their partners and children (Lupton and Barclay 1997). Much of the newer collection of men's self-help books, for example, promote these representations and "interpellate men as maimed or incomplete subjects" (Buchbinder 1998, 46).Sarah Maddison
• "Both men’s rights and pro-feminist men share a critique of traditional masculinity — that it basically offers a raw deal for men."Salon
• "Men's realisation of the hollowness and corruption of traditional masculinity is a common path to the men's movement." Michael Flood
• "George Gilder's Sexual Suicide, published in 1973... expresses a conservative standpoint that reverberates in political discourse today. [Brief discussion of biological differences.] Any movement that challenges these traditional roles, such as feminism, gay liberation, or sexual liberation, is to be resisted... defense of the traditional family is equated with defense of civilization." Notes early conservative support for patriarchy, and cites Promise Keepers as falling in this tradition. Kenneth Clatterbaugh.
• "While profeminist men and profeminist writing generally constitute the dominant perspective within men’s studies in the academy, the shelves in the men’s section of most bookstores are filled with books that come from two other perspectives, namely, men’s rights and mythopoetic, which share the basic assumption that what is wrong with men’s lives derives from the traditional masculine gender role of protector, provider, and head of the family." Clatterbaugh
• "[S]tarting with Herb Goldberg’s The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege (1976), there has been a steady stream of books that argue that men are not privileged relative to women. The authors of these books claim either that men are just as afflicted by their gender role or that they are more afflicted by it than are women by theirs. In either case, men’s rights defenders find a great lie at the center of feminism, namely, the notion that men are privileged relative to women. Probably no writer has said it better than Goldberg [who cites] problems of traditional masculinity such as emotional repression, isolation from other men, fear of failure, and a high suicide rate." Clatterbaugh
• "The theme that was foundational to men's rights, namely, the oppressive nature of traditional masculinity, has been undermined by fathers' rights activists who want to pursue a set of custody rights 'and' traditional masculinity." Clatterbaugh

24.18.98.101 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Backlash"

• "Put in its crudest form, men within these organisations argue that the gender equity pendulum has swung too far and, as a result, men are now disadvantaged and discriminated against." Sarah Maddison
• "Some of the men’s liberationists actually supported feminism, said that feminism actually enables men to get in touch with their feelings, to be good fathers, to not simply be loved for their wallets, et cetera. And some men’s liberationists went the anti-feminist route, and say men get a bad deal because women are actually winning. That’s the basic split." Salon
• "Most if not all contemporary societies are characterized by men's institutional privilege (Messner, 1997, p.5).... The danger, therefore, is that by mobilizing men collectively as men and thus drawing on their shared interests, activists inadvertently will entrench gender privilege (Connell, 1995, pp. 234-238). This potential has been realized among men's rights and fathers' rights groups, which are energetically engaged in an antiwomen and antifeminist backlash (Flood, 1997, 1998).... However, men can be and are motivated by interests other than those associated with gender privilege...." Michael Flood
• "A few short minutes spent touring the cyber-world of men's rights Web pages will unveil, for both the converted and unwary, a truly remarkable gallery of anti-feminist content." Robert Menzies
• "Paralleling the experiences of feminisms and other 'new social movements' (Laclau and Mouffe 2001; Mouffe 1992), the "men's project" has, since its inception, encompassed a stupefyingly pluralistic and heterodox array of political and substantive approaches to the advancement of men's consciousness, well-being, and emancipation. Strands... range from the contributions of socialist, pro-feminist, gay liberationist, and anti-racist organizations... to the overtly regressive, fundamentalist, "moral majoritarian," and feminist-aversive initiatives of main concern to this current study (on the men's movement generally, see [source list]. In canvasing the outpourings of men's discourse and activism in these latter, more atavistic forms, it is important to remember that the right-wing orthodoxy is neither exclusive nor fully representative.... Pro-feminist, anti-(hetero)sexist, and other rights-promoting men's groups have been key and constant allies of contemporary feminism since the 1970s.... Robert Menzies
• "Indeed, the collected sites were far from being uniformly antagonistic to feminism. Three... actively advanced women's causes. Others were relatively indifferent on the subject of feminism or ignored women entirely while campaigning for men's rights.... But also notable is the numerical and ideological dominance of an avowedly anti-feminist, and habitually misogynistic, impetus." Robert Menzies
• "Men's rights is widely understood as being the 'backlash' strand of the men's movement. That is to say there is a widespread belief amongst men's rights activists that the women's movement has 'gone too far' and has harmed men in profound and fundamental ways. Men's rights men 'deny any idea of men's power and argue that men are now the real victims' (Flood 1996, 22)..." Sarah Maddison
• "Although a variety of men's issues organizations with a variety of orientations exists (Menzies 2007), this book focuses on antifeminist men's rights and fathers' rights groups because they have been the ones mounting legal attacks against protections for abused women in Booth v. Hvass and other cases." Molly Dragiewicz
• "The essential belief that underlies the men's rights perspective is that the women's movement has wrongly identified men as a privileged class and women as lacking power relative to men. A consequence of this perspective is a view that is unrelentingly hostile to feminist and profeminist ideologies." Men and Masculinities
• "The literature of the men's rights movement frequently cites statistics that show that men suffer shorter lives, higher successful suicide rates, and a higher incidence of most stress related diseases than do women."Men and Masculinities
• "However, profeminist men soon encountered another political conflict with an emerging movement that called itself the men's rights movement. This movement, like the profeminist men's movement, enjoyed the support of some prominent feminist writers and activists. The men's rights movement was premised on an agreement with the profeminists, namely that men were severely damaged by having to play the traditional male gender role. But they departed from the profeminists by arguing that this damage was so extensive that it was a mistake to view men as the privileged sex. They attacked feminists and pro-feminists from this vantage point and accused them of overlooking the oppression of men. ... Profeminist groups after a brief attempt to create a dialogue with men's rights activists banned presentations from a men's rights perspective from their national and international conferences. Of course, a counter exclusion came from the men's rights coalitions." Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities
• "Carrigan et al. (1985:580), in a review of 'books about men' found that much of the 'men's movement' literature of the 1970s believed that men stood to gain from women's liberation through opportunities to overcome over-rigid sex role requirements from which oppression, both women's and men's derived....Networks of men’s consciousness-raising groups were formed in the UK, USA and to a lesser extent Australia, and were comprised largely of heterosexual white middle-class professional men responding to the emotional fallout from confronting feminist critiques (often from close friends, wives and lovers) of men and masculinity. From these groups germinated the perspectives of pro-feminst, men’s rights and masculinity therapy, and despite their subsequent divergence towards the late 1970s as major differences in approaches emerged, all have continued to advocate the benefits from men learning to relate more closely to one another and (to varying degrees) of overcoming rigid and restrictive masculine norms." Lingard and Douglas
• "While conservative elements of the men’s rights position overtly describe themselves as a ‘backlash’ to feminism, their more liberal counterpart’s self-proclaimed commitment to ‘the true equality of both sexes and to the liberation of both sexes from their traditional roles’ (Clatterbaugh 1997: 89) make it problematic to describe the men’s rights position in general as nothing more than a backlash against feminism." Lingard and Douglas, pg. 36

Strands

• Four strands (also discussed by Maddison): "The men's movement can be understood in terms of four overlapping strands: (1) anti-sexist and pro-feminist, (2) men's liberation (the most widespread one), (3) spiritual or mythopoetic, and (4) men's rights and fathers' rights." .... The men's liberation strand argues that men are hurt by the male "sex role" and that men's lives are alienating, unhealthy and impoverished.... Men are overworked, trained to kill or be killed, brutalised and subjected to blame and shame.... mens' liberation is roughly equivalent to the 'liberal profeminism' which Clatterbaugh places alongside 'radical profeminism'.... Men's rights men share with men's liberationists the idea that men's roles are harmful, damaging and in fact lethal for men. But they blame women or feminism for the harm done to men, deny any idea of men's power and argue that men are now the real victims.... Men's rights is generally an anti-feminist perspective, and described by many commentators as representing a 'backlash'...." Michael Flood
• "This review essay... explores both academic and men's movement writings.... The reason these two are linked is that the men's movement, which is actually several distinct movements, is responsible for the creation and maintenance o much of what is called men's studies. Even today most academic writing owes its inspiration tot one or mroe of the men's movements that began outside of academia." Kenneth Clatterbaugh
• "Mythopoetic writing is a specialized area that falls within neo-Jungian New Age literature." Clatterbaugh
• "...the Promise Keepers, the fourth major men's movement...." Clatterbaugh

24.18.98.101 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The men's movement in all its forms (or strands) is certainly a countermovement to the advances made by feminism. A countermovement is a backlash. I don't see any reason why we would try to whitewash the men's movement or misrepresent it as arising spontaneously. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. For my part I see a distinction between someone who wants to get back to the "good old days," versus someone who says that men and women each have legitimate gripes as groups on specific issues, versus someone who declares men to be under-privileged on whole. I might characterize the first and third of these to be a backlash, but not the second. Of course, the ideas overlap in actual people. Here's one source: "[I]t might come as a bit of surprise to know that the seeds of the contemporary Men's Rights movement were initially planted in the same soil from which feminism sprouted."[2] Another, quoted above: "The men's rights movement was premised on an agreement with the profeminists, namely that men were severely damaged by having to play the traditional male gender role." The word "countermovement" is not so familiar to me, and could be interpreted to mean, in effect, "Hey, we want that too!" If so, I'd be inclined to say that basically covers the spectrum. However, countermovement suggests it means only the same as "backlash," as you say, and I'm seeing disagreement on that point in the sources which deserves more careful review. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You point to a Coston/Kimmel paper where they say the "same soil" sprouted both the feminist movement and the men's rights movement. What they don't tell the reader is that first-wave feminism was first. Nobody gave a fig for men's liberation until the pioneers among women were beginning to get ahead of the lesser men. So the men's rights movement was indeed a countermovement. Sharing the same "soil" (wanting the same life improvements) doesn't change that. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Was, is or always will be a countermovement? Feminism was the original fount of gender-awareness, perhaps. I'm sure you see the distinction, in any case, between a movement to reverse the gains of feminism, and a movement to copy the achievements of feminism. Some writers suggest that to copy is impossible, because at the heart of feminism is the concept that males are privileged, a notion antithetical to the MRM. However, that isn't the only view. I'd be surprised if you suggest that no significant strands of the broader men's movement want to copy feminism's achievements, rather than to reverse them, and perhaps even see themselves in conflict only with radical elements of feminist thinking, if any, rather than with "feminism." We all have our ways of framing conflicts, after all, and my own is to say that we've yet to find a clear one between the two of us. I appreciate your counters, nonetheless, as I am interested to learn more about this topic. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think 24.18.98.101 provides good reasoning and source material Binksternet (talk · contribs), to back up the distinction between describing this movement as one that is striving to reverse the gains of feminism, versus one that is trying to copy its achievements. I suspect this difference in perception over the movement's aims, and how other source material has been used in this article to describe the movement as a countermovement or a backlash within the article, is the cause of much disagreement. Part of the difficulty of describing the men's rights movement accurately is that some components of the men's movement involve challenging recent societal claims made by feminists, while other components involved men pursuing or fighting for rights in areas of gender roles in a manner complementing the advances women received from feminism. Categorically describing the movement as a "backlash" washes over the complexity of the topic's dimensions, and more dangerously, induces unwarranted WP:UNDUE weight to one perspective of how to describe the topic.Spudst3r (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I hope to keep adding material above as I find it. My sense is that rather than quibbling over details, or jumping into controversial parts of the article, it will be more fruitful for me to look for additional material on difficult points to add clarity. I just googled one of our sources and found an editor has gone through a similar effort: User:Ismarc/MR/Basis. If anyone has thoughts, I'm interested to hear. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for these efforts, your work has been the best repository for sourced material so far for describing the various dimensions of the movement, and might allow us to reach a better consensus on fixing NPOV issues existing within the article.

NPOV dispute

"Sectors of the men's rights movement have been critiqued for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies." This sentence not only describes, but also subtly endorses the criticism. A less opinionated and more concise sentence such as "[...]have been characterized as misogynistic." would better uphold Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

"Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards and gender roles, and a few can also be linked to patriarchy. Furthermore, some issues may also be linked to issues that affect other genders." The single, hostile source here suggests that the links to patriarchy and women's issues should be moved to Reactions/criticism. Double standards and gender roles have a neutral tone, while patriarchy is a contested issue. AfungusAmongus (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How about for the first sentence "Sectors of the men's rights movement have been critiqued as having misogynistic tendencies." I haven't read the sources in a while, so I'm not sure how well this represents them though. For the second issue, we should probably qualify the statement. As in "According to Author some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards and gender roles, and a few can also be linked to patriarchy." And the second sentence can probably be dropped unless we get a reliable source for it. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Have no preference regarding the first issue as they strike me as more or less the same. However, didnt a previous rev contain the exact phrasing "have been characterized as misogynistic" or am I just misremembering things? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I edited the article to this effect yesterday but it was reverted, so I came here. AfungusAmongus (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to a few months back. If you're the ip editor from yesterday, there were more to those edits than the above sentence, which is likely why they got reverted immediately. Even with non-controversial changes (which I would consider the first issue to be), its still a good idea to raise on the talk page before acting on the article space due to the article probation. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So where do you think the connection between patriarchy and men's rights issues belongs? If the link comes from sources critical of the MRM then I think it should go in the criticism section. AfungusAmongus (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking the MRM with patriarchy isn't criticism though. I agree with Kyohyi's above. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree - speculation that some (which?) MRM issues are caused by society "being male dominated, male identified, and male centered" (definition of patriarchy from [3]) is a criticism of the MRM's focus on specific areas of male disadvantage. It is out of place in a section introducing and categorizing men's rights issues. AfungusAmongus (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That might be stretching it a little too far per WP:SYNTH but its hard to say for certain without the original source in front of me as the whole thing isn't on Google Books. Maybe whoever added the text can chime in? PearlSt82 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"It may help to heal some of the damage patriarchy does to men's lives. But it is not a movement aimed at the system and the gender dynamics that actually cause that damage." The Gender Knot - already linked on the article - unambiguously argues that patriarchy causes MRM issues in order to criticize the MRM's focus. AfungusAmongus (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I find this sentence oddly ambiguous: "Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards, gender roles, and patriarchy.[55]" Is this accusing the MRM of these things, or saying that the MRM alleges these things? If it is somehow both, the article should presumably say so. 73.221.66.170 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This sentence lists three (possible) causes of MRM issues in an apparent attempt to provide context. One of them (patriarchy) was, as I showed above, specifically intended as criticism of the MRM. It should be moved to the criticism section. AfungusAmongus (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"men's rights activists have viewed the women's movement as a plot to conceal discrimination against men" This sentence expresses a radical position as if it were typical. I will add the qualifier "some" in order to avoid overgeneralization.AfungusAmongus (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who commonly focus on what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression." Excessive bracketing of perspectives is redundant and dismissive towards those perspectives. "Group X focuses on issues Y,Z" is agnostic on those issues, while "Group X focuses on what they consider to be issues Y,Z" invites the reader to doubt the legitimacy of these issues. Does "concerned with issues Y,Z" strike a neutral tone, or does it now subtly endorse a controversial position?AfungusAmongus (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you proposing as an actionable change based on reliable sources? PearlSt82 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed "what they consider to be" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions_of_doubt. I also removed "oppression" because it's a stronger claim than anything in the cited sources. AfungusAmongus (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You removed much more than the "what they consider to be" part which was discussed several times (e.g., [4] and [5]) and is supported by consensus and all the cited sources discussion, for example. You changed the lead section without consensus. I will restore the previous wording. Do not restore your changes without consensus. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also please do not add unreliable sources as you did here. A speech at the conference is not a reliable source. Please self-revert or wait for some experienced editor to undo your addition. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-reverted (removed link to speech at IMCI 2014). Will try to find a reliable secondary source. Thanks for pointing that out! AfungusAmongus (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You restored the word "oppression" - a word absent from the cited sources - without giving a reason. Can you find a reliable source for this? AfungusAmongus (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That men's rights activists think that men are oppressed? This is already sourced to six academic references in the "movement" section and to three additional refs in the "education" and "health" sections.

• "These writers believe that men (all men) are disadvantaged, discriminated against and oppressed...",
• "they would give more emphasis to conditions that they saw as proof of men's 'oppression'...",
• "By the late 1970s and early 1980s, men's rights discourse had all but eliminated the gender symmetry of men's liberation from their discourse, in favor of a more overt and angry antifeminist backlash. Feminism was viewed as a plot to cover up the reality that it is actually women who have the power and men who are most oppressed by current gender arrangements",
• "argue that men are more oppressed than women",
• "Men's rights groups... view men as a group of people who have been oppressed",
• "The animating principle of the men's rights movement is that men are in fact the oppressed sex in contemporary society." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok, so why are some claims in the header given footnotes and others not? AfungusAmongus (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to examine the quotes. Clatterbaugh comments: "The theme that was foundational to men's rights, namely the oppressive nature of traditional masculinity, has been undermined by fathers' rights activists who want to pursue a set of custody rights 'and' traditional masculinity.'" Here, the type of "oppression" is not what one would generally expect (oppression by others). The first quote listed above, from Madison, also refers to oppression "by systems." The second, by Newton, places the term "oppression" in scare quotes, seemingly to note the irony of such a claim. I don't deny that many sources refer to oppression, although I believe most are openly derisive in doing so. 73.221.66.170 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I don't see any consensus on the "what they consider to be" phrasing in any of the talk page archives. We may need arbitration?AfungusAmongus (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1) We can't use Wikipedia's voice because it's highly questionable as to whether the issues that MRAs are concerned about truly constitute discrimination against men and oppression of men. 2) The current wording and previous versions (e.g., "perceived issues of discrimination") accurately summarize reliable sources. 3) "Consider" or "perceive" is perfectly neutral; all it does is attribute the view to men's rights activists, rather than stating it as an undisputed fact. 4) This was discussed several times. I linked two archived discussions, here they are again: perceived?, and again, "Perceived". You can replace "what they consider to be" with "perceived" or "what they perceive to be", but if you want to remove the attribution altogether, you'll need to gain consensus first. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the wording concerning "what they consider to be," because it most accurately attributes the views to their source. However, this also means that you cannot put an accurate representation of reality in this section (no matter how you see it). You must use a representation of reality that is as they see it. There is no support that they consider themselves to be oppressed that I can find. I suspect there is support for this view somewhere, but it may be a minority view among the movement. If you wish to put this view here, you will need to clarify that there is disagreement about the oppression or that it is a minority view. Xoviat (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I just quoted six academic sources which state that men's rights activists regard men as oppressed. Hence, your claim that you see "no support that they consider themselves oppressed" makes absolutely no sense. Especially because it's about their view of men, not themselves. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, I think there seems to be confusion between the current dominant groups and the "men's liberation groups" of the past. Xoviat (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no confusion in the sources. The sources clearly state that MRAs think that men are oppressed and that MRAs oppose what the consider to be disadvantages, discrimination and oppression. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter that the sources "think" men are oppressed? I'm sure I could quote sources showing that women think they are oppresed likewise, but it would not be appropriate for the women's rights article to say that feminists consider themselves oppressed. As others have noted, framing the discussion in this way amounts to an expression of doubt (WP:ALLEGED) in Wikipedia's voice.Spudst3r (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It matters that the reliable sources state that men's rights activists argue that men are oppressed (titles such as "The Rape of the Male" by leading MRAs etc. is probably a dead giveaway). In Wikipedia, we try to accurately summarize what reliable sources say about a given subject and that's what happened here. Please stop the disruptive and inappropriate comparisons to the women's rights article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or valid" -- in this case my point is that the women's movement and men's movement articles are so similar in subject area and nature that there is a rationally connected reason for both articles to follow similar article styling conventions. Any ways, again, my issue with the current wording is the use expression of doubt (WP:ALLEGED) wording when citing these sources. Unless it can really be demonstrated that this movement is a fringe belief, it is not justified to use this type of wording.Spudst3r (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's fringe and undue weight to make that comparison. Of course it's also absurd. Who is oppressing these men? Women? smh........ Dave Dial (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"The men's rights movement denies the existence of male privilege"

It is inaccurate to state that the MRM denies the existence of male privilege. MRAs believe that men are privileged in certain situations and women are privileged in others. Both male privilege and female privilege exist.

There are some MRAs who object to the word "privilege" due to its use (or abuse) as a silencing tactic... for instance a man who tries to enter a discussion on gender issues, and is silenced or excluded due to his gender as he is told that people with male privilege are not wanted in the discussion. He may feel disprivileged in the area of gender discussions because he faces this problem while others don't, and may even wrongly claim that male privilege doesn't exist.

But to claim that MRAs in general do not believe that "social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are made available to men solely on the basis of their sex" is a thing that even exists... that is not accurate. A better line might be "The men's rights movement believes that both male privilege and female privilege exist, and that both are harmful to society."

Wording changes like this need to be sourced. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the above suggestion was made without a specific edit by "Chocoboat." I see the sentence appears in the article here: Men's_rights_movement#Female_privilege. It starts: "The men's rights movement denies the existence of male privilege." Chocoboat suggests a change: "The men's rights movement believes that both male privilege and female privilege exist, and that both are harmful to society." I don't agree entirely, because I don't think the MRM is monolithic on these points. However, the current sentence suffers the same problem, and is also written in a way that sounds satirical. (If you're curious, google the phrase "denies the existence of.) The sentence cites Clatterbaugh. I quoted a relevant passage of his above: "[S]tarting with Herb Goldberg’s The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege (1976), there has been a steady stream of books that argue that men are not privileged relative to women. The authors of these books claim either that men are just as afflicted by their gender role or that they are more afflicted by it than are women by theirs. In either case, men’s rights defenders find a great lie at the center of feminism, namely, the notion that men are privileged relative to women. Probably no writer has said it better than Goldberg [who cites] problems of traditional masculinity such as emotional repression, isolation from other men, fear of failure, and a high suicide rate."" Similarly, The Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities states: "The men's rights movement was premised on an agreement with the profeminists, namely that men were severely damaged by having to play the traditional male gender role. But they departed from the profeminists by arguing that this damage was so extensive that it was a mistake to view men as the privileged sex. They attacked feminists and pro-feminists from this vantage point and accused them of overlooking the oppression of men."

Setting aside the tone of the current sentence, the real problem in my view is that we have just two sentences in this section. In order to improve the passage, someone should probably expand it a bit so that it isn't just a competition over sound-bytes. Unfortunately, I'm short on time to make a real effort at the moment.73.221.66.170 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

IP editors and recent reverts

Been seeing a lot of IP editors making the same reverts repeatedly. Think we need to use RPP? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support this and a mandate for usernames by all editors on this article. It's just too hard keeping track of all the different IP addies. I don't think this unreasonable here. Nodekeeper (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Main article appears to be pushing a POV .... are there one or two editors dominating here?

The main entry makes a critical error of characterizing the MRM as a singular entity branching off the feminist-inspired ‘Men’s Liberation Movement’ in the 1970s, when it is more accurately a plurality of movements spanning more than a century - just like feminism. The article narrative problematizes the MRM by evaluating it through feminist concepts like ‘patriarchal power and privilege,’ and places undue emphasis in the lede on the MRM as an antifeminist, misogynist reflex while underemphasizing its mission of reducing real cultural and legal discrimination against men. Reducing the men’s rights movement to an antifeminist backlash makes about as much sense as reducing the black civil rights movement to being anti-white, or the gay rights movement being to being anti-heterosexuality. 124.150.108.172 (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I noted why I reverted you here. Well, if that was you. As for your movement comparisons, that's like comparing apples and oranges. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be interested to know, Flyer22, the reason why the movement comparisons are like comparing apples and oranges.

T 88.89.217.109 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please sign up for a Wikipedia account and then sign your posts here with four tildes. It's quick and easy and would help other editors. Nodekeeper (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that required? I think the truth is that people need to make specific suggestions if they want to improve the article. People may or may not like the idea of signing up for an account, and it doesn't seem to be required, or please let me know otherwise. 73.221.66.170 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's required to edit this article and other articles that have been protected. It has been protected because of repeated vandalism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're saying it's required to edit the article itself while it is protected. I see the recurrent scribbling on the article, so that makes sense. However, I don't believe we need to have accounts to comment on the talk page or to edit the article when it's unprotected, right? It may be helpful in terms of keeping track of people. OTOH, this happens to be a controversial topic, where people may not want to have any formal level of involvement (after all, one strongly voiced perspective is that there's something wrong with you if you even think about this sort of thing too much), and yet might have useful suggestions if they understood what type of comments are useful. $.02. 64.134.124.36 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

MGTOW?

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

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

Relation to Feminism -- Warren Farrell's perspective

In defence to why I added Warren Farrell's call for a "gender transition movement" to the "relationship with feminism" section:

a. Warren Farrell's book (The Myth of Male Power) is widely considered one of the most influential books ever released within the 'MRA movement'. He easily meets the definition of Notability for the purposes of this article. e.g. from a January 2015 article:

"Farrell is widely considered to be the father of the men's rights movement. ... Many of today's men's rights activists view Farrell's 1993 book, The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, as their touchstone, and the online forums where they congregate are steeped in Farrell's ideas."

b. Right now this section only suggests that the MRM is a direct "backlash" to feminism. Warren's more conciliatory MRA sentiment towards feminism is not acknowledged once within Relation to feminism section of this article, despite evidence that Warren's beliefs are widely held by many MRA's. To be NPOV this article needs to accurately give light to various perspectives within the MRA movement as to how they (think) they relate to feminism.

The content I added to the Relationship with feminism section was written carefully to explain in a NPOV manner the complex interplay of how ideas within the MRM are perceived to interplay with feminism. If you have a problem with these viewpoints, or believe they do not accurately reflect the movement as a whole, then please refine or add to this section -- do not revert. Further analytical responses to Farrell's assertion that the men's rights movement is a "gender transition movement" could be appropriate to fully flesh out this section. Spudst3r (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You need citations that explicitly state that Farrell (1) sees MRM as complement to feminism and (2) both focus on the roles of genders of specific genders. The quote you gave simply said that there are gender roles and that they are not historically static. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree the wording "complement" could be improved. A more directly attributable quote from him may be needed to more appropriately echo his sentiment on how the movement relates to feminism, though I think the current sources show that the word "complement" is quite an accurate description of what Farrell was advocating within the source I cited.Spudst3r (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) & EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) please see my longer post of references below. I agree my usage of "complement" to describe the movement's relationship with feminism may not be the best phrasing, and in its place another citation echoing this sentiment may be more appropriate. Such as that the men's movement is "not a return to the 1950's man"; how feminism "emphasize expansion of rights" but not "avoid expansion of responsibilities"; and/or that "Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of women but neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men." All of these are direct citations from the source. Adding many of these quotes is not WP:UNDUE do to the clear immense popularity of this figure within the movement, as established by sources I cited earlier above. Spudst3r (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Many MRAs view Farrell's writings as important resources to draw on, however Farrell is not explicitly writing about the men's rights movement in the passages you cite. To apply Farrell's quoted writings directly to the MRM is to assume a thought that Farrell at no time actually states. To ascribe an opinion to Farrell supported nowhere in his book is original research. Evergreen's edit is an appropriate interim cut, but if no citation can be found (and, unless he's written something about it in the last few months, no citation will be found - none exists) the material will necessarily be removed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find more recent sources, but I question the need to do so because it doesn't matter whether Farrell's call for a "gender transition movement" within his book is not a direct reference to the present day "male rights movement." It's clear his class for this movement, which has been established via sources above as extremely influential for the creation of the movement itself, as its "touchstone" book, represents a description of how the movement can/should/will relate to feminism. I feel like there is an implicit effort here to address the topic of the "male's rights movement" as a concept that hasn't existed over a period of time. Currently I would disagree and think treatments of its "relationship to feminism" should be treated similar to how a women's rights article would describe a "relationship to men" -- as an evolving relationship that may be best described in chronological terms (with Farrell's quotes here as its opening, perhaps.) This chronological approach could resolve your issues that this definition is not a referene to the current movement as you see it, while preserving this quote from a book that is widely considered by sources to be seminal to the movement's existence, and thus, an apt resource for citation in regards to discussing the movement's relationship to feminism.Spudst3r (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, it appears that 'Wiki:Feminism' believes it has ownership of every single article on Wikipedia. It's about time that project is restrained to an appropriate domain limit. A task force should be set up to articulate mens gender issues clearly and fairly. 77.97.17.147 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the article, not your perceived cabals. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Spudst3r: Warren Farrell doesn't mention the men's rights movement in The Myth of Male Power, let alone discuss it in relation to feminism or anything else. Thus, you added original research with this edit and then edit-warred over your addition. This article and related pages are under article probation, as you very well know. I suggest that you self-revert and remove your original research as soon as possible. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, I can see now that you've been at this since March 2014. Trying to insert the same POV, completely misrepresenting sources in the process. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: please follow WP:GOODFAITH when responding. I am not inserting POV, my edits accurately represent the men's movement as described by the statements of its prominent leaders. My edits are not original research. As established above, sources clearly establish independent from myself that Warren Farrell's comments represent a major portion of the men's movement. My previous edits accurately reflect the sentiment of the author (Warren Farrell) -- I am not drawing conclusions or partaking in original research to elaborate on what he said. Please see my comment below for specific, explicit source citations backing up source citations for my original edits.Spudst3r (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @EvergreenFir:, @Sonicyouth86:, @Kevin Gorman: & @77.97.17.147: , as requested here are a collection of citations showing the ["the father of the men's rights movement" Warren Farrell is referring to both a "gender transition movement" and a men's movement clearly in his "touchstone" book The Myth of Male Power. Here are a selection of relevant citations from the book's official book website to draw from, for both discussing the the subject's relation to feminism, but also for describing the movement as they see it:

Page 11: "The Myth of Male Power is not a return to the 1950s man; it is a leap forward to the 2050s man and woman."

Page 13: "I will be saddened if this book is misused to attack the legitimate issues of the women's movement."

Page 15: "Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of women but neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men."

Page 16: "Patriarchy and male dominance doubled as code words for male disposability"

Page 20: "This book’s challenge to women: Be as open to the man's experience of powerlessness as you would to the woman's."

Page 54: "The political genius of the feminist movement: emphasize expansion of rights and avoid expansion of responsibilities."

Page 127: "Equality involves equal options and equal obligations."

Page 136: "The measure of a country’s emancipation: the degree to which it frees men from the obligation to protect women and socializes women to equally protect men."

Page 155: "The adults of the 1990s are a generation of men criticized for what they were obligated to do by a generation of women privileged enough to escape the obligation."

Page 166: "Perform, pursue and pay: what boys learn they must do to earn equality with girls' love."

Page 197: "We keep ourselves open to new ways of understanding (and helping) women, but fail to use the same mindset to better understand (and help) men."

Page 217: "We overlook men who need help because historically woman-as-victim attracts men; man-as-victim repulses women."

Page 228: "The sexist perception that violence by anyone against only women is anti-woman while violence by a woman against only men is just generic violence creates a political demand for laws that are even more protective of women."

Page 232: "One grand fallacy of the women's movement: Expecting work to mean 'power' and 'self-fulfillment.' "

Page 234: "Conservatives justify the protection of women and the disposability of men by calling it sex roles."

Page 345: "Like communism, feminism went from being revolutionary to dictating politically-correct ideology."

Page 349: "Feminists consistently demonstrate that a woman’s right to choose is primary while a child’s best interest is secondary."

Page 355: "Only the power of the women's movement necessitates the temporary corrective of a men's movement."

Page 364: "The men’s movement will become more political because 1) political structures are formed and forming, 2) the political agendas are concrete, and 3) men’s pain motivates."

Page 369: "The men's movement will be the longest of all movements because it is is proposing an evolutionary shift in the system itself."

Page 369: "Getting men to ask for help for themselves will be the hardest challenge for the men’s movement."

Page 371: "The challenge of The Myth of Male Power, then, is to care enough about men to spend as much of the next quarter century helping men become Stage II men as we did the last quarter century helping women become Stage II women."

These collection of quotes from the [[the Myth of Male Power] provide an excellent wealth of material to draw on to describe the men's movement as they see it from a prominent leader from the movement, and do not constitute original research. I bolded some of the quotations here directly relating to feminism and the men's movement to help show the connection of his comments. These citations establish that Warren Farrell was addressing a men's movement in The Myth of Male Power -- a view backed up sources in describing his influence. (the 2nd quote on page 13 also demonstrates his concern, held by many others in the movement, of how the arguments of the men's movement may be used by others for mysogynistic purposes. I made a note about this phenomenon in an earlier edit describing Warren's views, but it was removed, and I believe it would help expand the breadth and nuance of this article immensely.Spudst3r (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

First off, the men's movement is not to be confused with the men's rights movement. What you've shown is that Warren Farrell (who by that time still considered himself to be a member of the men's liberation movement rather that the men's rights movement) mentions the men's movement in passing, not the men's rights movement. Moreover, he doesn't say that the men's movement (≠ men's rights movement) is a compliment to the work of feminism. What you did is take Farrell's words about the longevity of the men's movement and twist them into a statement about the men's rights movement's relation to feminism. This is a textbook example of original research and misrepresentation of the source. You've been trying to add this OR for over a year, your additions were reverted by several editors, and I ask that you stop now. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In a comment above I already acknoledged how I think we have better citations for replacing the word complement with a better citation from Farrell's book better summarizing his ideas. In the comment above I provide examples of what to replace it with.

In regards to the claim that Warren Farrell's statements here represent the voicing of the men's movement rather than the of men's rights movement: I struggle to see the credulity of this argument and see it more as a reason to omit opinions from an author clearly linked authoritatively to the subject. Many sources clearly establish the Myth of Male Power specifically, and Warren Farrell himself, to be a "touchstone" voice for the men's rights movement, not the men's movement. For you, Warren's ommission of the word "rights" is significant more so because of this article's awkward splitting of these two subjects, rather than a clear indication of his intent to still be associated with the men's liberation movement versus what he was clearly trying to do in this book, which was advancing the arguments that souces acknowledge are now the men's rights movement's raison d'etre. Ask Warren himself, and I'm sure you will get the same answer as to the intention of his words. But fortunately for us, no such original research is needed, because it is clear from sources posted above in the talk page by even sources critical of Warren that Warren represents a leader of the men's rights movement, and that the the Myth of Male Power represents a seminal text of the men's rights movement. Even if Warren Farrell at that time still considered himself to be a member of the men's liberation movement rather that the men's rights movement (which you have provided no citation to back up), the simple fact that his work became influential from within the men's rights movement still necessitates that it should be mentioned in this article for properly representing sentiments of the movement itself for this article. After all, it would be inappropriate for me to post a Youtube video here as an authoritative source, whereas Farrell's book is by clear consensus among both competing and agreeing sources to be the original intellectual beacon of the men's rights movement that broke away from the men's liberation movement, serves as perhaps one of the best objective sources of material out there for understanding the mens rights movement from the perspective of its proponents.Spudst3r (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you struggle to understand the fact that the men's movement is not synonymous with the men's rights movement, then there's really nothing I or anyone else can do for you. You have misrepresented the Farrell source which doesn't discuss the men's rights movement at all. I suggest again than you remove your original research to avoid sanctions for repeatedly violating WP:OR and ArbCom's accuracy of sources principle. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, sources clearly establish that: "Farrell is widely considered to be the father of the men's rights movement. ... Many of today's men's rights activists view Farrell's 1993 book, The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, as their touchstone, and the online forums where they congregate are steeped in Farrell's ideas." When outside independent sources establish clearly that a book accurately speaks for a major portion of a movement's thoughts, opinions or ideals, then quoting explicitly and accurately from that source material is not WP:OR. See WP:NOTOR. Spudst3r (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Farrell may be a men's rights activist and the book may contain some key early MRM ideas, but he makes no statements about the men's rights movement or men's rights activists. Thus, your addition beginning with the words Others, such as men's rights leader Warren Farrell, see the men's rights movement as a compliment to the work of feminism… is a misrepresentation of the source because, again, Farrell doesn't say anything about the MRM. You have repeatedly violated the WP:OR and WP:Synth policies. It's time to request administrative action. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs) Administration action?! My remarks at the bottom of this comment show that I agree the wording of this specific sentence can be improved, and show my attempt to reach consensus on this sentence. See: WP:IMPERFECT Again, sources establish that Farrell's ideas espoused within the the Myth of Male Power represent the movement. Farrell's comments during the Personal Introduction section of his book are accurate to the source because they are discussing how the movement he is trying to build (which sources acknowledge Farrell greatly influenced) relates to feminism.

The sentence Others, such as men's rights leader Warren Farrell, see the men's rights movement as a compliment to the work of feminism… was written to accurately represent statements made by Farrell within the personal introduction section, such as "I will be saddened if this book is misused to attack the legitimate issues of the women's movement." (page 13), "Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of women but neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men." (page 15), among others.

For reaching consensus, improved wording here could be Others, such as men's rights leader Warren Farrell, see the issues advanced by the men's rights movement as a supplement to the work of feminism…. Alternatively if a more direct citation is desired, rephrasing this sentence by using another quote as I proposed at the bottom of this comment could also work. Spudst3r (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Farrell is a men's rights activist. There are many reliable sources stating that Farrell is a men's rights activist. You are saying that because he's a men's rights activist, he wrote something about the men's rights movement in his book The Myth of Male Power. But he didn't. He didn't write a word about the MRM, let alone its relation to feminism, in that book. Your reasoning goes something like this: Farrel is an MRA (+ he articulated some key MRM ideas in his book) = Farrell said something about the men's rights movement in that book. But he did not. You can write a book arguing that there's no causal link between HIV and AIDS without ever discussing the AIDS denialism movement. Similarly, you or Farrell or some other MRA can write a book arguing that men are the oppressed sex and that women have more economical, social and political power than men without ever discussing or writing anything about the men's rights movement. There's a difference between putting forward MRM arguments (men are oppressed) and saying something about the actual movement or activists. Farrell doesn't say anything about the movement or its activists and you and I both know it. Yet you pretend that he does. I suggest that we continue this discussion elsewhere so that more editors can weigh in. I'm not sure yet where I'll raise my concerns about your editing, ANI or AE, but I'll let you know. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

1. So under this logic, could we not refer to Marx's ideas of Historical Materialism within an article about the Marxist movement or Socialism, because Marx wasn't yet referring to anything about Marxism or Socialism? Or could we not refer to John Maynard Keynes ideas within The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money on an article about Keynesian economics, because Keynes was yet writing about Keynesianism? What matters is the influence of a source in how it represents what a movement believes, not whether at the time of them writing they were necessarily aware of the movement they were writing to influence. 2. Warren Farrell as you said is an male's rights advocate. Unless you can provide evidence to show that Warren Farrell changed his viewpoints in later years since when this book was cited (i.e. redacting his opinions expressed in this book), then the sections and quotes I added to this article from the Myth of Male Power will remain both representative of Warren's present day male's rights views, but also of the men's rights movement that he has come to lead and represent. The fact that modern sources confirm the influence of the Myth of Male Power on present day male rights movement opinion is proof that: a. Warren's views as expressed during the time of the the Myth of Male Power still remain representative of the men's rights movement, and b. his purpose in writing the book was written with the full intention to advocate for what we now understand broadly to represent the men's rights movement. Indeed, a look at the intellectual response to the book's release when it was written establish clearly it was divergence from other men's movements of the era. Spudst3r (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrt. Men, Rights and Movements .... the Wiki article on the Men's Movement (MM) claims that the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) is part of the MM ("Major movements within the men's movement include the men's liberation movement, profeminist men's movement, mythopoetic men's movement, men's rights movement..." The source for this, btw, is the hopefully still reliable source Michael Kimmel).

IOW, if the MM is like... USA, then Farrell is ... Obama? And if MM is like the USA, the MRM would be kind of like Montana. Then it doesn't make sense to say that Obama is president of the USA, but not Montana. Farrell is a memeber of, a leader of, an inspiration for the MM, but actually not for the MRM, although it is part of the MM?

Perhaps not the end of the World, but should not the content of these two articles be consistent, one way or the other?

T 88.91.200.83 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Article submitted to NPOV NoticeBoard

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&diff=646556028&oldid=646162832 BrentNewland (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Just as a heads up: There has been some serious off-site coordination on Reddit and MRA sites to influence this article and discussions. Thus the recent influx of new editors and activity by dormant accounts. If it gets worse, someone should take this to AN/I. For now, I'll ping the patrolling admin Bbb23. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: although the page is still on my watchlist, I don't patrol this anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for the info. Is there a new patrolling admin? Or do the discretionary sanctions apply now? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: WP:ARBGG is probably worth investigating - it does cover "any gender-related dispute" and has provisions for Accuracy of sources and Sockpuppetry--Cailil ^talk 13:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: A few comments. The probationary sanctions at WP:MRMPS without the 1RR restriction still apply. They are somewhat similar to arbitration discretionary sanctions. There's really no such thing as a "patrolling admin". We don't get "assigned" to enforce specific sanctions. I was just probably the most active admin enforcing these particular sanctions. Also, certain kinds of disruption may lend themselves more readily to different remedies. For example, if you believe there's meat puppetry, as you said, you can take it to WP:ANI or you can even take it to WP:SPI. Handling meat puppetry complaints at SPI is a gray area, but technically WP:SOCK also prohibits meat puppetry. It's a little harder to prove because you have to prove coordination and/or solicitation, not just a bunch of new editors suddenly appearing and editing a particular article or topic. And, of course, as a separate path to attack disruption, there's always ARBGG, as Cailil noted. You could always bother Cailil, too. :-) After all, when I was more active here, he used to come "bother" me. I don't know if he's more active now than he used to be (see his user page), but he's very knowledgeable in this area.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cailil and Bbb23: Thank you both. I think that the most consistent problem has been the misrepresentation of sources. The accuracy of sources principle might help with that. If I have any questions I'll bother Cailil or some other unsuspecting admin;) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86 and Bbb23: LOL I'm happy to be "bothered" anytime, but unfortunately I wont use the tools (or activated WP:AC/DS myself, or adjudicate in the results part of WP:AE threads) in any area in any way associated with Gender - I'm WP:Involved (at least historically) and it'd be better for an outside, uninvolved sysop to handle actions (especially after WP:ARBGG and WP:ARBGGTF). But I'm certainly around for advice, WP:3O and article improvement. I'm sorry to see Bbb23 leave the topic he's always been level headed, clear and fair, however I fully understand how sysop duties in one area can burn an admin out--Cailil ^talk 15:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like another WikiStorm! Fold up the sails and tie down the covers. Xoviat (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: It's pretty easy to see that WP:Meatpuppetry was going on regarding the two recent, obvious men's rights editors we've been dealing with at this article, and others at WP:ANI agree. WP:Duck is all that is needed in cases such as these, just like in some WP:Sockpuppet cases. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a redirect discussion that may be of interest to this group. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Original research claims RE: prison section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV statement templates

Template:POV-statement is only to be used in the instance a) where material "misrepresents the views of high-quality reliable sources". (Please note misrepresent the sources's views not give an unpalatable description of the subject, i.e men's right movement and its views). The template further specifies that "The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant." Do not use templates like this to indicate displeasure with the use of particular source's and their POV. Edits like this which argue that "major reliable sources dispute that this accurately represents their views" are in fact misusing the template. That is a wholly separate matter and frankly that's an argument that cannot be won. As per NPOV we record mainstream scholarly opinions without bias (and that includes bias by removal/omission). Repeating such behaviour in the context of this article's probation and the increasing number of ArbCom rulings in adjacent areas (and ones that cover this page too BTW) would not be productive for those doing so--Cailil ^talk 11:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore adding Template:POV-statement to articles must be followed "promptly" by a thread on this the associated talk page - this was not done. failure to do this is grounds on its own for removal of the template. This was not done in this case but is only being mentioned as an aside - in this instance the usage was incorrect--Cailil ^talk 11:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting it to you sooner, I've posted my comment below. I had another edit I was working on.Spudst3r (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

POV claim: men's rights movement "defended the traditional gender order"

The claim that during the 80's/90's the men's rights movement "defended the traditional gender order" as its main activity is not supported by other sources, at least not enough that it can be declared in this way within the article. While a small minority of men's rights advocates may indeed desire a return for a more traditional gender order (as I'm sure sure some self-identifying feminists might), this is not an accurate representation of the movement as a whole, or even a majority of it.

"This perspective men's rights concurs with the profeminist view that masculinity is damaging to men but with gigantic difference of believe that the principal harm in this role is directed against men rather than women."

"The movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who that female privilege and male degradation are systemic in society"

"The Myth of Male Power is not a return to the 1950s man; it is a leap forward to the 2050s man and woman." - p. 11. [[Warren Farrell] author of the Myth of Male Power (described as the "touchstone" book for the Mens Rights movement elsewhere)

"Ideally there should not be a men’s movement but a gender transition movement; only the power of the women’s movement necessitates the temporary corrective of a men’s movement." - p. 356. [[Warren Farrell] author of the Myth of Male Power

I can find more sources for this, but I think it's accurate to say that most Men's rights advocates see issues of male inequality as ones that are systemic throughout most of recorded history and in need of changing society as we currently know it away from how it currently or previously existed to address them. Recent social advancements coming from the women's movement may be seen as making the situation for men's rights worse, but only because they see the movement as imposing additional obligations on to men and new social rights to women without providing commensurate changes to complement them in areas where men face systemic disadvantage.

It is not appropriate, nor accurate, for the article to declaratively announce they movement defends traditional gender roles when many are articulating a vision to evolve the gender order into something different from what already exists (i.e. what is "traditional"). Spudst3r (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverts RE: female privilege

A quote similar to this was recently reverted, but I would like to add this to the female privilege section:

In denying the existence of male privilege as a concept of oppression, Warren Farrell states that men have a "facade of strength" that hides their weakness, and women have a "facade of weakness" that hides their strength, noting that "Women are the only "oppressed" group to share the same parents as the "oppressor"; to be born into the middle class and upper class as frequently as the "oppressor"; to own more of the culture's luxury items than the "oppressor".. "

I agree the quote might be a little long. Basically in expanding this focus I'm looking for material that looks into how the men's rights movement views male privilege and female privilege.

Spudst3r (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)