Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

"Backlash"

Why are we using the word "backlash," which generally has a pejorative connotation, in the fourth sentence of of the lead section: "The MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement"? It seems to me that phrasing such as "response to," "reaction to," or even "rebellion against," would be more neutral and yet would still be consistent with what reliable sources say about the movement. Moreover, the sentence as it now stands seems rather awkward. If we are so sure of this "fact" (opinion, really), why not simply say that "the MRM is a backlash to the feminist movement"? Probably because this would sound biased and dismissive. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You might want to revisit the actual article, and the actual references:

Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia" (PDF). Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies. 4 (2): 39–52.
Doyle, Ciara (2004). "The Fathers' Rights Movement: Extending Patriarchal Control Beyond the Marital Family". In Herrman, Peter (ed.). Citizenship Revisited: Threats or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries. New York: Nova Publishers. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-59033-900-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
Flood, Michael (2005). "Men's Collective Struggles for Gender Justice: The Case of Antiviolence Activism". In Kimmel, Michael S.; Hearn, Jeff; Connell, Raewyn (eds.). Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. p. 459. ISBN 978-0-7619-2369-5. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
Finocchiaro, Peter (March 29, 2011). "Is the men's rights movement growing?". Salon. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
Messner, Michael (2000). Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8039-5577-6.
Messner, Michael (1998). The Limits of the 'Male Sex Role': An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movement's Discourse. pp. 269–270. The anti-feminist backlash tendencies in the discourse of men's rights advocates are clearly evident, but these activists are not arguing for a return to patriarchal arrangements and traditional masculinity... For these men, what is now needed is a movement that will free men, who will then counter these destructive effects of feminism.
Solinger, Rickie (2013). Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-19-981141-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B (ed.). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
Dunphy, Richard (2000). Sexual Politics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-7486-1247-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
Mills, Martin (2003). "Shaping the boys' agenda: the backlash blockbusters". International Journal of Inclusive Education. 7 (1): 57–73. doi:10.1080/13603110210143644.
Williams, Rhys H. (1995). "Constructing the Public Good: Social Movements and Cultural Resources". Social Problems. 42 (1). University of California Press: 134–135. doi:10.2307/3097008. Retrieved March 4, 2013. Another example of contractual model rhetoric is in the language of the Men's Rights movement. As a countermovement to the feminist movement, it has concentrated on areas generally thought of as family law—especially divorce and child custody laws. The movement charges that maternal preference in child custody decisions is an example of gender prejudice, with men the ones who are systematically disadvantaged... Men's Rights groups... have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement... Similarly, along with the appeal to "equal rights for fathers"... the Men's Rights movement also uses a rhetoric of children's "needs"... The needs rhetoric helps offset charges that their rights language is motivated by self-interest alone.
Molly Dragiewicz (12 April 2011). Equality with a Vengeance: Men's Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash. University Press of New England. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-55553-739-5. Retrieved October 22, 2011. While antifeminist father's rights groups are often identified with fringe or radical backlash perspectives and activities...
Flood, Michael (7 July 2004). "Backlash: Angry men's movements". In Stacey Elin Rossi (ed.). The Battle and Backlash Rage on (PDF). Xlibris Corporation. pp. 261–342. ISBN 978-1-4134-5934-0. Retrieved 29 December 2011.
Mills, Martin; Francis, Becky; Skelton, Christine (8 June 2009). "Gender policies in Australia and the United Kingdom". In Wayne Martino, Michael Kehler, and Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower (ed.). The problem with boys' education: beyond the backlash. Taylor & Francis. pp. 38–55. ISBN 978-1-56023-683-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B (ed.). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
The 1856 Putnam magazine source discusses "men's rights" as a backlash reaction to the upwelling of women's rights.
Clatterbaugh's 1997 Contemporary perspectives on masculinity says on page 88 "The men's rights perspective, for all its talk about equality and destroying traditional roles, often seems to have taken an antifeminist and even misogynist-backlash stance." Page 80: "Publications like The Backlash! and Liberator clearly see their role as the repudiation of feminism." Page 72: "One wing of this movement [MRM] is an admittedly backlash movement. This movement stridently attacks feminism and portrays men as the true victims in today's society."
Louise Chappell writes "The so-called backlash against the women's movement has also been identified in many countries, both East and West. It is associated with the men's rights movement that seeks to roll back changes in gender relations..." The Politics of Women's Interests: New Comparative Perspectives, page 121.
Bob Pease writes, "The focus on men as 'victims' in public discourses about masculinity and the organized backlash of men's rights organizations pose continual threats to the gains that have been made in the last twenty years." A Man's World?: Changing Men's Practices in a Globalized World, page 202.
Shira Tarrant writes, "Fathers' rights groups overlap with men's rights groups and both represent an organized backlash to feminism." Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power, page 213.
Page 152 of the Encyclopedia of Human Ecology: I-Z, says that "At the far end of the continuum is the men's rights (MR) branch of the CMM [Contemporary Men's Movement]. In some respects, this branch might be considered a backlash against feminism. Though the extent to which it is a backlash may have been overstated, it is true that those in the men's rights movement do believe that some of the ways in which men are socialized create inequalities that put men at a disadvantage."
Christopher Mason writes, "During the 1990s the men's rights movement split into various factions. One group became explicitly a backlash movement that attacked feminism and adamantly stated that men are the victims in today's society. This wing of the movement publishes The Backlash! and the Liberator. The 'gender reconciliation' wing of the men's rights movement and its organization known as the Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality (MERGE) publishes Balance, whose mission is to 'promote the vision of full equality and understanding between the sexes.'" Mason cites Clatterbaugh.
Robert Menzies writes: "Cyberspace has proven itself to be an eminently fertile forum for the 'backlash' movement in conveying its message and realizing its goals. Men's rights groups have been highly successful in mobilizing the World Wide Web..."
Barrie Levy writes that "feminist researchers and advocates are worried about a current backlash by 'men's rights' and 'fathers' rights' groups who are challenging women's right to custody of children in family courts..." Women and Violence: Seal Studies, page 121.
Chris Beasley writes: "The first of these [Men's Rights] was for the most part anti-feminist and represented a political backlash against efforts to overcome discrimination against women. Men's rights groupings are concerned with either men as victims or a reassertion of traditional masculinity." Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers, page 180.
Greg Marston writes, "Government concern with boys' issues can easily translate into support for men's rights backlashes against women... The issue facing government is how to talk about men and boys without fuelling backlash and men's rights responses..." Analysing Social Policy: A Governmental Approach, page 137.
Peter Herrmann writes, "Men's rights movements on the other hand have existed for several decades, emerging early as a backlash against feminism..." Citizenship Revisited: Threats Or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries, page 61.
Victor Seidler writes, "It was also taken up as part of a backlash to feminism by many men who had identified with men's rights movements, especially in the United States. They were angry at the power they had lost to feminism..." Man Enough: Embodying Masculinities, page 6.
Fidelma Ashe writes, "Men's different responses to feminism are one kind of expression of struggle around the legitimacy of gender relationships. Some men engaged in a backlash form of politics through fathers' rights groups." The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance, page 148.
Michael Messner writes that "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..." page 41 of Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. This Messner bit is quoted by Amanda Goldrick-Jones in Men Who Believe in Feminism, page 53.
Jane Kenway writes, "I am disturbed but not surprised at the recent backlash against feminism in Australian education and health systems (this is most evident in the rise of the boys' and the men's rights movements)..." Her chapter is called "Having a Postmodernist Turn or Postmodern Angst", found within After Postmodernism: Education, Politics And Identity, ISBN 9780203975039

All of these writers see fit to examine men's rights in the context of a backlash to feminism. A few of them are ambivalent about the backlash but most state the matter casually, firm in the truth of the origin of the MRM as a backlash. If you think the MRM did not form as a backlash, I wonder what is your version of the origin, and I would like to see the sources which support a contrary origin story. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

An impressive list but you're either missing my point or else intentionally talking around it. I said that phrasing such as "a reaction to" "a response to" or even "a rebellion against" would be more neutral for US to use but would still (read it as "also") be consistent with reliable sources, in fact probably consistent with most of the sources you've just listed. The fact that a lot of sources have used the description "backlash" doesn't mean that those same sources (as well as many others) haven't also described it as a "reaction to" or a "rebellion against" the feminist movement. Why use the most pejorative description available to us when less pejorative descriptions have ALSO been used by reliable sources? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The word backlash is terse, accurate and appropriate. Some MRM people even publish a journal called The Backlash!—these people obviously embrace the term. Their example removes your main leverage, that the word backlash is somehow pejorative. I don't see the need to change it for a lesser formulation. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The word "backlash" is value-laden. It implicitly suggests that the MRM is anti-feminist. It is a label that paints an entire movement. This is inaccurate. As even some of the feminist/post-modernist references listed above note -- there are both anti-feminist and pro-feminist groups that make up the MRM. The pro-feminist groups certainly would not have developed as a "backlash" to feminism. Other groups may take a neutral / uninterested stance re feminism, and just focus on men's issues and rights. Memills (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to Binksternet, the fact that some element within the men's rights movement uses "backlash" as a rallying cry hardly "removes (my) main leverage." In fact, quite to the contrary. Modern social movements are replete with the ironic use of terms. Gays often now embracing insulting terms used against them such as "queer" and "dyke." Some blacks embracing the term "nigger." Conservatives lapping up Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy." No, the fact that some in the MRM use "backlash" as a positive rallying cry doesn't help your case in the least. The issue is whether WE should be using that description, pretty much in Wikipedia's voice, in our introduction, and we shouldn't be. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Memills, the pro-feminist Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality (MERGE) people established their creed in March 1987 in Alberta, Canada.[1] It was not until 1995 that an American chapter was formed.[2] All of this mild woman-loving MRM activity happened after the feminist backlash of MRM origin which was in the '70s. The "Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements" formed in 1971, and the "Men's Rights Association" formed in 1973. "Men's Liberation" was forming men's and father's rights groups by 1976. In 1977, Frederic Hayward of Cambridge, Massachusetts, formed Men's Rights Inc. He said "The things I'm advocating for men are the same things feminists have been advocating for women."[3] This is of course a backlash to the advances gained by feminism. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"The things I'm advocating for men are the same things feminists have been advocating for women." That's not a "backlash" (which implies opposition). According to that esteemed NPOV reference source, er, Wikipedia, backlash " ...is a popular negative reaction to something which has gained popularity, prominence, or influence." (italics added) Memills (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, a backlash being a "negative reaction" isn't same as the term "backlash" having a pejorative connotation, although, of course, the term does have a pejorative connotation. As both Memills' and Binksternet's latest statements help to show, the movement is too complex for Wikipedia to be using a pejorative, brand-them-all noun such "backlash" to describe it. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition is not so good... the Backlash (sociology) article has no references at all! Merriam Webster says "strong adverse reaction". Jeffery Scott Mio describes the new definition to have come to the fore following Susan Faludi's 1991 book Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women.[4] Faludi names a wide swath of people as being part of the backlash against feminism, but she does not leave out the MRM. She describes a significant group of men who emerged from survey data in 1986, the men having in common several characteristics: they were mostly single, they had a median age of 33, and they were not succeeding in the workplace. These "downscale" men were underemployed, they were too easily laid off, they had no savings and they had little hope. This group made up 20% of the US adult population, and they were resentful of society, especially resentful of women in their lives who were apparently more powerful than they. These men were not the successful and self-assured men who felt confident of women's new rights. Faludi says that the unsuccessful men who "feared and reviled feminism" "dominated the ranks" of the early men's rights movement. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Binksternet but I don't see anything in what you have just written other than (in the words of my verbose son's Junior high adviser) "superfluous discourse". Faludi is one author and she is a polemicist more than anything else. Who cares?Badmintonhist (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Faludi had a huge influence, no matter your opinion of her. Her book sold millions, a best-seller for nine months, and it sparked further scholarship by others. It led to her next book, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, which is about resentful American men, very much on topic. I named her directly because I am getting the impression that she is the elephant in the room. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

While "backlash" may sound negative, the MRM is seen in a negative light, unlike feminism. Unpopular views happen to be unpopular, and we are supposed to report that. TFD (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In point of fact BOTH are seen in a negative light by their enemies. What's next? Fascism is seen in a negative light, unlike communism. The Yankees are seen in a negative light, unlike the Red Sox? Badminton is seen in a negative light, unlike tennis? Well that last one might be true in the USA.Badmintonhist (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Binkernet's list has conclusively demonstrated that the men's rights movement is considered a backlash movement by multiple academic and other sources. Would you have us cover this up for some reason? And yes, Badmintonhist, if multiple significant reliable sources made those observations of baseball teams or sports, then we would report that too. To give some more appropriate comparisons, note that what we are seeing here is exactly what happens on pages like Holocaust denial, Homeopathy, Shakespeare authorship question etc]; supporters of the non-mainstream view try to "soften" the language of mainstream sources to put their own fringe views in a better light. But that is now how this encyclopedia is written. Slp1 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Then WE should say it rather like you have just said it in your first sentence; i.e. "Many observers have described the Men's Rights Movement as a backlash to the feminist movement", not "it is considered a backlash to the the feminist movement." Of course, even more observers have described it as a response to the feminist movement so there is nothing wrong with describing it that way either. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you prove that "even more observers have described it as a response to the feminist movement"? Such proof would be helpful in this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why should this article use a different formulation than that used in the Good Article Holocaust Denial article, and as discussed in the 1st FAQ on the talkpage?Slp1 (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The hell? Why would we? Arkon (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Because we'd like this article to be policy-compliant, and that one clearly is?Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

So are a couple thousand others, again, why that one? Arkon (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it addresses precisely this issue. Do you have an example of other good or featured article that has addressed this issue and come to a different conclusion? If not, I think this conversation is over. --Slp1 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what issue you think that article has in common with this one, that's why I am asking. Arkon (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you're more of the detail man, Binksternet. As I've readily confessed many times, I'm horrible with computers. Have trouble even cutting and pasting. For a starter, however, a mere starter. You might pair the phrases "men's rights movement" and "response to feminism" and the phrases "men's rights movement" and "backlash to (or against) feminism and see what you come up with in a Google search. Also take that list of books you presented (and others on the topic) and see if they also describe the MRM as a response to or a "reaction to feminism." I'm off to a singing gig. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The term response usually means positive and proportional, for example, the government responded to feminism by introducing gender equality laws. We would not for example say "the patient responded to treatment" if the treatment killed him, although his death would have been a response. So we could replace "backlash" with "disproportionate negative response." TFD (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Badmintonhist's suggestion that we replace the academic term backlash with "rebellion against" in the name of neutrality is even more problematic. To "rebel" means to oppose someone or something that is dominant or authoritative. People usually rebel against God, the kind, the state, dogmas, etc. The implication would be that feminism is so dominant and authoritative that MRM activists need to rebel against it, an implication not supported by the sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmh! Just noticed Sonicyouth86's comment immediately above. For the record, I said that "response to," "reaction to," or even "rebellion against," would be preferable to "backlash to." In other words, of the three I suggested as alternatives, "rebellion against" was the least desirable but still more neutral than "backlash to." That's because, unlike "backlash," "rebellion" does not necessarily have a negative connotation. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that all of these sound better than "backlash", which caught my eye upon reading the article. I think the problem is that the word, while accurately describing many parts of MRM, also implies that there is no case of cooperation between feminism and MRM, and that they are by definition opposing movements. That is an oversimplification. Happeningfish (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Backlash" works precisely because it is so accurate. Feminism was making inroads in family law and other social changes, and the men's rights movement reacted negatively. The notion that some degree of cooperation exists between MRM and feminists is unsupportable, and in any case it does not bear upon the backlash origin. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Rape section has unattributed statistic

In the Rape section, the article states "Quoting research including that by Eugene Kanin and the U.S. Air Force they assert that 40-50% or more of rape allegations may be false.[97][98][99] " However none of the links mention anything about the U.S. Air Force. There is also no U.S. Air Force study listed in the "False accusation of rape" Wikipedia article. The words "and the U.S. Air Force" should be removed from the sentence.

As well, the criticism of the Kanin study from the "False accusation of rape" Wikipedia article should be mentioned:

Critics of Kanin's report include David Lisak, an associate professor of psychology and director of the Men's Sexual Trauma Research Project at the University of Massachusetts Boston. He states, "Kanin’s 1994 article on false allegations is a provocative opinion piece, but it is not a scientific study of the issue of false reporting of rape. It certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations."[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strawcow (talk • contribs) 04:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Strawcow. Thanks for your message. On this page we are covering the men's rights movement and their claims. If you look at the references you will see that both NCFM and Farrell references refer to a 1985 US Air Force Academy study. (I am not sure why the NCFM link doesn't work, but if you click the link and then type www before the ncmp.org you will go to the page. If anybody can figure out how to fix it that would be great.....) It doesn't matter that whether it is not mentioned on the false accusations of rape page; what matters are what the references cited here say.

You are right that these statistics are greatly disputed, and thanks for that quote. As this page is about the men's rights movement, we can't just use general references about the Kanin study (for example). WP needs criticisms of the use of these statistics by the Men's Rights Movement. Do you see the difference in focus? Having said that I am pretty sure that there are these kinds of sources out there. In fact, just after typing this, I looked for and found the the "false allegations" section (p. 162 on) by Sterba in the Farrell and Sterba book: Sterba is deeply critical of the Air Force study and Farrell's use of it - over 4 pages, and this includes the fact that the very Air Force Academy was the subject of a 2003 scandal over its longstanding failure to address rape and sexual assault, and the toleration of abuse of female cadets.[5]. So there is that source, and likely other material related to the MRM out there, that should be briefly summarized for this article. I don't have time to do this now, but perhaps others do have time to look for sources and write something up. Slp1 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The OR issue is obviously valid, but I don't think the concern about giving readers false or misleading information is unwarranted either. What would you think of writing "discredited research by..." and leaving the less relevant details to be discussed in the proper articles? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that there is enough of a scholarly consensus on this research to justify "discredited" in that first sentence- for example, for the Air Force academy study the only academic critic is Sterba, that I can find. - But I do agree that there are sources criticizing the MRM's points on this matter that something needs to be added. I have Sterba, and I found this too. If other editors can find other material about the men's rights movement and their claims about false rape allegations, that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no link to any Air Force Study. The link that now looks to be fixed is to a men's rights page that talks about a study that may or may not exist. There are no direct quotes from the article. Without citing the actual article, the "U.S. Air Force" part of the sentence should be removed. Or it should be rewritten that Men's Rights Groups claim that there is a U.S. Air Force study that proposes that 40% of rape allegations may be false. We don't know what the study says, we only know what Men's Rights websites claim the study says.

--Strawcow (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be link to the Air Force Study. Reliable sources say the study exists, and that is good enough for WP, unless there are clear reasons for believing that they are wrong and it doesn't exist. If it helps satisfy your desire to confirm that it exists though, James Sterba in the Oxford University Press Farrell/Sterba book states on p. 162 that the study is "not in the public domain" but that he got a copy of it by using the Freedom of Information Act. Slp1 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticism/misogyny section?

I believe this was discussed before but allegations of misogyny don't fit in "relation to feminism" because misogyny is not inherently a "feminist" issue and the groups making the claims (like SPLC) are not feminist per se.

My suggestion to have either a criticism or "claims of misogyny" section. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. I don't really agree that misogyny doesn't fit into "relation to feminism" section. I believe the two are very closely connected. See this [6] for example. The fact that multiple sources (e.g. SPLC) are making the claims are not relevant in this context, and simply strenthens the point; criticism sections are generally deprecated, and consensus on this page has not to have one. --Slp1 (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case I think it's worth having an "allegations of misogyny" section to include that. It's definitely not POV in that it considers the criticisms to be allegations. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. Per WP:UNDUE I don't see any reason why these claims should be given a separate section all to themselves.--Slp1 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's right to even have such criticisms on an article dealing with mens rights issues. Pleasetry (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. It sounds like you are saying that we should ignore well-sourced critical material on this topic. That would be completely contrary to WP:NPOV.Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of criticism etc, I notice a few times in the article where the MRM's positions are stated, that are then followed by 'critics say...' This reads terribly, and in a article regarding the movement, stating their positions would seem to be the point, while countering with a 'critics say...' seems to make the article argue with itself. I usually only see that formulation used on fringe science topics, and am not sure it is proper here. Arkon (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've read a lot of MRA stuff and the great majority clearly isn't a backlash or misogyny. Still Wikipedia claims otherwise - mostly because, I guess, academic sources on gender tend to be overwhelmingly feminist and writing from a different viewpoint is considered a stupid move career wise and rightly so. Never believe WP on this kind of ideologically laden issues! That's the sorry conclusion. But apparenlty there s nothing you can do but to wait for the return of the objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.108.56 (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Paternity Fraud section should be corrected

Hiya,

Reading up on the sources for Michael Gilding, none of them mention Men's Rights activists, only Fathers' Rights activists as overestimating the incidence of misatributed paternity. Since this is an article on the Men's rights movement, the Gilding passage needs to be deleted. Since the article is edit-protected, perhaps one of the Editerati would oblige...?

T 88.89.144.233 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it seems you didn't notice that one of the references mentions the "Men's Rights Agency" as one of the complaining group. I will also add this reference which states "Men’s rights organisations, such as the Men’s Rights Agency, claim up to 30 per cent of men in Australia are living with a child they mistakenly believe is their biological offspring. In the past, the group has called for mandatory testing of all babies at birth. Gilding adamantly disputes this figure and says it is probably closer to between one and three per cent." I'd also add that some sources consider fathers' rights to be a subset of the men's rights movement. I've actually called for a clear decision here about whether we can accept references to the fathers' rights movement as well (and supported only citing refs to MR groups/activists only myself), but a consensus has never been reached. --Slp1 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits re prison sentences

Over the last few days there has been some back and forth adding and removal of a section which quotes a speech by a British MP, Philip Davies. Two editors have added it a total of four times and four separate editors (one of them me) have removed it once each, all of whom mention original research and synthesis. Based on the edit summaries given there is some confusion among those editors wishing to include the material.

"vandalism". Good faith edits to remove what editors honestly believe to be Original research are not vandalism. Please review WP:VANDALISM
"original research and synthesis". Having a source does not mean that an edit is not original research; please review WP:SYNTH to see how two sourced edits can be put together to create a new, original idea. In this case, the "new original idea" is that this particular argument is one made by men's rights movement. This has been explained in more detail in a section above, Philip Davies is not a member of the men's rights movement and does not mention men's rights in his speech. To connect this speech and this man to the men's rights movement is original research, synthesis and a possible BLP violation.

What I cannot understand is why this is so difficult for people to understand and how it actually benefits the MRM to have this policy. I'll give an example: the very Hansard article cited includes multiple other MPs disagreeing with Martin and putting forward other statistics which suggest that in certain contexts women are discriminated against in the judicial system. Ignoring the problematic question of why "positive" material has been cherry picked out of the whole text, I'll just point out that the "negative" material is also equally excluded, as is any other material which "disproves" men's rights talking points in contexts unconnected to the topic of men's rights movement. Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on the edits that have been made and removed that you mention. But in that section, why do we have to put most of the information in the voice of Warren Farrell, when we have other sources stating the same thing. Such as "But men are also the main targets of military violence and criminal assault, and many more men than women are imprisoned or executed." from the cite already included elsewhere in the article. Arkon (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be great to expand the voices from Farrell and thanks for actually providing a source!! The problem is that Connell isn't talking about the men's rights movement either and in fact a paragraph later states that "The disadvantages listed above [including what you quote above] are, broadly speaking, the conditions of the advantages [of being male]" so it would be taking his words out of context, don't you agree? But surely there are some other voices talking about the MRM (including prominent men's rights voices) to broaden things on this matter? I don't think we should get into statistics (because there are so many countries, kinds of crime etc etc) but I don't have any problem with going beyond Farrell. It's just what I had to had when I was trying to write something on the topic. Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The beginning sentence to the section that includes that quote is "The diversity among men and masculinities is reflected in a diversity of men’s movements in the developed countries", so I believe it would be hard to argue that what follows is unrelated to the Men's rights movement. No, I don't agree that those words would be taken out of context, as they are a statement of fact (both in the real world and in the writers voice). As it reads now, it is presented as a claim of Farrel, unnecessarily, I think. Arkon (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This "The diversity among men and masculinities.... " sentence actually comes much further on in the article than the original passage you cited. It doesn't head that section at all. But it is helpful because it shows that the requirement that there be an explicit connection made with the MRM doesn't just mean that only pro-MRM gets excluded. The section that it does begin describes several different, men's movements (such as white ribbon campaign, Men against Sexual Assault, gay men movements) and then makes an possible reference to men's rights groups describing them thus: "Explicit backlash movements also exist but have not generally had a great deal of influence. Men mobilizing as men to oppose women tend to be seen as cranks or fanatics. They constantly exaggerate women’s power. And by defining men’s interests in opposition to women’s, they get into cultural difficulties, since they have to violate a main tenet of modern patriarchal ideology—the idea that “opposites attract” and that men’s and women’s needs, interests, and choices are complementary." I would guess Connell is talking about men's rights groups (and maybe you do too) but he doesn't say so explicitly. My guess (and yours) is not relevant, so this material isn't going into the article in any form. Similarly with your supposition that Connell's comments about criminal justice are related to the men's rights movement. Slp1 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right about that coming up in a different spot. Ctrl-F failed me horribly on that one. However, you still aren't making a strong argument. This isn't about what "we guess". The section is speaking to gender equality, stating facts and positions of the men's side. The entire cite is riddled with references, paragraphs, and sections devoted the movements specifically. Attempting to exclude parts because some combination of words are not present within a certain vicinity of a piece of information, when the context is clear isn't the way to go. Arkon (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is you that is not making a strong argument. The following sentences are in the same paragraph "men collectively receive the bulk of income in the money economy and occupy most of the managerial positions" and "In the domain of power men collectively control the institutions of coercion and the means of violence (e.g., weapons)." Would you think these sentences should go in to this article about the men's rights movement? My guess is you wouldn't (and I'd agree!!). If you think about the reasoning for your answer, you'll understand the problem. You are picking the parts of that paragraph that you think are about men's rights and that's called unverifiable, original research and synthesis. Read the whole paragraph again in context and you'll see that Connell is making a series of contrasts that lead up to the conclusion that "The disadvantages listed above are, broadly speaking, the conditions of the advantages [of being male]": it's the opposite of a men's rights argument; which is not terribly surprising as Connell is pro-feminist. Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to argue for inclusion of other information from that source, that's up to you, but do it in it's own section. We have a cite (already in the article) that if not completely about, is broadly about the MRM and it's arguments. We have a sentence attributed to Farrell, that the cite backs up. I'd gladly gather opinions from the OR board, if you continue to protest. Also, I'd suggest not mindreading my motives such as :You are picking the parts of that paragraph that you think are about men's rights. Arkon (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing for the inclusion of that material. In fact I specifically agreed that the sentences should not be included. You are not getting my point. Maybe it is my fault, but perhaps you can do me the favour of reading my posts again and see if a second read-through helps. And then if you want to ask others by all means go ahead, but I can't imagine you are going to get a different answer from any experienced editor.

The article currently cites Connell for this phrase: "their arguments have been covered extensively in neoconservative media". The relevant passage appears on page 6 of Connell's article, where it says "In the United States, where authors such as Warren Farrell (1993) and Christina Hoff Sommers (2000), purporting to speak on behalf of men and boys, bitterly accuse feminism of injustice. Men and boys, they argue, are the truly disadvantaged group and need supportive programs in education and health, in situations of family breakup, and so forth. These ideas have not stimulated a social movement, with the exception of a small-scale (though active and sometimes violent) “father’s rights” movement in relation to divorce. The arguments have, however, strongly appealed to the neoconservative mass media, which have given them international circulation." There is an explicit link here to men's rights and father's rights authors and groups, that is utterly missing in the sentence you would wish to include. Slp1 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep speaking in hypotheticals that have nothing to do with what I am suggesting. Maybe that's -my- fault. We have the current statement in the article:

Warren Farrell cites evidence that men receive harsher prison sentences and are more likely sentenced to death in the United States

The portion of the text from the cite that I've referenced (Again, already in the article. Also, you neglect the fact that multiple such explicit links are made in that article, well, because it's about this topic.):

But men are also the main targets of military violence and criminal assault, and many more men than women are imprisoned or executed.

So, we have the options of adding this as an additional cite to the Farrell sentence or even rewording the text and take it out of Farrell's voice. Arkon (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Slp1, I was one of those people "protecting" the inclusion of this information. I am charmed by your presentation of the issue, so I am also making a good faith effort to understand your view and cooperate with its reason. So, you are saying that this text does not belong here because Philip Davies is not a Men's Rights Activist and therefore what he says, regardless of its factual veracity and relevance to the Men's Rights Issue, is not about the Men's Rights Movement. Is that your point? If that is so, I would like to ask you to look at the entire article and suggest how a similar thing isn't happening in all the sections. It is flipping back and forth between discussing the issues and reporting views of representatives of the Men's Rights Movement. I have a problem particularly with the repeated occurrence of "Critics suggest/argue ..." etc. Because that discusses the issues not the Men's Rights Movement. I would not mind the entire article to be condensed into a simple list of Men's Rights Issues with reference to Warren Farrell, Herb Goldberg, and more contemporary spokes persons of the movement, such as Karen Straughan. But I am not sure where you stop? Do you allow Erin Pizzey views? And why not Philip Davies? On what basis would you exclude Philip Davies from the Men's Rights Movement, if he is clearly speaking very passionately and with preparation about a central issue of the Men's Rights Movement? Thanks. Gschadow (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think what he's saying, or at least the summary of what he's saying is that it is inappropriate to present statements and viewpoints of single individuals as being those generally held by a group of people, especially when that single individual is not a part of or associated with that movement. Ironlion45 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more or less exactly, Ironlion45 (though I admit had to read your comment several times to understand what you are getting at.). If you remove "especially".

Gshadown: per WP:OR, we cannot include the views or arguments of people who are neither MRAs nor speaking about the MRM or MR activism in this article; this is an article about the MRM and not an article where we debate (or try to prove-one way of the other) the issues that the MRM focus on by bringing in information about the "issue" without a specific reference to the men's rights movement. This is the policy, but I have also tried to explain above why this is actually of benefit to those who wish to present the MRM movement in as positive a light as possible. Looking back in the history you will find versions of this article in which MR claims were extensively "debunked" by statistics and references that had no reference to the MR movement either. Another couple of examples: in the Hansard document containing Philip Davies's speech, his arguments are critiqued by at least 3 other MPs; if we were to include his information then per WP:NPOV and fairly representing the source, we would also need to quote them and their views. Ditto Connell: if it is okay to cite him when he makes an argument that reasonates with MRAs, then per NPOV we would need to also cite him when he does not. Surely you can see where this would lead in terms of the article and why this policy makes total sense.

I am not sure what you mean when you say "I have a problem particularly with the repeated occurrence of "Critics suggest/argue ..." etc. Because that discusses the issues not the Men's Rights Movement", but if you find any references in the "critics say" sections that discuss the "issue" outside a discussion of the MRM or MRAs, then I would 100% support removing them. I cannot guarantee every reference because I haven't checked them all, but I would be very surprised if there are many, though.

Per NPOV, there is no way that this article is going to end up as a list of men's rights issues referencing only men's rights authors. That's what men's rights websites are for. This is an encyclopedia which has as a central tenet of NPOV meaning "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". There are lots of critical voices about this movement and their arguments in highly reliable sources, and these have to be reflected in this article.Slp1 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This article comes under mens rights etc not just the movement per se so it unrealistically limiting the scope of the topic.Now presumably you have read the whole link so beyond that you have no reasonable cause to revert. Pleasetry (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Pleasantry this article is about the movement it's not a list of issues. Unless there are reliable sources linking issues to the movement this article can't list them. That particular infor might be more pertinent to the Sentencing in England and Wales article--Cailil ^talk 12:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Pleasentry's inclusion of statistics about prison sentencing was discussed and rejected before. The two edits in question are almost identical (1 and 2) and good examples of synthesis. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does men's rights redirect to this article if it is only for the movement and why has it been changed between men's rights and men's rights movement before so I don't think that's a good enough reason to obstruct its inclusion. Pleasetry (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Moving a page, that's why. When a page is renamed, the previous title is automatically redirected to the new name. No point in using the redirect as an excuse to include WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not read all the discussion but seems to me the Men's Rights movement is not the Catholic Church -- it has no Pope to speak for it, nor even only one organization. Someone above seemed to be claiming the article is about the movement but not the issues of the movement -- ??????? I suggested in a new section that I write a detailed explanation of how domestic violence restraining order laws are unfair in California. The laws themselves are key, and can be quoted with essentially no need for any opinionating, like "California Family Code Section 6320 allows for domestic violence restraining orders to be issued when there is no allegation of violence" or "those accused of domestic violence are given only 5 days between the time they are notifed of the accusation and their court date" -- both of these statements can be proved with citations to California government web pages. Or, alternatively if someone thinks this is too much here, put a link here to another article? I do kind of think this page is being censored and distorted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.124 (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal at WP:AN

I have opened a proposal at AN to extend the WP:1RR restriction on MRM-related pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Domestic Violence Section misses the point

The Domestic Violence section is very weak. The main gripe many men have with the Domestic Violence issue is false accusations of domestic violence, not that women are beating up men and men don't have shelters (I do kind of agree with the idea of shelters -- because if the man defends himself he goes to jail -- but it's not the main way the zealot feminists are harming innocent men)

A new section should deal with the unfair, extremely unfair, aspects of domestic violence laws in the most extreme states - like Calirornia where I am from, have been falsely accused, and nearly ruined as a result. - I know individual horror stories are considered original research -- but the article can be written by reference to the actual laws, which will also give men a good primer for how to fight such false accusations, and compare how Domestic Violence courts have rules that guarantee the defendant will not get due process as due process has been traditionally understood. '

Does anyone want to see an edit? I can write it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.124 (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there's already an article on "Domestic violence against men" - why not redirect there?

T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All of that would fall under NPOV, OR and SYNTH unless you could find a reliable source which explicitly ties that to positions held by the Men's Rights Movement. As noted before many times in the Talk page, this article is about the MRM and not a space to discuss various MRM issues by bringing in information about the issue without a specific reference to the men's rights movement. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think one has to be aware that problems like NPOV, OR and SYNTH can also arise not only within the content of any single article, but also within the ensemble of articles on a related field. If one looks at the structure of gender related articles on Wikipedia, there is an article on women's rights, listing concerns, but no article on men's rights, listing concerns. Searching for "Women's rights movement" redirects to "Women's rights", and searching for "Men's rights" redirects to "Men's rights Movement". There is an article on "Masculism", but also here the talk pages show that concerns w/o good RS is thought to be inappropriate. IOW, there seems to be no page where listing men's concerns is appropriate. Listing men's concerns without NPOV or SYNTH should be relatively unproblematic. To the degree that the men's rights movement is an emerging movement which has a different structure than other, more established gender movements, the source situation will be different, but all that is handled by Wiki guidelines.

To be specific, there is a page on Feminist Blogs, listing important voices. There might be a page on MHRM Blogs, listing important voices there, too. T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Feminist bias

"The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it has identified as issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.[1][2] The MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement.[3] The men's rights movement has been involved in a variety of areas related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including education, compulsory military service and social safety nets), and health that they believe are biased towards women. The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist."

That's from the heading of the page, and is extremely biased, I suggest it being heavily re-edited to remove the feminist bias. Bumblebritches57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record: editor has been notified of the article's probationary status. The complaint itself does not merit much attention; stating that the content is based on reliable sources should suffice for him that hath ears to hear. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Feminist bias and many WP:RS problems

I disagree with this idea that the bias does not deserve attention. This idea that suffice to claim "reliable sources" is flawed. When looking at, and reading, the sources cited under footnote 3 for instance, it becomes very clear that the sources itself are biased. Obviously, if you take any controversial subject, you can find sources that disagree. The question is if an article about one movement should be presented describing the movement and its ideas fairly and then in one section, one can describe the criticism also and still have WP:NPOV. But here negative language is delivered with weasel-words WP:WEASEL right at the start. This is not resolved by just piling on more and more biased sources, which no doubt are plentiful as the gender discourse in media and academia is entirely hogged by feminist POV. WP:BIASED needs to be considered especially carefully.

Here are the POV weasel-words WP:WEASEL which do need to be edited. I am discussing them here before going into the text and make changes.

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement.[3]" -- anything can be considered anything by some group. Evolution theory is also "considered" flawed by some group of creationists. And there is a long list of books one can quote for "reliable sources" to back up that statement, yet it still does not belong in the opener of the article on Evolution. Also, why use the passive voice "is considered", it conveys a bias implying "everyone" or "any sane mind consider it ...". Such statements, if they are mentioned in the article at all, ought to be attributed by some delineation of what group is doing the considering.

"The [...] movement has been involved in a variety of areas [...] that they believe are biased towards women." -- yes, the movement holds these beliefs, that is OK to state as a belief. But "they" is not a congruent pronoun for "the movement ..." (number disagreement) and I submit that "they" reveals the negative POV of the editor who introduced this phrasing "... that they believe ...". It needs to be edited.

"The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars ..." -- while there certainly are many academics who have so critiqued the movement (obviously, because "gender studies" is academic institutionalized feminism), "scholars" does not clearly delineate the group of people holding such opinion. It appears to intend to convey a consensus, as if all scholars would hold this same opinion. However, this is at odds with WP:RS/AC.

"The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, ..." -- this "and others" is irrelevant fluff. There is always some group of "others" who may hold some view, like "some say" this is a patently unattributed, un-sourced, and redundant statement.

"sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist." -- this again a weasel inside the passive voice, the sources are all biased and therefore unreliable as a statement about the MRM, they are simply sources supporting an opinion. But it is redundant and irrelevant to sprinkle a Wikipedia article with accusations made by opponents. Here, let's look at those "sources" one by one;

4. Glenn, Sacks. "Confronting Woman-Bashing in the Men's Movement". glennsacks.com. Retrieved 29 July 2013.

not a reliable source, it's a website, WP:QUESTIONABLE

5. Potok, M; Schlatter S (Spring 2012). "Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women". Intelligence Report (Southern Poverty Law Center) 145. Retrieved 2013-03-07.

once again, an Internet opinion piece, WP:QUESTIONABLE.

6. Chris Beasley (20 May 2005). Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. SAGE Publications. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-7619-6979-2. Retrieved 6 May 2013.

This may qualify, yet it is still a biased source WP:BIASED, because the author's profile clearly identifies her as a feminist.

7. Kimmel, Michael; Kaufman, Michael (1997). "Weekend Warriors". In Mary R. Walsh. Women, Men and Gender. Yale University Press. p. 407. ISBN 978-0-300-06938-9.

Kimmel is a feminist and this particular book chapter starting with its title, is strikingly biased, evidenced by its derogatory language.

8. Menzies 2007, p. 71. in Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B. Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9.

again, a book self-identified as feminist, this is clearly WP:BIASED.

In conclusion, from the outset, the MRM article is very openly overrun by statements which use WP:WEASEL rhetoric to introduce WP:BIASED even if ostensibly academic WP:RS/AC and therefore not reliable sources WP:RS to stand for any factual objective statements about the subject of this article. The correct way of designating all those unattributed opinions behind passive voice, "scholars and other" is to put it in active voice and say "feminists believe ...", "feminist scholars have described the movement as misogynist", etc. Gschadow (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The crux of your argument seems to fall under this phrase: When looking at, and reading, the sources cited under footnote 3 for instance, it becomes very clear that the sources itself are biased - WP doesnt require the sources to be neutral, only a neutral reflection of what the sources say. If scholars critique the MRM and describe the movement as misogynist, and that criticism composes a vast majority of the literature written about the movement (which is the case), then the lede is an accurate reflection of what the RS say. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Do scholars as a group critique the MRM and describe the movement as misogynist, or is it a subset of scholars who do so? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The preponderance of scholars who study this issue critique the MRM and describe the movement as misogynist. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this what we mean to say in the article? And are we implying a form of academic consensus on the material. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes to both. Allow me to quote User:Slp1 from one of the last times this discussion came around: Sorry, no, you are quite wrong about this. WP will not marginalize what seems to be the mainstream opinion of scholars (by attributing/saying "some" etc) until it is clear that is a minority opinion or disputed in some way. For example, we don't write: "Dr. X says penicillin kills bacteria. Dr. Y does too". We survey the academic opinion and summarize the mainstream view (e.g. penicillin kills bacteria) and if there are minority views summarize them in proportion to their importance. But the problem with this discussion here is that nobody is proposing any sources that dispute the fact that academics do critique men's rights use of the the statistics/research that is available. We can only start having this conversation when academic sources are provided that actually agree with the men's rights activists' interpretation of the matter. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Good, you know exactly what I'm talking about, unfortunately in that case, and this case your view is blatantly in violation of WP:RS/AC and at the end of the last discussion where this was brought up, the term some was added before the term Scholars. We have no source that demonstrates what scholars as a group view of the MRM, we only have sources which explain views of the individual scholars. To imply an argument stronger than that is WP:OR since we don't have a measure of the scholarly community as a whole. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, there was no consensus for the added "some" in front of the term scholars. Again to quote the same user from the same discussion: If there is no serious dispute about a topic, all we do as editors is to summarize the mainstream opinion see- WP:NPOV). Doing so is not by any means synthesis. To date the academic sources provided all do critique the men's rights position and that is what is reflected in the text. Until academic sources are found to that support their views, this is the way it has to stay per NPOV.. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You can quote Slp1 as much as you like, however, his argument still doesn't fly. Some was added before scholars, and while there wasn't explicit consensus, the term stayed in the article. You can collect as many individual sources as you like saying the MRM is misogynist, however a statement that scholars as a group do so requires a source that says it. Without doing so you are engaging in WP:Synth. WP:AC/RS is explicit on this point. To quote the guideline "Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." You're argument is that since there is no academic source against it, then Academic Consensus can be reached. This assumes that scholars who may not have published works share your view. You have no source that supports this position. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

My quoting of Slp1 is to note we've been around this block before and consensus reached, not necessarily WP policy. However, WP policy states that articles are to be a reflection of reliable published sources, so whether hypothetical unpublished scholars may hold an opinion of something but have not written anything is largely irrelevant. Additionally, the word "some" did not stay in the article and it has not been in the article for many months. In fact, I am having trouble finding a previous revision where it was in the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:Kyohyi, I think that adding "some" before "scholar" (or whatever other noun to represent the attribution) is not going to fix this. These are all arguments about supposed "majorities" or "preponderance" etc., which can not be a useful point. Anti-MRM sentiment is clearly in the majority of "gender studies" scholars, that's not the problem here. This is why I disagree with PearlSt82 who claims that this discussion had been had and is resolved by "consensus". It is not. Nothing regarding a discussion over whether to say "scholars" or "some scholars" is relevant, because the quantification is irrelevant. The point is WP:INDY. I would hope that the reverting PearlSt82, will show some collaborative spirit by responding to the subject of the admonishment in WP:BIASED and the good ideas of WP:INDY. Gschadow (talk)

@Pearl You're right we should reflect reliable published sources, and what reliable published source says that scholars as a group have this opinion. The two sections where I added "Some" were Domestic Violence, and Health, in both cases the word "some" has stayed, but the term Academics has dropped off. In domestic violence it became some critics, and health became just some have with no qualifier on to position of who. So, yes they are still there, but the surrounding text has changed.

@Gschadow Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, Wikipedia is a reflection of what published sources say. Reliable, biased sources are still reliable. And their content can be added as long as it is qualified. I don't really think Independent sources are going to be found on this subject. The level of contention in this area is huge, and I'm pretty sure the only ones interested in wading into it are people who already have their own biases. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, I did some digging - while not currently in the article, but from "Men's Movements and Male Subjectivity" by Ruzankina, E. A. in Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. Summer2010, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p8-16. 9p states: "As researchers note, the mythopoeic and conservative men’s movements have an obvious negative vector, that is, they try to prevent the development of social trends promoted by the radical feminist movement. ". Would you consider any philosophical difference between "scholars" and "researchers", or would you support changing the word 'scholars' to 'researchers' as appears in the lede? PearlSt82 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the source you just listed looks like something that this article needs. The use of "some sectors" has bothered me, and maybe we could use this source to expand a bit as to what sectors "some sectors" refers to. This source clearly supports the use of 'researchers', and at the moment I'm undecided whether the difference between "scholars" and "researchers" is significant enough. I suppose at the moment either term would suffice, if I come up with something that I believe to be a valid reason against it i'll bring it up. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - I've added the ref to the article at the end of that sentence and I can use it to expand a little more in the body when I have some more time. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear PearlSt82, you are too focused on the numbers. Scholarship isn't a voting game. When you speak about "preponderance of scholars who study the issue" you use an implied voting logic: if you were taking a poll and find that more people classified as "scholars who study the issue" side against the MRM, that sidesteps WP:WEASEL and WP:BIASED and WP:RS/AC. According to this logic, you could even claim that MRM is a fringe group (WP:FRINGE), and claim that the voices of the members of this group have no right to stand without the allegation of being vastly overruled by some consensus of "scholars who study this field". You are committing a group-authority fallacy here, blinded to the fact that what constitute the pool of "scholars who study the issue" are those "gender studies" people the vast majority of whom are self-declared academic feminists. This means, your entire pool of "scholars" is biased. You have decided to wholesale revert my edits, claiming that the generalizing weasel language is alright? How about some acknowledgement that passive voice and weasels is simply not good style? Your reference to earlier dispute do not apply to my edits. I did not intend to marginalize the critics at all, I was even inclined to say that the MRM has "many" critics (but withdrew this point because I had no WP:RS and it would be WP:OR/SYNTH for me to introduce the word "many". The point is not to marginalize, but to show that the MRM is a minority group among the total field of gender-conscious studies, but that you can not claim that "gender studies" feminists (the overwhelming majority) are the ones who can claim an objective truth because they are themselves not independent parties to the dispute. I think a sincere consideration of WP:IS is required. Gschadow (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you edited against previous consensus and much of the language you inserted violates WP:NPOV - describing the backlash as "mere", and removal of the word "scholars" from the description of critics. That just isn't a reflection of the RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you "sorry" about? What "consensus" are you referring to? The words I pointed out above are clearly weasel words. They clearly need to be edited. The point of leaving them as is is not supported by saying that I am violating NPOV by removing weasels and explicitly stating what they intend to say. Example, my use of the word "mere" is in line to what the meaning of backlash is. Explain to me: what is the purpose of this backlash sentence if not to call attention to the fact that the movement is a mere reactionary to feminism? If not this, what is the point of this sentence in the lead? You explain, don't mumble about NPOV, as it stands, the NPOV burden of proof is clearly about this bias which you are protecting by your wholesale denial and reverting. Gschadow (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The consensus I am referring to is the one established the previous times this issue was discussed. The words you pointed out are not weasel words as they are a reflection of the RS. The RS describe MRM as a backlash to feminism and that's how the sentence reads. Additionally, scholars (ie - people who have PhDs in gender studies and conduct studies published in academic gender studies journals) describe the movement as misogynist. That's how the sentence reads. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Was the drive-by tagging of WP:WEASEL really necessary? To quote that policy page, However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. - which is the case for this article. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

PearlSt82, please refrain from accusing other editors of "drive by" or whatever. The edits by User:Konveyor Belt were in response to a current discussion on here, clearly not drive-by. You have not been accused of "drive by reverting". Let's keep this collaborative. A good start would be you showing that you actually consider the issue and not just deny it, and then offer an edit to resolve the issue rather than reverting and denying it.

I'm not "drive by" reverting because I'm discussing my rationale here... PearlSt82 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The words I put in bold in my discussion before my edit, are most definitely weasel words. They literally match the examples of WP:WEASEL, you can't claim that they are not. What is the rationale to leave them unedited? What specifically do they mean? Why don't you edit an improvement into the article that changes these attributions to something more clear, that does not match the WP:WEASEL examples?

Again, the problem is not quantification, the problem is the vague description of the group who is holding these anti-MRM opinions. It's not "all scholars", not "some", any quantification is irrelevant. But what word other than "critics" is there? It's redundant to say "Critics criticize the MRM". So what nature are those critics? IMO, the most accurate way to say it is "Feminist scholars" -- but I'm afraid that would not fly. How about "Gender studies scholars"?

Finally, I think the issue we are having here should be made explicit in the article. The article not actually reference the big dispute, and clearly describe the disdain over the MRM in feminist "gender studies" circles. I don't mean that to incite dispute here, I am saying that the dispute on the Talk page is actually the noteworthy subject of the MRM article itself. Gschadow (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The words are not weasel words and your rationale for saying so is that the sources are not scholarly - in your own words: "(obviously, because "gender studies" is academic institutionalized feminism)". Saying "feminist scholars" or "gender studies scholars" would not be appropriate as this is a gender studies related issue, so only gender studies scholars would be writing about it. There is no evidence in any of the RS to support that these scholars do not hold a consensus within the scholarly community, and the best way for you to WP:PROVEIT would be to find a number scholarly publications which agree with the MRM position and integrate those within the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? The bolded words are most definitely weasel words, have you looked it up? They are right there. You can deny it all you want, they are still weasel words. And as far as the consensus goes, do note WP:RS/AC "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." So, where is your source stating that there is "academic consensus"? "Gender studies" are not the only scholarship that has a say on the issue, of course not. "Gender studies" is entirely feminist, as you can see from your Wikipedia articles, where it comprises "women's studies" and Men's studies which is expressly "As a relatively new field of study, men's studies was formed largely in response to, and as a critique of, an emerging men's rights movement, and as such, has been taught in academic settings only since the 1970s. In many universities, men's studies is a correlation to women's studies or part of a larger gender studies program, and as such its faculty tends to be sympathetic to, or engaged in, advocacy of feminist politics." You see, thus, that whatever "scholarly" consensus you are referring to is entirely WP:BIASED. "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..." -- you do not seem to entertain these considerations that ought to go in. And no, I do not need to add sources to the article, because we are not discussing the issues here, we are addressing the real existing bias in this article. Gschadow (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring this very important part of WP:WEASEL: However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. . For WP:RS/AC please see my comment above regarding Ruzankina's article. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, and thank you for reproducing it here; where do you attribute these opinions to the source? What you are defending is WP:OR, the sources do not say what scholars and what others, the piling on of partially WP:QUESIONABLE and certainly WP:BIASED sources is creating original research with the conclusion justifying the weasel words. But that is not proper. The passage you quote specifically asks that the weasel-sounding words are themselves attributed to the source. And you still have not answered Kyohyi who asked you to produce reliable source for the specific generalizations which you are defending by defending the obvious weasel words. Gschadow (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It is illuminating that, at the beginning of this discussion, Gschadow makes a comparison of this article to creationism and evolution. The fact that his comparison is exactly backwards points to the source of the problem with the whole argument. Let me quote "anything can be considered anything by some group. Evolution theory is also "considered" flawed by some group of creationists. And there is a long list of books one can quote for "reliable sources" to back up that statement, yet it still does not belong in the opener of the article on Evolution.. Seeking to compare scholars (here on this article) with the creationists is entirely inappropropriate and exactly reversed. The accurate parallel is scholars in evolutionary studies. Thus the equivalent phrase would be "Creationism is considered flawed by scholars"; there are multiple sources for this too, and it is entirely appropriate that this fact should be in the creationism article (as it is). Of equally little doubt is the fact that creationist editors on that page bleat on about "biased" sources and "weasel words", just as pro-homeopathy editors do on the homeopathy page, pro-cold fusion editors on the cold fusion page and holocaust deniers do on the holocaust denial page. It is a pointless exercise however, because WP seeks to summarize the highest quality reliable sources available, particularly academic scholarly viewpoints, whether or not some editors consider them "biased".

The solution is to come up with some academic scholarly sources that actually talk positively about this movement, then a word like "some scholars" might become appropriate. I have looked extensively and found nothing. Other editors have been asked over and over again, but nothing is ever produced. Note that the specific "academic consensus" discussion is a red herring as nowhere in this article is an academic consensus claimed (as it is in creationism, Cold fusion, Aids denialism for example. Slp1 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not backwards. I have pointed out that you are welcome to even declare the MRM a fringe opinion by numbers. That is not the point. It is entirely fine to say that "The majority of gender studies scholars reject the MRM and all of its claims as bogus, and agree that MRAs are perverse wife-beaters and deadbeat dads looking for excuses." As long as you attribute this statement. However you still need to attribute the statement and not use weasel words. If you intend to say "all scholars agree" you need to cite a reliable source which says "all scholars agree" and not prove this POV by piling on references of individuals who hold this opinion. That is simply a formal point of proper Wikipedia editing. Piling on sources is WP:OR nothing more. This is also why I do not have to bring in any other source. My point right now is not to defend the movement, my point is to address the real existing bias and the violations of proper Wikipedia editing policies. Gschadow (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

When editors resort to strawman arguments and incorrect (and disproved) assertions about WP policies it is quite clear that there is no point in furthering the discussion. Find some academic sources. Until then we summarize what we have. Slp1 (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You have no sources justifying the weasel words. What's so hard to understand here? Funny thing is, Wikipedia readers pick that up, so why do you resist editing weasel word? Gschadow (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the term "scholars" is a generalizing shorthand for a specific list of scholars and the disciplines in which tehy are active. For this article it would be appropriate to specify e.g. "(a number of) (academic) sociologists (and/or gender studies' scholars)" or something similar. This way, it would be clear that it is not a matter of all/some/few or other weasel-quantifiers; if consensus is that it must be a weasel-quantifier, then I suggest "...scholars that have studied the issue ... " or "...scholars whose field includes the study of social phenomena" (which would exclude the penicillin guys) - however, a more precise indicator can be given. This is in accordance with the guidelines, which state: ".... The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources...."

BTW, the same guidelines also state: " ...Self-published /.../ sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field ...", which should allow quoting Men's Human Rights Movement pages like A Voice for Men, or other similar sources. There's actually a lot of interesting stuff in the guidelines and policies, and several editors must be well aware of that, since much of the discussion here is meta-discussion based on policy interpretation.

T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

For proper WP:WEIGHT the self-published sources should be discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources. Otherwise, editors here could pick and choose whatever tidbits they wished to emphasize. It is better to let the media pick which tidbits are important. Once they've done that the citation is to the secondary source rather than the primary one.

Regarding "scholars", general English language practice is that the context is understood. Of course men's rights scholars are not studying antibiotics or engineering or whatever. They are scholars in the context of the topic. There is no need to say "scholars who have studied the issue". Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So is your guideline quote better than my guideline quote? If so, by what guideline? Or can questions like these be decided by a mere dictum? Can I use a dictum, then?

FYI, IMO editing simply _is_ the process of picking and choosing whatever tidbits one wishes to emphasize; only, for good reasons, of course. I would suggest that the editors, not media, should decide what is important; after that, one should of course look for sources as reliable as required - but beginning with what is opined about an issue in the media instead of beginning with the issue itself is of course to put the cause before the heart. Secondary sources are fine, if there are any, but there may be material that is only available from primary sources, and then editors will have to do with those, e.g. if there is material there that is not covered by the media or other secondary sources.

Regarding "scholars", you'll have to take that one up with Pearl, who introduced the "who have studied the issue" qualification. Perhaps English not s/he's first language, too, is. There may perhaps not be any need to use that exact qualifier, however, since this topic is brought up again and again, it needs something, in order to reach a more permanent consensus. Continual strife is a symptom of imbalance.

Now, the argument has been presented that balance does not mean equal time for all and sundry; e.g., Holocaust deniers do not get to present the Holocaust. The question for many here is, of course, who are the deniers here, and who are the ones affected by denial. The entire issue of MHRM revolves around this question; therefore it is a quite sensitive issue, IMHO, and it is equally sensitive to determine who gets to say what. Neither the MHRMAs nor those of any opposing parties, if there are any, may justly claim that their view should be regarded as the standard by which this issue is to be resolved; a third position is needed for that. But perhaps all that is needed at the moment just is less heavy-handedness, and a touch of sensitivity instead.

83.109.182.29 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is,IP83, while everybody wishes to be sensitive, the fact is that this is an encyclopedia that has, over the years, developed a series of policy and guidelines about articles should be written. This include the fact that we are not seeking to determine the truth, decide who are the "deniers" or finding some sort of balance between the views of editors, but simply to summarize what the reliable, secondary sources say on the topic. In this context,Secondary sources are much to be preferred. It's that simple really.Slp1 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, what is your view on other policies and how they relate ot WP:RS, specifically "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT

/.../- do not summarily remove all references to sources which appear to be self-published - do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight /.../Impartial tone: /.../ Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. /.../ Making necessary assumptions /.../ When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AVOID /.../Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AVOID /.../If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both. /.../ /.../A particular problem is to assign undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views /.../We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense#Use_common_sense /.../Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_rules_are_principles And last, but not least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules" ? T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)