Talk:Violence against men/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Removal of circumcision section

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

I agree that the original reason for removing it is pretty bad. Pinging @Tambor de Tocino. Madeline (part of me) 12:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
FGM is included in the article Violence against women so for consistency there should be a section on circumcision in this article. The debate about comparing FGM to circumcision should be left to the reader to discover in the well sourced articles about these practices not by removing any reference to circumcision in this article. It doesn't matter whether certain editors don't think circumcision is 'violence against men' but whether reliable sources have debated the practice in this context. After a brief reading of articles dealing with this debate I can see no reason (and no consensus) why the section on circumcision has been removed. Robynthehode (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Consistency between articles that appear to be counterparts generally isn't a great reason for doing anything on Wikipedia. Each article is taken on its own. Likewise "leave it to the reader". We need reasons to include more than we need reasons not to include. That said, as someone pointed out above, it's part of the "series on violence against men" template (or forced circumcision is, at least). Rather than a reason to omit, I'd say typically the main article on a subject should include summaries of its subtopics per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Not advancing an opinion on whether the now-removed text is the best way of doing that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The section was removed because it's obvious and patent none-sense. Around 40% of men are circumcised, I doubt anyone other than a few fringe MRA's has ever even thought about it. It's definitely not considered violence against men by mainstream subject matter experts, circumcision is very common...among Jews, Christians and Muslims it's a common cultural and religious practice ...it comes from the Torah and Old Testament, Abraham's covenant with god. the sources were not reliable and reflect a fringe view. Sure, some people may have tried to call circumcision violence against men, people say stuff, if I dig around the net long enough I'm sure I can find similar quality sources that say the earth is flat, some basic common sense and skepticism needs to be applied to this ridiculous claim.
Now, onto the false equivalence between Female genital mutilation and circumcision. There may be a comparison in the minds of some MRA's and other fringe men's groups, but in reality there's nothing in common between the too. They used to call FGM "female circumcision", but professionals in the field pushed for the term FGM to be used because "female circumcision" is wildly misleading. FGM is horrific, it involves gauging out the entire clitoris, removing the entire external genital, and sowing the vaginal opening closed. Many girls die because of it. The male equivalent is total castration scrotum and penis completely removed. On that note, a section on castration and eunuchs could be a legitimate inclusion for this article. Circumcision is not a legitimate inclusion in this article, the claim is completely laughable. But I can't stop anyone from trying to argue the case for ludicrous and completely false claims being included if they insist. I hope you guys understand what I'm saying here. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Whether that section addressed the issue well is a matter of its own, but Every second bloke is circumcised, never heard a single complaint about it in my entire life. doesn't rank very high on the scale of good reasons to remove information from Wikipedia. Madeline (part of me) 06:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
When all is said and done, circumcision is simply not violence against men, it's a false claim. I've explained in more detail above. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Happy to discuss any reasons you think it should be included. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tambor de Tocino and Maddy from Celeste: I agree that this is something to be discussed. We have Forced circumcision, an article that discusses the problem, which is notably not the same as regular male circumsision. The removed section had some very questionable sources (like this one), but also some proper academic ones, like this one. I personally see the latter one (and related papers) as sufficient to include the section; but we need to make sure to explain that FGM is always violence, while male circumsision is only in very specific contexts, mostly as part of wars or armed clashes (from what I have gathered). --LordPeterII (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it could probably be re-added as part of the section Wartime sexual violence? --LordPeterII (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Possibly that one incident in Kenya where Luo people were circumcised in what appears to be a tribal shaming could be included in war section, but is an isolated event like that due? (bit of trivia: Barak Obama's ancestry is Luo). Nothing else in the section was supported by reliable sources. None of the sources used make the claim that circumcision is violence against men, and really if a claim like that was to be included, it would need significant academic coverage, a consensus among subject matter experts that circumcision is violence against men. That academic literature and consensus doesn't exist, because the claim in regard to regular old circumcision being violence against men is obviously absurd. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
You don't really talk about the subject of this discussion. All you did was veer off to talking about FGM is worse and bash MRAs. -- Python Drink (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I've just been looking at it and it is not clear cut (no pun intended). The removed section was small and not egregious (again, no pun intended). I'm not sure that it belongs at the top level rather than in an appropriate subsection. The one problem is that it starts off by framing it as a general criticism of circumcision itself rather than as a criticism of doing it to a non-consenting child. I see this as parallel to the issue of non-essential surgery on intersex children. It's not the surgery itself that is the issue. It is that the kid doesn't get to choose whether they want it or not. If we bring the section back then we need to tweak that a bit. Just adding the word "involuntary" to the first sentence would probably be enough.
One very weird thing I found along the way is that neither the Forced circumcision nor Ethics of circumcision article make any reference to the fact that some (certainly not all!) of the noise around circumcision is based in antisemitism and islamophobia. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Sources people. This is becoming quite a hilarious discussion if you think about it, I hope it's giving others a bit of a chuckle, but lets put it to bed. Sources. Sources. Sources. Where is the body of academic work and subject matter experts that back this claim "circumcision is violence against men"? I've seen nothing that comes close to backing this claim. It's bunkum. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    That's what a quick search of scholarly articles turned up (10 mins) from google and without any access to academic databases. Whether you position yourself on one side of the debate or another, there is a debate on the question (with a wide variety of opinions) and arguments have been advanced by credible sources ranging from ethical scholars to medical sources. Whether FGM is worse or not is irrelevant in this context and it is not necessary (and probably not desirable) to make a comparison between the two to offer a good treatment of the subject.
    https://europepmc.org/article/med/12402747
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2128663/#ref2
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1468796819896089
    https://www.nocirc.org/legal/smith.php 24.203.119.44 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    The MRA stance that circumcision of the male foreskin is somehow gendered violence is a fringe view, I believe it's even a fringe view among MRA's. None of the articles you've supplied make the claim that circumcision is violence against men. I assume you didn't read these articles? There's at least one that is a blog post (not a reliable source) - It's important to read mainstream academic materials and come to a conclusion, not come to a conclusion then use google search to confirm your beliefs. Well cited fringe views about circumcision can be discussed on the circumcision article, not an article about violence against men (though I doubt this claim really belongs anywhere, it's a nonsense claim). The WHO recognises the value of foreskin circumcision as a preventative health measure, as does the AMA: "Circumcision decreases the incidence of urinary tract infections in the first year of life, and also protects against the development of penile cancer later in life. The circumcised male also may be somewhat less susceptible to HIV infection and certain sexually transmissible diseases." I think that really should put the argument to bed. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tambor de Tocino: "but is an isolated event like that due?" It doesn't appear to be an isolated event. It's true that Forced circumcision does not seem to be any problem in "The West", but we must not hastily discard events in e.g. Africa as not relevant.
Anyway, you asked for sources, and you are right in that. I've identified one of these in my post above that one, but there's also this, again on the Luo, and again here, here and here. And per the subsection on Yugoslavia, we have also reports of this as a war crime here. I'm unsure about this, since I've not been able to read it. Yes, in-depth scientific literature is primarily about the Luo (didn't know that Obama trivia btw, interesting); but the Forced circumcision article has several examples of this in other clashes between religions or cultures. It's not that the practice of circumcision should be considered a violent act per se (as it seems some MRA do), but that when forced upon unwilling adults, it can become a form of violence against men.
Also, your point about the probable health benefits of circumcision does not end the discussion: Yes, it's true that circumcision in itself is not a dangerous practice (as FGM is), but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a form of violence. Many actions do not result in permanent trauma, but are still considered violence. In conclusion, I see clear evidence that this information should be re-added, although in better form. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I read that last book chapter you linked. It feels pretty exemplary of anti-circumcision views, so we could probably use something from that with attribution. It reads like an essay with a fair bit of speculation, though, so I'd be cautious of citing without in-text attribution. Madeline (part of me) 20:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I guess then it's about how much prominence those events are given. I'm definitely opposed to including the unqualified claim that circumcision in and of itself is violence against men - that is not a verifiable claim. The 'Wartime sexual violence' section already refers to the Luo gentle mutilation, perhaps that section would be appropriate for the explicit claims about forced circumcision in conflict. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes I agree it should be put under 'Wartime sexual violence', most (reliable) sources talk about it exclusively in the context of wars or armed conflicts. But it should be explicitly stated, with a link to Forced circumcision, precisely because that's not a thing you'd expect would fall under "sexually mutilated". --LordPeterII (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, I forgot to address the AMA and WHO stuff. What I'm saying is leading national and international health organizations recognise and endorse the therapeutic and preventative use of circumcision. This is in stark contrast to claims that regular circumcision (something nearly half of all males have had) is violence against men. I think that does put that specific claim to bed. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think those specific events and forced circumcision as a war tactic can be worked into the article in the manner you are suggesting. It's the claim that circumcision in general is violence against men that I oppose the inclusion of as an unverified and false claim. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah @Tambor de Tocino you're right about that, I misread that "health" argument then. Circumcision in itself is not regarded as violence. There's some discussion on whether or not parents should decide for their child, but that's a fringe discussion in science and not relevant here, as it seems to be more about legal things and Child custody than "violence against men". Only the war (crime) part is supported by sources. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
That last one is part of a book that addresses circumcision in general rather than forced circumcision of adults. It's from a reputable scientific publisher so I do think we can/should include something about this point of view, with due weight of course. Madeline (part of me) 17:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Maddy from Celeste: Can you give a quote where it says "circumcision is violence" or "violence against men"? We are talking about this book still, right? I agree that circumcision is not just "obviously good"; I personally believe there may be downsides to it. But there's still a difference between "downside" or "side effects", and "violence". And from the abstract it reads more like it's discussing the former. If the source discusses potential health downsides to circumcision (as opposed to claimed health benefits), it should definitely be on Wikipedia – but I'm rather thinking it should go to Circumcision directly. This article here should only deal with cases where it's explicitly claimed to be a violent act, not just a bad thing to do. Like, if you actively chose circumcision and later deeply regretted it, it wouldn't be violence. Just like you might be convinced by someone to take drugs or get a tattoo, and later find out that these things weren't as great as you thought. --–LordPickleII (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, now that you mention it, that chapter doesn't directly call it violence. Chapter 19 of that same book does, though: Both the Hellenic Jewish Philo in the first century C.E. and Moses Maimonides, also known in the Jewish tradition as the Great Rambam, in the twelth century wrote of the consequences of violently removing the most sensuous part of a man’s sexual organ before he is old enough to understand or consent to this loss.; Circumcision achieves this by violently breaching the maternal-infant bond shortly after birth….
Here is an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics calling circumcision of infants a violation of human rights. Most likely a lot more will emerge with more thorough investigation, but I have to go now. Madeline (part of me) 21:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, yes that comes close; but I'm not convinced that this is expert consensus. It may be debated, but it doesn't seem plausible given that this talks about circumcision in infancy again: Adding "some say neonatal circumcision is a human rights violation" to this very narrowly scoped article feels off. It sounds like we are implying that parents and doctors don't prevent this dangerous practice. I do believe it could be added to the article, Circumcision. But it doesn't really fit here, imo. –LordPickleII (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
... aand I just found Ethics of circumcision, which probably is the more appropriate main article. Idk, maybe we can discuss this further, but I'm getting too tired now. Until later! –LordPickleII (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree LordPickleII, the claim that circumcision is violence against men is clutching at straws. If we need to deep dive the farthest corners of the internet to find a single source to back this claim it is obviously undue/unverifiable. I'll contest this one all the way as it is obviously a false claim (in a friendly and collegial manner, of course 😊). Keeping in mind that even the most spurious claim will have some mention somewhere if we dig through the web hard enough and long enough, but that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The claim should be a common mainstream claim that was easily found reading mainstream reliable sources by subject matter experts (fringe views on circumcision can be discussed on articles about circumcision). Coming to a conclusion and then scouring the internet for the most marginal inference to a fringe claim is not how Wikipedia sourcing and verification is supposed to work. Read the mainstream literature on a subject, reflect material in an encyclopedic manner - not - come to conclusion, spend days trying to find a single random fringe source to confirm our pre-held beliefs and assumptions. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Ljleppan: I'm not against a section on Circumcision per se, but we need to make sure it fits within the context of this page. If you consider homicide, rape, androcide and similar things as undisputed violence against men, then circumcision is at best disputed in comparison. Simply because the debate is mostly an ethical one: Is circumcision necessary? Ofc you basically "hurt" a person by removing some of their skin; but there are very likely no lasting consequences (if done by a professional), and few males will be traumatized later by it, compared to the case that they experience any of the other sorts of violence mentioned here.
Now, above was mostly a personal reflection; but as pointed out, sources only agree on circumcision as violent in the context of conflicts. Everything else is a debate, as your proposal correctly states – and mostly an ethical one. But just because something is ethically questionable, it's not automatically violence. I find your points about it being criminalized in some countries more convincing, as that is a "clear" instance of the practice being considered harmful. Same for the quote otherwise it is a case of mutilation, that sounds like it is deemed violence. I reject The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations, as that is an individual statement which definitely not aligns with medical or ethical consensus: Female Genital Mutilations are condemned almost universally, and carry an undisputed higher risk of serious harm. So yeah, not against a modified proposal here, but imo it needs to be a bit narrowed due to the page focus. –LordPickleII (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Focusing it down sounds good, it ended up being longer than I thought anyways. Basically, I'm advocating for a short introduction along the lines of "there's this associated complex topic, where a commonly performed action is viewed as violence against men by some but not others" with a {{main}} to a relevant article (Ethics of circumcision?) Ljleppan (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: how would you feel about the below, combined with {{main}} pointing at Ethics of circumcision? Not sure which section it would go under, tho.

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

The refs would be those used to support similar statements in circumcision. Ljleppan (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've still not seen a single reliable source that makes the claim that circumcision, regular old circumcision, is violence against men. Failing that the claim is unverifiable. There doesn't appear to be any mention in any reliable source anywhere on the net, even digging the deepest darkest corners, let alone a mainstream consensus among subject matter experts, as is required for inclusion of such a claim. There's simply no getting past the fact that it's a false claim that cannot be verified. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how reqular old circumcision (whatever that means) is relevant when the paragraph I'm proposing is about Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons. Ljleppan (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
By regular old circumcision, I mean the type that nearly half of all men have had, not the stuff we were talking about in Kenya with the Luo people. I hope I haven't cause you any offense. I simply haven't seen any reliable sources that call regular circumcision "violence against men" or any variation on that. There's parts of the article that discuss non-consensual circumcision in conflict etc. I don't feel like it's warranted to go into the pros and cons of circumcision at this article, it would be drawing a very long bow. Those issues are discussed on the circumcision articles, this article is about violence against men. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tambor de Tocino so what's you specific objection to the above proposed para, sourced as described above? Note the exact verbiage used, where a specific type of circumscision is described by medical practitioner groups as violence and mutilation? Ljleppan (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I explained my issue above. I think that this content may be due on an article about circumcision, but not here. This edition would be reaching our own conclusion here in regards the articles subject, violence against men. Including some off topic discussion about debates around circumcision and then drawing a conclusion that it is somehow gendered violence would be original research. Debates about the pros and cons of circumcision can be and are discussed on articles relating to circumcision. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Robynthehode: VAW contains a section on FGM. It’s strange to argue that cutting around one gender’s private parts constitutes gender-based violence (VAW in this case), whereas cutting around another gender’s private parts is not gender-based violence. Therefore there needs to be some section, call it circumcision, call it castration, call it male genital mutilation, I don’t care., and this section could elaborate why it is or is not VAM, why people think either way.
@Tambor de Tocino: Your comparison is fundamentally flawed. Removing a man’s reproductive organs irrevocably deprives him of the ability to procreate. I’ve only seen removal of a woman’s womb and/or ovaries as a last resort to “treat” cancer, so as part of a medical procedure though. Your argument that there are some marginal medical benefits is out of place: It’s usually not medical practitioners suggesting circumcisions, leave alone coercively/violently forcing such a procedure to be performed. (I wonder is there even a health insurance covering expenses?) Ljleppan’s later replies outline this.
If I may draw your attention to the article Violence, the lead paragraph. The mere fact that the general population doesn’t subsume circumcision under VAM doesn’t mean it wasn’t violence. I’m afraid it’s still a taboo calling it violence because it might be considered religious insensitivity. Scientist may avert drawing wrath or attention to them and thus avoid using charged words like violence. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 10:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
These are simply your personal opinions. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
It should not be removed the sources in that section are clear about it being violence: * Stoffers, Carl (September 24, 2015). "The Bloodstained Men chop away at infant circumcision". New York Daily News. Retrieved September 1, 2016.

No consensus for removal; return to status quo

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

Fair enough, I'd have preferred not to take it to RFC, but as the claim is not backed by reliable sources, If the section is reinstated then I beleive the inclusion of these false and unverified claims needs be looked into further. Nothing personal, I really think this claim that circumcision is violence against men is simply not backed by any reliable sources. See how it goes, all the best. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
This is indeed how consensus building works in Wikipedia, as you presumably are well aware. For future reference, when someone reverts your bold edit (removal of a section), the correct thing per WP:BRD is to establish consensus before reinstating your edits as you did here. While you did not in this case establish a clear consensus for whole-sale removal of the section, I'm sure people would be more amicable towards editing it to address any more detailed concerns you might have. Indeed, I combined the reinstatement of the section with a bold edit to a version that is close to what I proposed above. Ljleppan (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Citations are in The Emergency (India)#Forced_sterilization page.
* Government forcing violence, a forced medical procedure, on men to achieve government policy objectives. Reproductive rights removed from men, even temporarily if it's possible to reverse a vasectomy, is government violence against men.
2600:1700:D591:5F10:41AC:2FDE:35F9:1DDE (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

DV

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

All issues with CTS-like measures aside, the NISVS says no such thing: [1], [2] EvergreenFir (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is one of those contentions discussions that generate "notes to the closer". These are always incredibly unhelpful. Don't do that, please. Anyone who has any business at all closing a discussion of this kind will have read the whole thing with all due care and attention, and some of us go so far as to follow the diffs to get the chronological sequence of comments as well as the logical sequence.
Although this discussion doesn't quite reach a consensus, it does make quite a lot of progress.
In some countries, prominent among which are the Scandinavian liberal democracies, there is dispute about the ethics of circumcision of infants, while in others the practice is routine and uncontroversial. But surgery is not violence. And just to be clear, after consulting the sources cited below, it's clear that surgery is not violence even where the surgery is performed by a non-medical person. Rabbis, for example, carry out circumcisions but have appropriate training for the task and clear ethical rules about parental consent. Therefore the matter of circumcision of infants doesn't amount to violence against men.
The parallel with female genital mutilation is misconceived and rather insulting. FGM is a life-changing mutilation intended to stop women from enjoying sex, and its parallel in males would be castration or penectomy, not circumcision.
But, entirely separately from this, in other countries, prominent among which are nations in sub-Saharan Africa, adult males can be held down and circumcised against their will. Some of the sources consider this a gendered violent act with a male victim, and that is reasonable, and the matter very arguably does belong in this article. The International Criminal Court's recommendation doesn't prevent the article from talking about this.
I have looked to see if the community offers any guidance about whether this comparatively rare kind of forced circumcision merits its own section or subheading, and this RfC doesn't give me any real basis to say yes or no to that. It might belong in a paragraph, a sentence, or even in a footnote.
That is the end of my formal close, but with my closer's hat off, I would like to add that Wikipedia articles about circumcision attract anti-Semites. I have not detected any anti-Semitism in the discussion below, but I would recommend ongoing vigilance about those people.
I do hope this helps. Questions, criticism or complaints about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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

  • No - There does not appear to be any reliable sources included that describe circumcision as gendered violence, or violence against men, or any variation on that phrasing. Circumcisions inclusion in this article appears to be based on editors drawing their own conclusions from original research. None of the academia I've read on this subject describes male foreskin circumcision as gendered violence or violence against men or any variation on that description. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support describing the debate - We have reliable sources indicating that:
    • The Danish College of General Practitioners has defined non-medical circumcisions as mutilation [2] ([3])
    • The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) states Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity. ([4])
    • According to British Medical Association (BMA), a spectrum of views exists as to whether it is beneficial, neutral, harmful or even superfluous ([5], p. 19)
    • According to Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed ([6], p. 18)
    • Multiple Nordic chidrens' rights ombudsmen sought a ban on non-therapeutic male circumcision because they thought circumcision of underage boys without a medical indication to be in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child ([7])
While these are, in the light of opposing viewpoints, insufficient to state in wikivoice that (non-medical, routine) circumcision would conclusively be violence, they clearly establish that such views are held by medical organizations and other relevant parties. This conclusion of there being a genuine debate is supported by further reliable sources (Two debates surround circumcision: (1) whether circumcision of newborns should be routine, and (2) whether non-therapeutic circumcision should be performed at all., [8], p. 45) While there can certainly be discussion on how, exactly, to frame this debate in the article, a blanket removal of the discussion appears completely undue. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Leaning no based on the sources presented in this discussion thus far. I think that the examples provided thus far by Ljleppan seem to be WP:OR as far as the connecting circumcision to "violence against men"; the sources are unequivocal about their opposition to circumcision, but stop short of calling it violence or diagnosing the phenomenon as part of a broader pattern of "violence against men". Obviously, if a reliable source could be provided that does conclusively make that connection I would reconsider my !vote. signed, Rosguill talk 16:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Rosguill would you accept [9], entitled Forced male circumcision: gender-based violence in Kenya or [10], entitled ‘Not men enough to rule!’: politicization of ethnicities and forcible circumcision of Luo men during the postelection violence in Kenya, or [11] stating

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

    Ljleppan (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    See also [12], stating [This article] highlights how male circumcision – like its counterpart female genital mutilation – is nearly always a strongly political act, enacted upon others by those with power, in the broader interests of a public good but with profound individual and social consequences. [..] During the Turkish occupation and subsequent genocide in Armenia in 1915, during which some 1.5 million died, Armenian men and boys were forcibly circumcised..
    Overall, we have plenty of sources that identify that some of the relevant authorities call the practice it "gender-based violence", "mutilation", etc. and it certainly is "disproportionately committed against men or boys". Ljleppan (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think this still sort of toys with OR, as it does not identify it within the lens of "violence against men" but rather just wartime violence more broadly. There's the separate issue which is that these additional sources are about forced circumcision as war crime, whereas the paragraph at issue for this discussion appears to primarily be about circumcision performed on minors who are unable to provide consent. So, you may be able to construct a relevant section with these and additional sources, but they don't appear to license the inclusion of the specific section this RfC was convened about. signed, Rosguill talk 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    To clarify your !vote, you are opposing the current content/focus in the circumcision section, but not the existence of a circumcision section in toto? Ljleppan (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    The Luo men being mutilated was included (I don't know when or why that was removed) and I support it's inclusion in the "Wartime sexual violence" section. But, to include circumcision generally would mean we are including an unverified and false claim, there's simply no evidence to verify or support such a claim. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    The problem with folding this under the sexual violence section is that we have the International Criminal Court explicitly ruling forced circumcision is not "sexual violence", but rather a distinct human rights violation. See Glass (2013) from the refs. Ljleppan (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    At this time, I definitely oppose the section at-issue as it was written when the discussion was opened, and also oppose its inclusion on the basis of the sources discussed in this thread. I think that the incidence of circumcision as wartime sexual violence suggests that it is plausible that sources may exist connecting circumcision to "violence against men" as a societal phenomenon, but the sources presented in this thread don't actually appear to make that connection and thus fall short in my view. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    Noting for the record, given the IMO less-than-satisfactory sources proposed to support the inclusion of a section on circumcision, that the OR-free way to write an article about a broad social phenomenon such as this one is to look up the literature regarding the topic (in this case, "violence against men") and organizing the article to reflect the balance of content in such sources. Examples of medical literature describing circumcision as violence that affects male children is not enough, we need reliable sources that discuss the topic as part of the broader topic of "violence against men". signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • No, the presented sources don't really connect it to the larger topic of violence against men, making it WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes (summoned by Bot). The topic does seem to warrant some careful reference to the debate, based on such as the July 2012 open letter to the government of Germany signed by hundreds of doctors and lawyers, describing male circumcision as sexual violence;[1] that non-therapeutic circumcision has been prohibited as violence against children;[2] as well as due to articles such as:
    • "Circumcision Is Unethical and Unlawful",[3]
    • "Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation"[4]
    • "Investigating the Secular Body: The Politics of the Male Circumcision Debate in Germany"[5] Lindenfall (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Adding two comments: that it is thus discussed in those circles (above) indicates to me that the notion is not to be dismissed, and is worthy of reference on these pages, and many acts of violence have been or still are societal customs, yet they remain violence by definition.Lindenfall (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Surely the place for the circumcision debate is the circumcision article? There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources or subject matter experts calling circumcision "violence against men" or anything like that, let alone a consensus among academics working in the field. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Tambor de Tocino Other than in the sources i provided above, which each makle that statement? Lindenfall (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Lindenfall, do those sources specifically discuss it as part of a broader phenomenon of "violence against men" (I've hit a paywall, unfortunately) ? signed, Rosguill talk 15:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    Rosguill Each is specific to this specific topic. I'd merely sought out scholarly claims of circumcision as violence against men, after recalling that joint Drs and lawyers letter to the German government. Lindenfall (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Lindenfall, I had time to look into two of your sources: this article in ReOrient and this one in Journal of Medical Ethics (available via The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR access). Neither one explicitly describes male circumcision as violence against men. If the other sources you cited do, could you please provide quotes? Otherwise, it doesn't seem as if you've correctly answered the questions above from Tambor de Tocino and Rosguill. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    What I'd read is why I'd included them, and I'll make time to go back and reread asap. Lindenfall (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment For the reference: I've boldly renamed the article section "Forced circumcision" to better reflect what we're discussing here. -Ljleppan (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think the correct and proper way to proceed here is to leave it alone. You already restored the "status quo" with new content, that was pushing it, but I didn't kick up a fuss. I'd ask you to keep it collegial and civil. That's a reasonable request, I think. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    Improvements to content during discussion regarding their wholesale removal are standard procedure, see e.g. WP:HEY. Ljleppan (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, fair enough. Does look like you are shifting the goal posts though when you say you're going to reinstate the status quo, then you don't actually do that but instead add new content, which is not the status quo at all and then you continue making changes to this supposed "status quo". Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    From Requests for comment "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or [Wikipedia:Edit_warring|edit warring]]. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." I politely ask you to refrain from boldly editing the content you added while it is under discussion. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, may. This naturally depends greatly on the type of RfC being considered. In my view, in this case the question you've put out is effectively a section-specific AfD: do we include any discussion about this topic at all. As with any editing, the underlying goal here is to end up with the best possible article. As with WP:HEY in the context of AfD's, if the issue can be solved through editing during the "deletion discussion," then surely that's preferable and much more respectful of everyone's time. The other option where we first hold an RfC on a section entitled circumcision, and then start again with a slightly different section on forced circumcision seems counter-productive. But if there's consensus that the section should be completely frozen for the duration of this discussion, then I'll naturally follow that consensus.
    I'd also ask you to strike your comments above for the part where you've now multiple times accused me of being uncivil including moving the goalposts. This is at the least toying the line w/r/t casting aspersions and you've already been reminded on this talk page to assume good faith about other's edits. I have been nothing but civil, and all my edits are done with the intent of producing the best possible article. Ljleppan (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: When I first saw this on the list of RfCs I was very skeptical, but Lindenfall's sources have convinced me. Loki (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Include Circumcision as violence against men as it violates bodily autonomy which the UN says is a fundamental right and inflicts 6 weeks of intense pain on a newborn baby boy (see curcumcision for the lack of pain management post operation lack of pain management). A newborn baby boy has no ability to consent to cutting off skin. Being done by a medical doctor does not change it from violence to non-violence. Multiple national medical societies condemn it which should be enough reason to include it in a violence against men topic. It is a discussion of the circumcision procedure and its immediate after effects. Longer term effects on if diseases are prevented, etc. are excluded from considering if the circumcision operation and its immediate effects are violence against men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:41AC:2FDE:35F9:1DDE (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support including the debate per Rosguill. Lindenfall's evidence seems to constitute WP:OR|original research]]. 185.104.136.65 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing even an original thought of my own regarding sources that I included, each of which reference circumcision as potentially sexual violence, and is the original research of the authors'. Again, the existence of a larger debate (aside from on WP), is evidenced by such as that, in 2016, "the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published an open letter by 600 doctors and lawyers alleging circumcision to be a form of 'sexual violence'."Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). (Also not original research, nor offered as any other particular evidence of anything .) As previously noted, the existence of the debate and such a letter deems it worthy of inclusion, for the historical record, in my opinion. Lindenfall (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • no reliable sources support the claim I thought claims on Wikipedia needed to be supported by reliable sources? Many comments here just say the commenter thinks the content should be included, does not discuss the sources. There aren’t any sources supporting this claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.99.92.105 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/6a37f9e2-ed6a-4b01-ab44-d48302986ed0/ScienceOpen/reorient.1.2.0147.pdf p. 153
  2. ^ https://www.circinfo.org/Circumcision_and_law.html
  3. ^ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-medicine-and-ethics/article/abs/circumcision-is-unethical-and-unlawful/280C3C539BEB04143CD76DC990962A31
  4. ^ https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7/469.short
  5. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/reorient.1.2.0147#metadata_info_tab_contents
  • Support describing the debate I find this sentence in the current version, "While some scholars view forced adult male circumcision as (gendered) sexual violence,[43][44] the International Criminal Court ruled in 2011 that such acts were not 'sexual violence,' but rather fell under the label of 'other inhumane acts'[41]" a good model for what to do. We could replace the weasel-ish "some scholars" with a more specific source if one becomes available. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Everything in the second paragraph under the "forced circumcision" bit is untrue and wildly offensive and dangerous. It is not supported by any credible source or medical organization anywhere. In fact, every credible medical organization disagrees with this wholeheartedly. It's dangerous and misinformation that risks the health of boys and men, as well as being possibly deadly. They offensively and incorrectly use the term "mutilation" even though it goes against the literal definition of the term. It doesn't just not fit, it's the exact opposite of what it means. And again, no legitimate medical organization in the world supports any connection between medical circumcision and mutilation, it goes against the stance of every recognized medical group there is. Everything stated here could be applied to anti-vaxxer arguments or those who don't believe in medical care for children. A child doesn't need to have a problem already for preventive medical care to matter. We don't wait for kids to get Polio before giving them the polio vaccine. Kids may not "consent" to an appendectomy, but if a child has appendicitis we don't let them die because they're scared of surgery or is too young to communicate. To sum up, there is nothing to support the offensive and blatantly incorrect information listed, it goes against all recognized medical advice, it's dangerous misinformation, it's flat out wrong, and it could possibly cause harm or even death. Dstryker120 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, at least one of the sources provided references “gender-based violence”. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    There's a source that refers to circumcision as “gender-based violence”? Which one? Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment for closing editor Hi, looking at the arguments above I just want to leave a note for the closing editor, to remember that this is not a vote per se: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Despite a number of editors supporting the inclusion of this content based on their opinion of the subject, it has not been demonstrated that reliable sources support the claim, and that reliable sources, not opinions are what really matters. As noted by several experienced editors above, the inclusion of this content based on current sourcing would be original research. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    As I stated in my !vote, I was highly skeptical of including this material until I saw the reliable sources, which convinced me. Loki (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • With respect, I believe Lindenfall has seriously misrepresented the sources he provided. Repeating them here for easy reference: None of the four describe circumcision as violence against men or boys. They don't talk about circumcision being gendered violence. The second source (JME) briefly refers to the Swedish Paediatric Society's position that circumcision is an "assault on boys". I believe this means the only source provided so far in this discussion that explicitly discusses circumcision in the context of violence against men is the German open letter. This is not enough to merit inclusion here, and I therefore must say no, inclusion is not supported by reliable sources. Pinging LokiTheLiar, who said Lindenfall's sources were persuasive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    With respect, I think you're misrepresenting the sources, actually.
    • Source 1: In 2012, a German court held that circumcision constitutes criminal assault. Under existing United States law and international human rights declarations as well, circumcision already violates boys› absolute rights to equal protection, bodily integrity, autonomy, and freedom to choose their own religion.
    • Source 2 I don't need to quote because you already mentioned where it calls circumcision violence against men.
    • Source 3: One salient cluster of argumentation in the controversies on male circumcision centered on what I call the “medicalization” of the body. The argument that male circumcision causes bodily harm and moral injury was often paired with reference to trauma, that is, the longer term psychological damage caused by the moral injury through the intervention into the child’s body. The most prominent proponents of this reasoning were a group of several hundreds of doctors, medical experts, and lawyers who jointly published an open letter to the government in July 2012 which accused parents who initiated male circumcision of sexual violence (Note that the source as a whole isn't really anti-circumcision, but it does discuss it as a form of violence)
    • Source 4: Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, said the ruling was not binding for other courts, but could send a welcome signal. “After the knee-jerk outrage has faded away, hopefully a discussion will begin about how much religiously motivated violence against children a society is ready to tolerate,” he told the German news agency DPA.
    The sources all pretty clearly discuss circumcision as violence or an assault. And once we have reliable sources that it's violence, that it's also violence against men or boys is pretty clearly a WP:BLUESKY issue. I therefore remain convinced that the sources do support the inclusion of circumcision in this article. Loki (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Cool. I don't think description of circumcision as "violence" is enough to warrant inclusion here, but reasonable minds can disagree. I thought Lindenfall was misrepresenting not because I disagree with the connection you're making (though I do), but because he replied to Rosguill and said the sources were about "violence against men". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Hopefully the closing editor will take the time to review this properly. All I have seen is original research. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misandrist power users vandalising the page to promote misandry and actively trying to hide it by silencing the critics

Not a soapbox for your views on cabals or whether most violence is perpetrated by women
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

==

Do not delete under the false pretence, it only proves how bad great an issue it is that there is a a cabal of power users controlling the narrative according to their misandrist whims. I will report users that attempt to delete it and then re-ad it. I encourage people to look at who it is deleting this topic as they are the one engaging in vandalising the page and terrified of me exposing this. This is a hugely important issue and the power users needs to explain their vandalism of this page and how the last few months have been engaging in a conserted effort to degrade it and make it worse.

I think there is a serious issue of a cabal of power user vandalising and locking the page to spread misinformation and promote misandry.

The most clear example of this is them including men being perpetuators of violence in the page of men as victims and then later further vandalising it by making it the first thing mentioned and thus giving it primacy. That is nothing but misandry as it's not relevant in any shape or form on a page talking about violence against men, it's effectively victim blaming and only serves to try and diminish men as victims. Secondly, it's also completely false as this is based on how many women are judged guilty in court, but this is misleading as women are extremely privileged in court and in most cases see no punishment for their crimes.

I therefore call for these power users to explain themselves and to be banned if they cannot come up with a strong valid explanation. It's not relevant to include in the page for men as victims and especially not as the first thing mentioned in the summary. That includes the admins that are protecting these misandrist power users.

If you think it should be included then we should also make the page about violence against women, or the page on domestic violence against women mention as the first thing that women commit the majority of domestic violence. If you think that is sexist you better explain why this is not 80.62.117.238 (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The claim that men are the perpetrators of violence does not belong on this page in any shape or form

Bizarre notion that women commit most crimes of violence, and that there's a conspiracy to conceal that
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's not relevant to mention it, it only seek to diminish men as victims. And it's also false. Whoever added it and then later choose to make it the first thing should be ashamed of themselves for their misandry.

For example women are more often the perpetrators of domestic violence:

http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf


“Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was female to male (FMPV)...Among school and college samples, percentage of bidirectional violence was 51.9%; 16.2% was MFPV and 31.9% was FMPV”


As can be seen the myth that men are more violent is false, so why do people claim they are? It's based on the fact that men are more often convicted of said crimes than women, but that shows the privilege women have in court to commit crimes and see no punishment. It's therefore false to claim that men are more often violent


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

"A study done in 2012 found that men usually receive 63% longer sentences for the same crime than women do even after controlling for all the legally and extralegally relevant factors from arrest to sentencing This would entail, based on her previous analysis on racial disparities, that discrimination against men in the criminal justice system is about 6 times higher than discrimination against minorities"


What more is, even if true it's not relevant to a page talking about men as victim so I need the people who added it to explain their reasoning, and for the people that further vandalized the page to explain why they are insisting on making it the first thing mentioned on a page where it have zero relevance. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.117.238 (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violence_against_men/Archive_3&oldid=1131666811"