Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 18

History section
I've removed a substantial expansion of the history section. It relied heavily on newspaper articles from the 1920s and 30s, as well as a reference to German wikipedia. The former contained far too many specific statements attributed to primary sources without contextualization in secondary sources, constituting original research in my mind (particularly given the reliable sources attributing the MRM as a reaction to the women's rights movement/feminism from several decades later). Wikis are not reliable sources, not even German wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Note that much of the content seems to be taken from various pages of the unknownmisandry.blogspot. e.g. , which is run by "The Gonzo Historian" "St-Estephe".  For some different articles, I asked about similar material written by the same guy but posted on the slightly more reliable Good Men Project, and it was unanimously turned down as a source, especially as it was contradicting scholarly sources.  --Slp1 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Removal of the references to the German Wiki look good. But I think you should restore the parts referenced to newspaper articles.  Unless you believe those to be a misrepresentation.  Arkon (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the scholarly sources say the MRM split off from the men's liberation movement in the '70s, I don't think we should naively reference German newspaper articles from four decades earlier as if they were the same issues, groups and ideas. I have no objection to the MRM of the 1930s being included if reliable, secondary sources can be found that adequately contextualize them within the 20th century.  The material found in the articles may be perfectly accurately summarized, but that doesn't change the fact that they are primary sources.  There are a couple tantilizing sources (in addition to the news articles, google books turns up this and this), both of which do clearly demonstrate the organization existed (and that it was considered somewhat of a joke).  A brief mention that the organization existed and then folded might be worth including, but more secondary sources would be better.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As I mentioned above I disagree with this original research using primary sources such historical newspaper articles, per WP:OR and also WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please see WP:USINGPRIMARY for more info too. All the material appears to be based on the unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca website.) As WLU mentions above, we need some secondary sources that contextualize these articles.   Ranze, please join the discussion here. Slp1 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. I thought I had reverted the material this second time, but it seems like Maunus got there first!--Slp1 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the removal of links to german wikipedia, just figured it was useful to note even if we lack a page about a guy, pages do exist on the wiki most likely to have pages about Germans/Austrians (a wiki written in their native language). I reverted the removal because I don't think the statements were properly nominated. We can do fact-checking and stuff but even if we link some aspects of MRM to be a 70s spinoff I don't think that means we should ignore those which spawned earlier. This article is for anything classifiable as MRM, not some specific American hippy flavour of it. Feminism discusses not just American suffrage movements, but also those in the UK, France, etc. So why should we exclude something just because it's Austrian? Ranze (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting here, Ranze. First, just to reassure you that nothing is being excluded because it is Austrian. The problem, as noted above, is that this material sourced to primary newspaper articles, directly contradicts multiple scholarly sources. It was also way to much. Do you know of secondary sources about this movement?  Also did you consult the newspapers yourself, or were you relying on the unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca website for their transcriptions. Slp1 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how newspapers are primary sources, the articles are being written by second parties so they should be secondary sources, I think. Why is it 'too much'? If this organization had 25 000 (international) members in the post-WW1 depression era, that's pretty notable, and seems like it would be significant and influential. Also this does not contradict scholarly sources so much as supplement them. If a scholar claims 'this started here and then' they're just reporting to the best of their ability. It's not as if they're asserting a negative like "this idea couldn't possibly have began earlier or elsewhere".


 * Earlier known aspects of the movement were organizations founded in Austria in the 1920s. I'm assuming good faith in regard to the veracity of those articles, while I haven't seen shots of the full text there were convincing-looking shots of the titles. Also since WLU has provided some tantilizing stuff, I'll at least get started on that here in the talk page. WLU has provided even more convincing that this organization existed, giving me even more faith that these news articles about the organization also existed. If I were able to find full JPG scans of them, would it be permissible to upload them to the Wikimedia Commons as verification? This could take time as many of these newspapers may not be in business anymore.


 * Youth and sex: a psychological study by Meyrick Booth (G. Allen & Unwin, 1932) pg 209 "...situation is the instinctive bias of the general public. A recent attempt to start a league for men's rights was instantly killed by laughter, but nobody could ahve said why they laughed. Perhaps it was because of a..."
 * Is this also 'too old' or 'too primary'? I'm not really sure why a book would be more secondary than a newspaper (it's all publishing by secondary sources assessing the movement, including a paper from a female columnist) but I think this only solidifies that this did not begin in the 70s even if that's when it gained more momentum.


 * Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire: Total War and Everyday Life in World War I by Maureen Healy (Cambridge University Press, May 27, 2004) pg 272: As historians Sigrid Augeneder and Gabriella Hauch explain, legally removing women from traditional male jobs constituted one facet of the return to a "healthy order" (gesunde Ordnung) in the postwar period.45 Arbeiterinnen im Ersten Weltkrieg: Lebens-und Arbeitsbedingungen proletarischer Frauen in Osterreich (Vienna: Europaverlag, 1987), 2l5; Gabriella Hauch, Vom Frauenstandpunkt aus: Frauen im Parlament 1919-1933 (Vienna: Verlag fur Gesellschafts-kritik, 1995), 27. Hauch discusses the somewhat comical League for Men's Rights founded in the 1920s to "protect the endangered existence of men," 11-14.
 * It's worth noting that "somewhat of a joke" as WLU summarizes reflects the "somewhat comical" subjective opinion of Maureen Healy's interpretation of Gabriella Hauch's interpretation of the movement. In all likelihood, in previous times there were men who dismissed women's rights organizations as comical jokes, so it's easy to understand that women dismissing men's rights organizations as comical could also be due to bias. The very idea that 'comical' is actually a scholarly conclusion is more absurd than the LfMR ever could have been.


 * We should keep in mind here that we may be dealing with an issue of historical censorship. It is clear based on sources that these movements lost momentum and failed, so the 70s adaptation could be called a resurrection of sorts. It is clear that people in the 30s and also 80s were both derisive of these movements. Being the subject of mockery, being wiped out, does not mean something lacked notability or validity though. That some laugh at it may say something about the laugher depending on what in particular was being laughed at. Ranze (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Extending the history of the men's rights movement back to the 1920s based on news articles from 1929 is clearly OR, and it gives undue weight to what cannot be considered other than outdated and non-notable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, we are not doing it solely based on news articles anymore. This organization and history is also referenced in other literature. WLU got the ball rolling excellently, and we can continue this. Here is more:
 * 1) Here in "Gender and war in twentieth-century Eastern Europe" published in 2006 by Indiana University reference 54 also refers to the same book by Hauch that Healy references in her 2004 publication. Scrolling back, reference 54 is pointed to on either page 56 or page 57 which are not included in the preview (last ref on pg55 is #45, first ref on pg58 is #60)
 * 2) Here: in "An American in Hitler's Berlin: Abraham Plotkin's Diary 1932-33" (published 2009 by University of Illinois) page 31: (original diary December 1932)
 * 3) The League for Men's Rights, to which Plettl, the President of the German Needle Trades Alliance, sent me an invitation, turned out to be a forum somewhat on the American order. The League itself is liberal and pacifist in its tendency, but is willing to give anyone who has a message a hearing - provided he is wililng at the same time to listen to such criticism as the audience or members of the audience may want to express.
 * 4) The Deutsche Liga fur Menschenrechte had been formed out of the Bund Neues Vaterland, a pacifist organization founded in November 1914. It was forced to dissolve in 1933 because of persecution by the Nazis.
 * 5) Walter A. Berendsohn was a professor of Scandinavian literature at the University of Hamburg and active member of the League for Men's Rights. He emigrated to Sweden in 1933.
 * 6) The New York times index - Volume 14, Issues 1-2 - Page 346 from 1926 gets a hit for "League for Men's Rights" although a preview is not available.
 * 7) Here: In "The German national revolution: major events from Feb. 1 to May 15, 1933" by Fritz Morstein Marx published in 1933 by Friends of the New Germany; page 11 AND Here in Volume 5 of the 1929 Hamburg-Amerika-Post published by Friedrichsen, De Gruyter on page 86 collectively say:
 * 8) *"Civil servants whose previous political activity (especially since November 9, 1918) does not guarantee that they will everytime fully identify themselves with the "national state" can be dismissed. Each official is obliged on request to inform his superiors about his part affiliations. Political parties are also the Reichsbanner Black-Red-Gold, the Republican Union of Judges, the League for Men's Rights, the Association of Republican Officials and the Iron Front."

We have clear evidence here of notability. Back during the post-WW1 pre-WW2 Nazi reformation, this organization was noteworthy enough for public bulletins to be circulated necessitating that government employees notify their superiors about it. The implication here is that this, like these other groups, had interests not necessarily in line with the National Socialist party.

Yeah, seeing as how Nazis did tend to wipe out their enemies, we might have a lil' bit of trouble collecting information about them, but it's clearly there, and they clearly existed. Ranze (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given particularly the newspapers, all we can really say about the movement is that it existed. We could note specific events that happened, but even here we are out on a limb because we assume that they meant the same things we do when we say "men's rights movement".  I am OK with basically a single sentence along the lines of "In the 1930s in Germany a group known as the [whatever German name] (translation) organized to address (very brief summary of issues), but the movement was not taken seriously and soon disbanded".  There doesn't seem to be any continuity with the current MRM, which is rather crippling for anything but a mere mention on this page.  Certainly, this doesn't deserve 6,000 characters worth of discussion.
 * Even the non-newspaper sources are reprints of diaries and the like, which still count as primary sources (or, rather, somewhat bizarre primary-secondary sources, but none are scholarly and to date none provide any sort of analysis). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment- I don't agree with the addition of "Liga fur Menschenrechte" because that phrase translates to "League for the rights of people" rather than men specifically. I also think the disputed section was too long, particularly with the excrutiating list of numbered points. However, I disagree with the notion that events in the 20s and 30s cannot be referenced to the newspaper coverage of the time. That idea is frankly ridiculous, as is the claim that newspaper articles can be rejected as being primary sources. You could make the argument that associating various organizations "for Mens Rights" with the mens rights movement is OR, however claiming the opposite is a long bow to draw and I don't think it would take much at all to dismiss the charge of OR. Reyk  YO!  22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 80 years old newspaper articles are of course primary sources for 1920s history, and therefore OR to use unless they have been used by contemporary historians. They also of course not can be claimed to have any relation to events 80 years later unless reliable sources consider them to have such relation. They also do not show that events were notable unless they are still remembered in other sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. You wouldn't consider it OR to use newspaper articles written today about events that happened yesterday, and they wouldn't suddenly become unreliable if 80 years later no historians have happened to have cited them. It's stupid to contend anything of the sort. So why despise newspaper articles written 80 years ago about events of that time? Reyk  YO!  23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you are correct. There is a big difference between the status of newspapers writing about yesterday's news, and using 90-year-old newspaper articles. Think about it; as just one example, whereas we have a good idea about the reliability of The New York Times, The Sun, and The National Enquirer and can appropriately judge how much weight and credit to give their articles, we can't easily do the same for newspapers in Austria and Germany 90 years ago. That's why we need historians to put the information in context. Wikipedia policy and guideline pages repeatedly discuss newspapers are primary sources in a historical context. See this one for example.--Slp1 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So why is it acceptable to judge how much weight and credit to give to some primary sources, while accepting others (such as research papers in feminist journals) uncritically? I am OK with using an 80 year old newspaper article to verify the existence of some organization around at the time, since this doesn't seem a particularly controversial thing to say. Do you have any reason to suspect these newspapers were lying or mistaken? Of course we would need more than just these sources to connect the 20s stuff to today's MRM, but I still see no reason whatsoever to say "These sources are old, therefore unusable for anything".  Reyk  YO!  00:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Research papers published in journals (feminist or not) are not primary, but secondary, sources. (see WP:PSTS). And like it or not we do give them more weight. But if it is any comfort, the research papers would have to be recent too. What I suspect is that Ranze got all this information from that misandryblogspot site, and hasn't checked directly to see whether any of the newspapers actually printed any of this info. Given what you quite correctly said about the meaning of "Menschenrechte" in the context of the two "Liga fur Menschenrechte", and my own researches into their history see e.g. at the very least that website is misrepresenting the focus of these organizations. If an editor can say that actually have seen and confirm the content of these articles, either in paper form or in a reputable archive then yes, I don't see it as a problem to use them as an additional source if there are some solid sources connecting these to the current men's rights movement. Slp1 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to the size of the discussion I am creating subsection below. Ranze (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) We need to be very careful here, as context is very iportant. Plotkin's liberal pacifist League for Men's Rights (Deutsche Liga fur Menschenrechte), as mentioned in the University of Illinois reference  is clearly not talking the same "Men's Rights" that this article is about. Read about their interests - discussing fascism and marxism, their dangers etc. The context is clearly using the term as it used to be used (ie where we would now say civil rights or human rights). It is not relevant in this context.
 * Which leaves the Austrian League which at least is about "the endangered existence of men" which might actually be about the sort of "men's rights" that are discussed in this article.  Do we have anymore info about them so we can confirm this. It is only a small footnote in one book so far. Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reyk, given the sources and your belief about the translation of the term, do you think the meetings from the 1930s in Germany, whatever they were called, should be on this page? If you don't, then this discussion is rather moot.  I'd rather not get caught up in a technical discussion of primary versus secondary sources, but I will note this - if a NYT article was a reference, but five years from that date a scholarly volume was published, that NYT article should pretty much be removed as obsolete bar perhaps appended to the phrase "The NYT published an article in 2008."
 * Anyway, getting to specifics - does anyone have any comments about my suggestion for a brief, single-sentence summary? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that the German and Austrian ones are not suitable because "Menschenrechte" translates better to "Rights of people" than "Mens rights". I can't comment on the French one because I do not speak French. The "Aequitas" one looks superficially OK to me since the article titles from the Chicago Daily News and New Castle News articles strongly suggest that mens rights are the topic, and I also cannot see any reason to suppose that these sources are unreliable. But I would like to see the actual text of the articles just to be sure. I agree with you that one or two sentences is probably enough. Reyk  YO!  01:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do speak French and the phrase "droits de l'homme" means human rights, not men's rights.  That's why francophone men's rights activist use the term "masculisme". So there is a problem with that information too. But as you say, and as I commented above too, we need to see the actual text of these articles from a reputable source.Slp1 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am ok with the single sentence proposed by WLU under the condition that the sentence is supported by secondary, preferably scholarly, sources. I'm not sure if a 2009 masters thesis on the men's rights movement in Vienna qualifies but it places the mrm in the context of antifeminist responses to the women's movement of the interwar period. There is also a scholarly article which argues that the men's rights movement in the United States is basically a contemporary version of antifeminist reactions to feminism in the late 19th and early 20th century . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That article is from 1987 and deals primarily with the early masculism movement .I don`t see how it can be considered relevant to the modern mens rights movement nor do i see the parallel between an anti feminist movement that wished to return to traditional roles and the mens rights movement which rejects the traditional role of protector of provider(see Warren Farrell's book the myth of male power)and wishes to free men from their gender roles. 50.65.69.206 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Menschenrechte
To continue a more specific line of conversation, some rebuttals to Slp1's statements:


 * There is a big difference between the status of newspapers writing about yesterday's news, and using 90-year-old newspaper articles. Think about it; as just one example, whereas we have a good idea about the reliability of The New York Times, The Sun, and The National Enquirer and can appropriately judge how much weight and credit to give their articles, we can't easily do the same for newspapers in Austria and Germany 90 years ago.

I disagree, because we can leave it up to the viewers of Wikipedia how much credit/weight they want to give to the statements of newspapers. It should not be our perogative to declare the A paper is better than B paper and censor B paper, but simply to accurately cite where statements came from. It's unlikely papers were simply making up organizations that did not exist, and we have verified from multiple sources similar details.


 * we need historians to put the information in context. Wikipedia policy and guideline pages repeatedly discuss newspapers are primary sources in a historical context.

I think that's already been done, but it doesn't hurt to cite the sources that scholars themselves are referring to. It is one thing to note a scholar's interpretation and attribute it to them, it is another to just blindly present scholars' opinions as facts.

''Research papers published in journals (feminist or not) are not primary, but secondary, sources. (see WP:PSTS). And like it or not we do give them more weight.''

More weight is fine, where it exists, but if all we have are primary sources, we should still use them. We can use secondary sources to shape how primary-attained info is presented, but we shouldn't pretend that organizations never existed if they did exist. They will be lost to history if they are not recorded.


 * Given what you quite correctly said about the meaning of "Menschenrechte" in the context of the two "Liga fur Menschenrechte", and my own researches into their history, at the very least that website is misrepresenting the focus of these organizations.

The German Deutsche Liga fur Menschenrechte (German League for Men's Rights) mentioned in An American in Hitler's Berlin that existed 1914-1933 was not anything I got from some blog. It may be that the person who translate AAIHB mistranslated human as man, I suppose.

I think is a different organization from the Vienna (Austria) organization founded in 1926 (12 years after the German one) which split into the 'Equitas' and 'Justita' factions.

There might have been affiliation between the two in some form, however, seeing as how the Austrian group died off around the time the German one did.


 * I do speak French and the phrase "droits de l'homme" means human rights, not men's rights

Wiktionary lists 'homme' meaning man. When I type 'homme' into Google Translate, 'man' is the first result I get. 'Person' and 'Human being' are secondary results. While I can accept that 'human rights' is the modern meaning of 'droits de l'homme', I don't think that necessarily means that it meant that during the turn of the 19th century. I think it is plausible this phrase meant 'men's rights' at the time.

This makes me wonder if the same is the case of Mensch and man. The attitudes of the time in such a location may have attributed it to men moreso than women (not saying that's right, just that it coudl be so) and if papers were reporting it to mean men's rights, we should convey that interpretation even if we modernly disagree and claim it was for humans.

The meaning of Mensch may have something to do with the sexist split between Equitas and Justita. Ranze (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are acceptable
Regarding content at WP:PSTS being used to prevent reference inclusion:
 * 1) Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. 
 * 2) A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

What are the standards for 'close to' ? How much later does something have to be? The newspaper articles and books sound a heck of a lot like secondary sources to me. These reporters were not directly involved, one was a woman writing about an organization that excludes women.


 * primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia
 * primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge
 * interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
 * Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so

What I wrote pertaining the sources being labelled as primary (which I believe are arguably secondary) was not what I believe to be an interpretation, analysis, evaluation or synthesis. I believe it was indeed simply a straightforward description of facts. Is this being disputed? Ranze (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of WP:1RR limitation on reverts
After a community discussion, a consensus was reached determining that this article should be placed on a 1 revert per 24 hours rule. The discussion was closed here. This rule is now in effect, and expires September 20, 2013 unless lifted or extended by a community discussion. Please note that any editor that reverts more than one time in any 24 hour period is likely to be blocked for edit warring without warning. To view the complete list of editing restrictions for this article, see Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of marital rape reference
This is linked later section on rape, with a generalized quote pertaining to that broader section. A repeated reference to it was made earlier in a nonspecific way in regard to marital rape. While it is addressed:
 * The new law is far-reaching. A spouse or live-in partner found guilty of any kind of abuse, marital rape, demanding a dowry, refusing to let a wife work or forcing her to watch pornography faces a year in jail, a fine of 20,000 rupees (HK$3,452), or both.

The problem is that that reference did not actually identify where Men's rights activist are opposing a law on marital rape. That needs to be clarified. Besides, one of the original 4 references (they were bunched together, I put them next to the name of each nation they pertain to) already addresses India, so we don't need to list re-list one we already have later to double up on India.

That said, the reference that is there, "why MRAs are against inclusion of marital rape" is somewhat questionable in reliability. For example, here is how it addresses the issue:
 * mens rights activist Captain Arun Sethi said that this is a draconian law that will violate the already shrinking space of mens rights in marriage.
 * “Men have been dubbed as perpetrators of rape, dowry, sexual harassment but today our women have been so over empowered without checks and balances that they are insidiously greedy and unacceptable,” he said.
 * "For example Section 498(A) of IPC gives the right to sadistically throw the entire family to jail which often include women themselves", he added.

The last line was missing quotes around the attributed phrase so I added those. Nothing in this statement regarding the MRA clarifies how he supports marital rape though.

I would oppose the restoration of that link to support the idea that Indian MRAs oppose marital rape until we can, via excerpt, clarify which portion of it supports that. Ranze (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also the citations for MRM support for Marital Rape are extremely thin, I will be taking them to appropriate notice board within the week.CSDarrow (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the sentences these sources actually cite. It does not say "Men's rights activists support marital rape". It says that they have opposed marital rape legislation. The sources you mention above specifically support that they have and they do, and it is also trivial to find other (much less reliable sources) saying the same thing, some much more bluntly and less attractively.

Look, guys, what I see here is that you want to remake this article into one that reflects "your" version of the men's rights movement - the one that reflects your (moderate) views. I salute you personally for the fact that you don't want the movement to be misogenist or to oppose marital rape legislation or any of the less pleasant aspects about some sectors of the movement. But the fact is that this is a worldwide movement, and it does contain a wide variety of people with a wide variety of views. A significant number of those subscribing to the movement subscribe to views that you - I am sure - don't hold. But the point of this article is not to make it over to "your" version of the movement, but to cover all of what the reliable sources say about it. And from your perspective this focus on reliable sources is actually a good thing -though there will be some bumps- because just think how the article would look if Angry Harry, or Paul Elam or Bob Allen or Virag R Dhulia attempted to make over this article in their conception of the movement.Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it can be mentioned in the Indian section but not as to represent "This is how all mens' rights activists think, they're bad people." That's typical in Wikipedia, perhaps a bit similar if things like "Some feminists want to cut up men" were emphasized in the feminism article. --Pudeo' 01:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pudeo, this isn't just about Indian MRAs. And it isn't about being bad either. Whether it is bad or good depends on what your personal views are: don't you see that if Virag R Dhulia or any other MRA who oppose marital rape legislation came here, they would be proud and happy that this material is included.  WP isn't here to judge whether this is good or bad. We just state the facts, that some MRAs have opposed marital rape legislation.  It's a fact, not a judgement. Slp1 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The guys" aren't trying to make their version of the MRA, they are trying to stop people making it into their version of the MRA using the fringe. Or using lies such as suggesting Warren Farrel is a rape apologist. (also they aren't "the guys", they are editors) CSDarrow (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody here has in any way suggested that Farrell is a rape apologist. Surely you can see that opposing marital rape legislation is not the same as supporting rape? People can have genuine and legitimate reasons for the former position, and these are detailed in the article.
 * Since the distinction seems to cause a perennial confusion, how about we rephrase as follows, "Some men's rights activists, while opposing rape and acknowledging that rape does occur within marriage, have opposed marital rape legislation....... I'd have to check for sources for the specific details, but from what I recall there are reliable sources for something like this. Slp1 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section is incomplete, by any standard.
I am not opposed to keeping it brief, but a few short sentences is hardly representative of the actual amount criticism from reliable sources against this movement. The article has been whittled down and what is left in this section hardly covers the breadth of the SPLC's criticism, let alone other criticism. Criticism which we ought to keep up-to-date; what is here does not reflect the surge within the last year. Due to the SPLC's prestige in the area of research on hate movements and its involvement with law enforcement agencies (including unprecedented historical influence in the American legal system), their criticism warrants more weight in this article. Furthermore, the SPLC didn't say the movement merely displays "misogynistic tendencies," it stated the movement was: "...an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations." It went on to criticize the enormity of hatred against women found in the main wing of the current men's rights movement (online activism), saying: "What is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many." Emphasis mine. Regarding online fora (which even the movement leaders claim is their strongest area of activity, as noted by its affectionately-dubbed "Manosphere" moniker) the report says: "Many are quick to endorse violence against women," and goes on to state: "For some, it’s more than just talk. […] That kind of violence continues right up to the present." Should we really not include this information in the CRITICISM section? Information which is spread out over three separate articles from the SPLC, not just limited to Arthur Goldwag's article as claimed here? As I stated previously, this is just the SPLC. It does not include any of the further examples of criticism which ought to be added within reason for a well-rounded article. Ongepotchket (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, criticism should be gathered together into a single section as is the norm on most pages, eg Facism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Feminism, Marxism, Radical_feminism, Putinism, Anarchism, Neoconservatism, Libertarianism, Anti-globalization movement all have separate criticism sections. Strangely Conservatism seems above scrutiny.
 * CSDarrow (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * CSDarrow, the opposite of what you say is true. On Wikipedia, we avoid criticism sections, preferring to merge criticism into its respective context within the body of the article. That you found articles which deviate from best practice doesn't mean we copy their bad examples, it means they need to be fixed. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested from what you formed that opinion. I am serious. CSDarrow (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Criticism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. CSDarrow (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note, that's an essay that expands on our NPOV policy, namely WP:STRUCTURE, but also draws upon WP:UNDUE. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede again
I see that the discussion at the section above about the lede appears to be abandoned; but "human rights movement" has to be removed from the lede - there is no reliable source describing it like that. A change has been suggested above, but it has not been implemented.2A02:2F0A:505F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1BA7 (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion concerning the lead has not been abandoned. Time is being given for all interested to contribute. CSDarrow (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I just undid an edit
by User:142.255.21.150. I had added the word "perceived" in the opening sentence, s/he removed it, noting "(perceived? That is discriminatory and subjective.)". The way that the source (Newton p. 190) says it is, "what it saw" and the "it" here refers to the MRM. I feel that "perceived" is an adequate rephrasing of "what it saw" and so have placed it back. Carptrash (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Perceived" is a weasel word in this context, and, imho, should be removed. There are no equivalents re the women's rights' movement (feminism) article about "perceived" injustices. Memills (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, (opinion) "perceived" is not, by definition a weasel word, but, just to prove to all the folks watching that I can be nice to . . . ... other editors, I will replace it with a direct quote from the referenced source. Good enough? Carptrash (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's see... a change in the lede section of the MRM article from perceived to a "what it saw" quote referenced to a book written by an anti-MRM feminist professor of Women's Studies. Is the irony too thick?  Memills (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not add the reference. But I did read it and have quoted what it says. I did not find the author to be anti MRM either. Quite the contrary. Maybe you should read the book, not just the attacks on her at your favorite websites. But I believe that being surrounded by conspiracies is also a deeply ingrained part of the movement.  I'll probably find a good reference for that in Susan Faludi's Backlash. Carptrash (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Susan Faludi?! You've got to be kidding.  She is  (cf. "The Beauty Myth").  But... of course, that is just MHO.  I'm sure her books would be excellent sources to quote in the lede of the MRM page, too.   Memills (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Memills, WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as article pages. If you have valid reason to dispute an author being used as a source, I'm sure you can find a way to express yourself without making personal attacks and name-calling. I'm not going to block you this time, but you really need to learn to moderate your tone and express yourself in a more civil fashion if you plan to continue to contribute here. Killer Chihuahua 13:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not kidding, she does have some interesting things to say about the MRM, but. . . . . ... but not tonight.Carptrash (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ...might be appropriate for that to go into a "Criticism of the MRM" section. But, I think that was suggested once, and it was shot down... (although "Criticism" sections are common on WP pages).  Which brings me to...
 * ...stating the obvious: that not everything is an opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Perceived"
The word "perceived" is an accurate descriptor of "discrimination", used in exactly that formulation by Professor Anna Gavanas of the University of Leeds, expert in the phenomenon of fatherhood movements. On page 11 of her book Fatherhood Politics in the United States she writes, "All these cases of perceived discrimination make up the men's rights view that men are considered, by government and society, to be more expendable than women." The context of this quote is a discussion by Gavanas of the main concern of men's rights activists: men's individual powerlessness. She quotes MRM leader Warren Farrell who said that male employers are disempowered by the flirtatiousness of their secretaries. Gavanas says that MRM activists identify as discrimination what they see as harsher legal sanctions against men for domestic abuse and sexual assault; they point to the social demands placed on the traditional breadwinner and the more dangerous work taken by men. Gavanas says these are all "perceived discrimination", that men's rights advocates "feel" marginalized. She does not say they are marginalized, or that they are discriminated against. Thus we have a scholarly viewpoint of the issue, a measured analysis of the situation. I'm surprised Gavanas was not already referenced. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to be mixing and matching the Fathers' rights movement with the broader MRM. Good reference it seems, not sure it belongs in the lead with the focus appearing to be more on the Father's rights side of things. Arkon (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To add, I don't think this belongs even if it was specific to the MRM. If one source states 'perceived' what would it take from another source to contradict that? Arkon (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I selected one of many possible references, for simplicity. The mainstream viewpoint of MRM is that the perceived discrimination is not proven.
 * Gavanas was discussing MRM in the section I cited, not fatherhood rights activists. She describes the difference between them, which would be good for this article to have. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, what language in other sources would it take to remove the 'perceived'? Arkon (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can help you with that. Rather, I have found more substantiation for the word "perceived" used to describe the injustices named by MRM folks. The Concise Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science says on page 758 that the psychology of men is marked by strain caused by aspects of the traditional masculine gender role. Corsini says that the Robert Bly style men's myth movement was followed by "a second men's movement, called the men's rights movement, [which] emerged from networks of men working together to fight what were perceived to be inequities in the judicial system." Alan R. Petersen, PhD, author of Unmasking the Masculine, writes with Senior Sociology Researcher Deborah Lupton in The New Public Health, page 85, to say that "a wider 'men's movement'... has challenged the neglect its members perceive of men's rights, emotions and selfhood." Professor Richard Collier of Newcastle University writes in Masculinity, Law and Family, pages 13–14, that a crisis of masculinity, with men feeling obsolete, has "a specifically legal dimension and has been marked perhaps most clearly by perceived changes in men's lives in relation to both family and work... The scale of the transition in men's familial relations has been marked by the perceived diminution of specifically legal rights..." Psychologist Christopher Kilmartin writes about Warren Farrell saying that "Farrell's change from profeminism to the men's rights perspective was a result of what he perceived to be a vilification of men by feminism" (The Masculine Self, page 310.) Behavioral scientist Donileen R. Loseke edited the scholarly book Social Problems: Constructionist Readings, which includes the chapter "Framing in the Father's Rights Movement" written by Gwyneth I. and Rhys H. Williams. The Williams' write on page 96 about how the men's movement, abbreviated "FRM" for father's rights movement, uses rhetoric full of claims that men are victims of systematic discrimination, this being the foremost claim, and that a claim of absolute "gender discrimination" is a central tenet for both the conservative and the liberal branches of the FRM (page 94). "More frequently than not, however, men's rights advocates simply make an ambiguous appeal for 'equal rights' rather than spelling out the specific constitutional guarantees they believe have been violated. They perceive a basic unfairness..." Public law expert Dr. Judith A Baer edited the reference work Historical and multicultural encyclopedia of women's reproductive rights in the United States, which includes a section written by Gwyneth I. Williams about the Father's Rights Movement. Williams writes on page 81 that men's rights activists in the 1980s did not work to redefine masculinity at a larger macro-social level, "rather, they concentrated on fighting what they perceived as sex discrimination in family law..." All of these observers are careful to maintain a neutral account of the concerns of men's rights activists, and they make sure to qualify the injustices as being perceived ones rather than actual ones. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that "perceived" does not necessarily imply that the perception is wrong. There have been times in the history of this article where wording has been used to make sneaky unsupported and derogatory claims regarding the MRM, but I don't think this is one of thos times. Reyk  YO!  02:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the discrimination faced by men is contested by both sides, I think "perceived" is appropriate. The Gavanas quote also quite clearly supports this applying specifically to the MRM, even if it is found in a book on the FRM in general.  It appears to be one of many sources that could be used, I don't think this is worth cite-bombing the single word.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that "perceived" is an appropriately neutral choice of wording. Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree that "perceived" accurately reflects what the reliable sources say, and that it is appropriate here per WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Protected 3 days due to warring.--v/r - TP 18:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

One word sure can incite a lot of hostilities. Regardless of individual sources, it's a violation of WP:WEASEL. Why is it a violation of WP:WEASEL? Because the statement means the same thing if you remove the word. "Perceived" is implied; people don't fight against things they don't perceive -- in fact, they can't, it's logically impossible -- and there has never in the history of mankind been an arguable consensus on anything; thus, every single statement on wikipedia ought to have the word "perceived" tacked onto it. Look at Human rights movement and add "perceived" into the description; notice that the actual meaning of the sentence doesn't change, since perception is implied, yet it subtly affects readers' support or opposition of that topic. Try the same with Feminism. This isn't where we go to the sources and say, "Oh, but the merriam webster definition of feminism doesn't have the word, but all these feminist writers use it when referring to the men's right's movement," to justify the dichotomy; this is when we use our noggins and think about the effect of language, and the overall goal of this encyclopedia to provide neutral and unbiased information. If we defined each topic by what its detractors say about it, wikipedia would not be a very reliable source of information, now would it? I find that, in times such as this, it's often best to look at the simple english wikipedia's guidelines:
 * "Another problem is that weasel words can imply that a statement is more controversial than it is. For example, saying "some people claim that Queen was a popular band" unnecessarily raises a (false) question about the statement's truth.
 * If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement. [Answer: It's true without the weasel word] If there is a genuine opinion, make the preface more specific. Who are these people? When, where, and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have?[Answer: a lot of bias] How many is "some"? If you consider the different answers these questions might have, you can see how meaningless the "some people say" qualification is. To assist users in deciding how to attribute ideas more precisely, the Wikipedia verifiability policy provides specific criteria for the support a statement must have for it to remain in an article unchallenged." -http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 01:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a POV weasel word, no doubt about it. It's not "perceived", we have factual data in custody rates and prison sentences, the legality of male vs female genital mutilation, etc. You can argue about if it's caused by misandry or another effect of the patriarchy, if it's irrelevant compared to discrimination against women, etc - that's not the point. It's proven to exist, and sources are not immune from WP policy. We can quote Gavanas et al using that word, but our words must be neutral. WP:ALLEGED also applies here. There's no valid reason to include that word, there's every reason to remove it. --TheTruthiness (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Split
Building a bit on the previous topic, we have sections that make broad implications about the movement as a whole (worldwide) based on isolated advocation by specific individuals. For example, the 3 things stating US/UK/India MRAs promote marital rape is based on 3 individuals, taken out of context, who don't even support major organizations. I think Wikipedia would benefit from covering individual organizations specifically, and by addressing this on a national level.

To look at the example made by the sister topic of feminism, in Category:Feminism by country and it's subcategories, we have:
 * 1) Feminism in Canada
 * 2) Feminism in the People's Republic of China
 * 3) Feminism in Egypt
 * 4) Feminism in France
 * 5) Feminism in Greece
 * 6) Feminism in India
 * 7) Feminism in Ireland
 * 8) Feminism in Italy
 * 9) Feminism in Japan
 * 10) Feminism in Nepal
 * 11) Feminism in New Zealand
 * 12) Feminism in Norway
 * 13) Feminism in Poland
 * 14) Feminism in Russia
 * 15) Feminism in Thailand
 * 16) Feminism in the United States
 * 17) Feminism in the United Kingdom

Used Special:PrefixIndex for some of these.

While there are some other country links they are redirects to other pages, but here we can see seventeen links to pages dedicated to exploring the issue from a national perspective. For Wikipedia to be unbiased, shouldn't we also be splitting our coverage on a national basis?

This page should be dedicated to discussing the MRM from a broader world-wide perspective. For example, if there are any international organizations, or co-ordinated efforts between groups of different nations.

Selectively pointing out fanatic groups in India and the States, or a single self-proclaimed MRM society in the UK doesn't seem like good article-making here. It smacks of a bias, reaching desperately for anyone who supports an extremist viewpoint. The lack of mention for MRM organizations who support the criminalization of marital rape (or those who don't weigh in on the issue, due to it being considered not even worth addressing, as only fanatics would want to legalize it) is telling, that the issue is only being viewed in a slanted weigh. Ranze (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Specifically, in order to improve the article, care should be taken to avoid language which could lead hasty readers to submit to the logical fallacy of composition, which "arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole" (wiki). Reporting a position (say, opposition to marital rape law) that may be indisputably true of any given individual or sub-group of the Men's Rights Movement (say, in India) in the words "The Men's Rights Movement opposes marital rape law" fails to make the distinction between the sub-group(s) for which this is true, and any other sub-group(s) for which this is not true, and also between the movement as a whole, in so far as the position is not held by the movement as a whole (should the movement as a whole hold this position, this would need to be be documented by citing reliable sources)and so may lead to a mistaken impression about any other sub-group(s) and about the movement as a whole. (A similar analysis, btw, might be seen to apply to statements of the form "Scholars have criticised the MRM...".) Presenting logical fallacies as information would be a disservice to readers who come here for information; I hope nobody advocates that. T 83.109.180.221 (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. What I see here is that you would like to remove material you don't like to another article, and leave this one clear of controversial material. That's called a WP:POVFORK and is not allowed here. Please note those cited are not individual but are typicall the leaders or spokespersons of men's rights organizations. If you have any information about MRM organizations who support the crimimalization of marital rape, or any that have called out their brethren for opposing it then I would absolutely 100% support including this information. Slp1 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Slp1:Stop flaming,the MRM movement in India is more "family" based and traditional and besides that marital rape isn't legal in most countrys(most of which are western)your assertion is based upon ideology and holds no weight.That piece of information is SPECIFIC to the indian mens rights movement and should reflect such in an article about Mens rights in india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But it isn't specific to the men's rights in India: there are several sources to US-based MR groupings and prominent individuals including Warren Farrell- also a UK group. And it isn't a judgement either.  See above. Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and this would not be original research or synthesis? Or is there a reliable sorurce that asserts that "the MRM opposes marital rape laws"? T 83.109.180.221 (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Interview with Warren Farrell clarifying what was actually said in the book.The claim that Warren Farrell is a rape apologist is one of the most circulated lies against the MRM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBjaz7uNHnA 8:17-9:25Metalhead498 03:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs)
 * The attack against Warren Farrell is one of the worse things I have seen in years by the anti-MRA crowd. Frankly I think it should be mentioned on this page. In fact, a section showing examples of anti-MRA tactics and rhetoric in general should be constructed. Some of it is utterly vile. CSDarrow (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The "backlash" against the MRM is notable and deserves its own subsection. Memills (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There better be rock-solid references stating that this supposed attack is an attack on this movement before such a topic can even be discussed here. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The comparision to other articles on other topics is covered by WP:WAX and/or WP:OSE. The issue of there needing to be articles about local movements needs to be based on sources not other topics on wikipedia. Furthermore you have it in reverse Ranze, even if there were local articles they would not be split from here they would be summarised here as per WP:SUMMARY - this article is top of the tree/pyramid in the men's rights movement topic - all the most notable material on that topic goes here - even if it was covered in article son national movements. This due to the hierarchical structure of wikipedia wp:categories. For this reason I'm bolding removing the tag-- Cailil  talk 15:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issue
It seems like people are trying their hardest to turn this article into a total hackjob as a NPOV issue is coming up again in the lead.The criticisms by feminist academics has already been noted in their appropriate sections.The addition of this sentence in the lead is a creates bias by tipping the article towards supporting a specific perspective and doesn't allows for independent assessment of the content by the readers(later on in the article).

"The movement's claims about gender symmetry in domestic violence, the extent of paternity fraud and the reasons for men's poorer health have been disputed by academics. The movement's approaches to boys' education has been critiqued as failing to recognize the heterogeneity of boys"

Whats really being said is "academics(gives no mention that most if not all criticism comes from feminists) say that their arguments have no basis....but now that you know that academics  have disputed their claims...you can decide if you want to hear their arguments" .Evidence is disproven/negated before it is even presented.

Metalhead498 05:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not all the scholarly sources in the article were written by feminists. More importantly, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. You're welcome to add reliable scholarly sources that disagree with the sources that you consider feminist. Moreover, the lead section is supposed to summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. I find your argument that editors have been trying "turn this article into a total hackjob" unconvincing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sonicyouth that it is by no means feminist academics who critiqued the men's rights movement and their research. For example, Gelles, who wrote some of the research widely cited by the MRM regarding gender symmetry, has written "Self-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." Several others are cited in the article too. And as SY says, we look for the best sources, not neutral ones; at the moment, just as with cold fusion, homeopathy, holocaust denial, the mainstream academic viewpoint is not too kind to the men's rights movement. On all the pages I cited, editors regularly complain that it is not fair that unfriendly/biased/wrong academic sources are being used. But that's not the way that this encyclopedia works.
 * WP:LEAD.The lead there to summarize the text, and the fact is that there are criticisms of the movement and these need to be included in the lead so as to have a NPOV lead. Your deletion actually created a non-NPOV compliant lead. Slp1 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

perceived?
I removed the word "perceived" from the lede and added a source that does not see these forms of discrimination as perceived, but as real. I think any time we add the word "perceived", that adds a fair amount of POV to the story - from the mens' rights movement angle, and from some working in the field, there is both perceived and real discrimination. Anyone who thinks that there is zero REAL discrimination against men needs to get their head checked. Is it of the same magnitude, or of the same importance, as discrimination against women? That is another subject. But does gender-based discrimination exist for men - not just as a perception, but as a reality? Yes. The lede should be a neutral presentation of the key aspects, and there are plenty of critiques/etc further below in the article about the particulars. Having "perceived" in the lede sentence takes it a step too far, and those adding this word know why they're adding it, and it seems to be in order to espouse a particular POV (which may, indeed, be backed up by hand-picked sources - but that is irrelevant. I can hand-pick sources too.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion in the section higher up the page. This has been discussed so many, many times. I'll also recommend that you avoid using as a forum to discuss the issue.  We are not here to make a page that supports the notion "gender-based discrimination exist for men" is a reality.  Or that it is not.   We are here to reflect reliable sources. And ascribing motives to other people is strictly against the article probation here, which I suggest you read up on.   --Slp1 (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I read one section above on perceived, and certainly didn't see a consensus to include, and I've now added a source that doesn't use the word at all and takes the claims at face value. I can add 4 others if that would help. "Perceived" is the classic definition of a WP:Weasel word in this instance. If you have a more neutral formulation, please propose it - but for now I think perceived in the very first sentence goes way too far. cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's called cherry-picking - searching for a source that supports what you want the article to say. The source that says "perceived" is more recent and directly on topic, while the one you prefer is about religion and masculinity and hardly mentions the men's rights movement at all.  In fact your source actually says on p. 241, "men's rights advocates often focus on trying to reestablish rights they perceive as having lost."  Neutrality does not mean we present the men's rights views as factual.  TFD (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutrality doesn't mean we present the *other* views as factual either. Shall I cite 10 different books that talk about actual discrimination faced by actual men written by actual authors? What more do you need to justify that discrimination against men is real - why do *you* believe it is only perceived? Because one source says so? How many sources say so, vs. how many sources do not? Have you actually done the math? Your arguments are not very strong here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

" Shall I cite 10 different books that talk about actual discrimination faced by actual men written by actual authors?" Yes please. Carptrash (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * a few to start:
 * Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men; Authors P. Nathanson, Katherine K. Young; Publisher	McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 2006 ISBN 077355999X, 9780773559998;Length 672 pages
 * Gay Male Pornography: An Issue Of Sex Discrimination, Law and Society Series, ISSN 1496-4953; Author	Christopher Kendall; Publisher UBC Press, 2004; ISBN 0774810777, 9780774810777; Length 270 pages
 * The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys; Volume 37 of Blackwell Public Philosophy Series; Author David Benatar; Publisher John Wiley & Sons, 2012; ISBN 0470674512, 9780470674512; Length 304 pages
 * Employment Discrimination Against Gay Men and Lesbians: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session, Hearing Held in New York, NY, June 20, 1994, Volume 4
 * Equality and Non-Discrimination in South Africa: The Political Economy of Law and Law Making; Author	Shadrack Gutto; Edition	illustrated; Publisher New Africa Books, 2001; ISBN 1919876553, 9781919876559; Length 359 pages
 * Wage discrimination and occupational segregation of foreign male workers in Germany; Issue 95, Part 4 of Discussion paper; Author Johannes Velling; Publisher Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH, 1995; Original from Cornell University; Digitized	Apr 8, 2011

There are plenty of others about discrimination of gay men and African-American men and old men and so on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was the one who -I believe- first introduced the word "perceived in this spot and these references are enough to convince me to remove it. The history of editors abusing (my word) sources and references at this, and other related articles is the stuff of legend and a really (opinion) a problem for wikipedia.  However I am willing to go the 'Assume good faith" route here.  Obi, just so that you know a little history here, I ordered (and paid the postage for) several books through innerlibrary loan to check out sources that had been used by what I will sterotype as pro MRM editors and pretty much none of them checked out. But that was them and this is you.  let's put on our seat belts and see what happens next.  Carptrash (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Listen, I'm a newbie here to this article, I came here after reading somethign else that disturbed me, and when I read that word, it bugged me, and in checking sources, I didn't see enough to support it either. I'm also quite willing to accept that many claims of the MRM are exaggerated, or that they can even be completely FALSE. But to jump from there, to stating that in our planet of 7 BILLION people, there is no, and has not ever been, nor will there ever be, any discrimination against men, is just too far to stretch - and to me, that little word "perceived" means that. We can maintain and expand a criticism section or whatever, that says MRM says "men are discriminated against for A, B, C, and D", and then have critics say "well, A is really like this, and B is really like that - whatever" - but again, we're talking the first sentence, the lede here, and using the word perceived just totally kills the whole thing, right from the start, it brands the whole thing as imaginary, which I don't think it is. If someone made the exact same edit to the Women's rights article, what would happen? Pitchforks, torches, the whole lot - they would be crucified. But here, people war to keep it. Anyway, I'm glad you had a change of heart. And I agree, we should not abuse references, in any case no matter what, so I appreciate your efforts to keep us true to sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't push "true to sources" too hard. Here is a chunk from an earlier discussion when I first introduced "perceived",
 * "The way that the source (Newton p. 190) says it is, "what it saw" and the "it" here refers to the MRM."

I changed "what it saw" to "perceived" at that point. Going a bit farther, do all the sources that you put out discuss the MRM? Because that is what the article s about. It is not about whether or not men really face discrimination. Carptrash (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, four of the six sources do not mention the men's rights movement . Only two sources – Benatar and Nathanson & Young – mention the men's rights movement. Benatar refers to the men's rights movement in passing twice, one time to state that "feminists are rightfully critical of that view [held by men's rights advocates]". Nathanson & Young do not mention the men's rights movement but what they do is cite Pamela Cross who wrote "The men's rights lobby rose up in protest against these new guidelines. Fathers who were resistant to paying decent level of support for their children insisted that many of them wanted to be custodial parents rather than access dads, thus eliminating the need for them to pay child support..."
 * Most reliable, scholarly sources say "perceived" or "what they saw" or something similar when they discuss the discrimination against men that men's rights activists believe to have identified. This has been discussed in the section Talk:Men's_rights_movement where an editor provided sources and where multiple uninvolved editors have commented in support of including the word "perceived". No one has suggested that "there is no, and has not ever been, nor will there ever be, any discrimination against men" as Obiwankenobi wrote. This is the article about the men's rights movement. This is not the place to argue that discrimination against men exists. If you want to make changes to the article based on the sources you cite, please make sure that they actually say something about the men's rights movement and hopefully that something will support your changes. The sources cited here don't do that. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not true at all. Even the source cited above, says the following:"
 * "Fathers' rights organizations share many of the concerns of men's rights groups but focus on discrimination against men in divorce, child support, visitation, and custody legislation"
 * "Historically and contemporarily, through slavery, segregation, discrimination, and unemployment, African American men have lacked the autonomy and resources to support a family"
 * "Ironically, the report was part of a governmental strategy to deal with the increasing civil rights demands for racial justice, which involved abolishing not only legal racism but also labor market discrimination"
 * "the president of a fragile-families organization stressed that he and the low-income/poor African American fathers who are assisted by the fragile-families organizations experience the same gendered and racial discrimination" -
 * so in the *same* report, you have discrimination unadorned with the "perceived" weasel word. I'm sorry but logically you have a losing battle here - if you use the word perceived, you are basically saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence by scholars, and the overwhelming weight of evidence about discrimination, means that this discrimination is no more than a perception. If we produce evidence for real discrimination, on the other hand, you cannot use the word perceived - it's no longer NPOV. I can find 800 instances of use of the phrase perceived discrimination associated with feminism - but that doesn't mean we should go change the lede on that article. The argument that this is about male rights movement perception of discrimination vs. actual discrimination men face is also wikilawyering of the highest degree, and takes WP:SYN way beyond what it is meant to be. If I find a source that says "MRM protests against custody laws that discriminate" and another source that says "MRM perceives the custody laws are unfair" and a third source that says "Custody laws can clearly discriminate against men" it is NOT synthesizing to say in the lede "MRM protests against custody laws that can discriminate." thus, the sources above, and others I could bring to the table that outline the actual discrimination faced by actual men in the actual world can be used to eliminate the word "perceived" above, because it demonstrates that (some forms of ) discrimination MRM advocates against do (to some degree), in fact, exist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And if you go and check out some of these MRM groups on the web you will, I predict, quickly discover that they are heavily laden with "perceived" issues, most of which seem to arise out of the septic tanks that pass for their minds. If you think that more than the tiniest percentage gave any thought towards, say, black gay men, think again. Early in th history of the movement ther was some concern for racial issues, but that is (opinion) about it. Carptrash (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Only the first quote mentions the men's rights movement. The quote is from a new source – Fatherhood Politics in the United States by Anna Gavanas – that you bring up for the first time. What you can see is that Anna Gavanas says the following: "All these instances of perceived discrimination make up the men's rights view that men are considered, by government and society, to be more expendable than women." Thank your for adding another source to the many other sources listed in Talk:Men's_rights_movement which say "perceived" or something similar. So far you have completely ignored the previous discussion and consensus that "perceived" is what the majority of reliable secondary sources say about the grievances of men's rights activists.
 * By the way, I have no idea why you bring up racism and racial discrimination and homophobia because I am not aware of any reliable source that claims that the men's rights movement fights against racism and heterosexism. I know of a few sources that suggest the exact opposite, see (p. 349, left column, second paragraph) as one example. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, that source is the source provided for the word in the article lede. It's not "new", so don't go lighting off fireworks just yet. And the other quotes are TALKING about the men's rights movement, and the context they are working in - you need to read the context. This reminds me of the astronomer and the amateur - the moon is made of green cheese argument. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Only one of the four quotes mentions the men's rights movement, it's the one by Gavanas who wrote "perceived". Also, in response to your edit summary where you wrote that "The point is the discrimination is real." No, that is not the point at all. Try articles like divorce, child custody etc., not this article which is about the men's rights movement, not about whether discrimination against men as a group is real or not. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus, have you actually LOOKED at the so-called sources given in the famous "perceived" section? If you just look at the pull-quotes, as many voting editors likely did, it seems like an open-shut case, but if you actually read the documents, you may have one sentence that says "MRM perceives inequity in the law" and then 15 other sentences that talk about the specific laws they are fighting against, without ever again the use of the word perceives. So that whole "perceived" section above is cherry picking of the highest order - for example, here is a quote from the same source, cherry picked in a different way: "Advocates of 'men's rights' have sought to campaign, via a variety of strategies, to bring about law reform which might promote men's interests." Notice, nothing about "perceived" - rather a straight up statement - they want to change certain laws. The rest is cherry picked in the same exact way. Shall I present 20 other quotes of the same genre, from 20 other papers? At what point do you people just drop the stick? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, of course the sentence does not say "perceived" because I assume that Gavanas know what makes sense and what does not. Men's rights activists want to promote men's interests, yes. The interests are not perceived and the attempts to promote those interests aren't perceived either. I have no idea why you quoted the sentence and what you believe it means that the sentence doesn't say "perceived".
 * Racism and heterosexism affects men (and women). But the men's rights movement does not focus on issues of racial discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation, quite the opposite if you believe the source by Whitaker, so why do you keep bringing this up? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles are not supposed to endorse views, whether those of feminists, LGBT rights groups, anti-racism groups, pro-racism groups, etc., and there is no reason to make an exception here. TFD (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sonic, what will it take to change your mind on this issue? You seem convinced that the best way to describe all of the grievances of the men's rights movement is with a single weasel word: perceived - and are willing to go through an enormous and tendentious process of cherry-picking single lines out of very long documents that use this word - even if used only once in the whole exposition. You obviously realize the power this word has, especially in the lede, and are fighting to keep it there. Why?
 * At the same time, you must admit and accept that there is discrimination against men that is real and documented. So it's almost as if you believe that the whole men's right movement is targeting only "imaginary" discrimination while ignoring all of the real discrimination right under their nose?! Does that make sense to you? Do you not realize this is a completely POV way to present the situation? If I find you pull quotes from all of your same sources above, that say basically the same thing but *don't* use the word perceived, will you drop the stick? Or how about a compromise - we leave perceived out, and then in the footnote, put that "some scholars see many claims of the MRM as perceived, and not real, discrimination" or "some scholars have disputed the extent of discrimination claimed by some MRM proponents" or whatever? I feel like you guys are bending over backwards to keep this word in. Why don't you ask yourselves, why? What is motivating that? Am I *really* just being a good editor and following the sources whence they lead me, or is there something else going on? Can I truly be said to be acting in a purely NPOV fashion here?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You came here to explain that you removed the word "perceived" because "gender-based discrimination exist for men". An editor told you that this was discussed before and that we need to reflect reliable sources about the men's rights movement, not create in article that supports the idea that discrimination against men exists. You cited six sources that you believe "talk about actual discrimination faced by actual men written by actual authors". I joined this discussion to point out to you again that our job is to summarize what reliable sources say about the men's rights movement, not to convince people that discrimination against men is real. I also explained that of the six sources you provided only two mention the men's rights movement and that those two do not argue that the claims by the men's rights movement are legitimate. You went on to cite four quotes from Anna Gavanas' book. Again, I explained that only the first quote mentions the men's rights movement and that it says "perceived discrimination". The remaining three quotes discuss racism and race-based discrimination, i.e., something that the men's rights movement does not seek to redress. It is a mystery to me why you keep talking about things that do not concern the men's rights movement and why you keep talking about discrimination against men.
 * I did not add the word "perceived", I did not restore the word "perceived", this is the first time that I feel obligated to join a discussion about the word "perceived". I must disagree with your perception that I am the one who has been "cherry-picking single lines". You can read a randomly selected sample of reliable sources that discuss the men's rights movement or you can read Google Scholar's (or preferably a more selective, subscription-based tool's) first ten or 20 search results (e.g., ). What you'll find is that most or all of these sources are critical of men's rights movement and frequently use qualifiers such as alleged, supposed or perceived for the types or discrimination that the men's rights movement has identified. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, some of you aren't even trying to hide your biases against MRM! Those of you that are should refrain from being involved in this, clearly you're having trouble remaining neutral. Saying that MRM are advocating against discrimination is perfectly neutral. To quote a feminist editor "It can be true whether or not there is discrimination as long as the people doing the advocating are advocating against it. A kid down the street from me has a t-shirt that says "No unicorns." The kid is advocating against unicorns, n'est ce pas?" Sources and consensus don't trump policy anyways. You can give a source's weasel words & expressions of doubt but you can't use them out of quotation for the lead. It's also simply not true. The couple who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard for example, who committed the same crime, both got drastically different sentences- the female got 36 years to life and cannot be paroled until she is in her 70s, the male got 431 years to life. I'm not "perceiving" the 395 yr difference in the sentences, and it's not some cultural bias that could fit under the perception moniker but a clear legal decision. The stats on custody, the fact only certain genders can have their genitals surgically altered against their will or be drafted & forced to serve on the front lines of combat also show there's some legal ways men are treated differently. That's not to say MRMs don't exaggerate their discrimination vs other groups- and removing the word "perceived" doesn't mean the lead/article is making a statement on that one way or the other. There are places in the article where citing sources calling this discrimination "perceived" is acceptable, if they meet WP:RS I don't think anyone here is saying they shouldn't be allowed. But we can't be treating the articles on men and women differently, period. --TheTruthiness (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * AS I recall it, this source (the one where the perceived came from) was first introduced by an MRM advocate.  I looked it up and discovered that the source was being badly manhandled by the editor and so initiated the change that lead here.  To me this is making ones bed and lying in it. Oh yes, a dedicated wikipedia editor attempted to get some MRM types to edit here, and for his efforts was vilified in a most terrible way at some MRM site.Carptrash (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is this encyclopedia is not here to promote what individual editors think are "real" or "obvious" cases of discrimination such as those that are listed above. That's in part because what is real/obvious to one person is not so obvious to others.  For example, per the sources in this very article, the US Supreme Court ruled against men's rights activists (and feminists) who argued discrimination in the male only draft, finding that it was reasonable selection.   For example, the jury members/judge in the Dugard case apparently found the husband was more culpable (maybe the fact that he did the raping had something to do with it?).  But the fact is, we are not here to expound on our own personal opinions or to demand an equality between articles and topics but to summarize what reliable sources say. It is a total distraction to get into these discussions.
 * I'd also like to say, and as mentioned above by another editor, perceived actually is a perfectly appropriate and neutral word. "I perceived the moon" means "I saw the moon".  "He perceived what was going on" means "He was clued in". So yes, Truthiness, you are "perceiving" the 395 year difference in sentences. It's just that the judge (and presumably any appeal court etc) doesn't agree you that this is in fact a case of discrimination.
 * Obiwankenobi, I looked at the quotes you cited, and I agree with SonicYouth86 that you are mixing apples with oranges. The 3/4 quotes that you cited have absolutely nothing to do with the men's rights movement, and are from chapters  about fragile families, pro-family groups etc.  The discrimination  mentioned there is race-based discrimination, not discrimination against men.  As I am sure you understand this is a completely different issue.   And as Carptrash and SonicYouth86 says, the MRM has just about zero interest in the particular challenges of African-Americans or gay/bisexual/transexual men, or indeed male refugees separated from their wives and children. It's one of the criticisms that is made that the MRM is largely a white middle-class movement in the Euro-American cultures.
 * Having said all this, I am sick to death of this whole discussion. This isn't a binary (+perceived -perceived) issue.  The article lead needs to summarize the article fairly. The MRM make certain claims. Though men's rights supporters don't like it, scholarly sources, the media and in everyday Euro-American culture don't generally accept these points. Can we formulate the lead so that it does not use the word "perceived", but conveys this information?

Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking for compromise. What about this:
 * In the first sentence, the footnote for the "discrimination" part adds something like "some scholars dispute certain claims of discrimination"
 * The last sentence of para 2 could be, "The MRM's anti-feminism has led to sectors of the movement being described as misogynist, and some of their discrimination claims and approaches to legal reform have been critiqued by scholars" - so we still get the fact in the lede that this is disputed, but we don't disarm the first sentence - the MRM does clearly work against discrimination, in the same way that feminists work against discrimination, but in both cases, certain claims are challenged.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not a compromise. Discrimination btw means unfair treatment of someone based on their membership in a group.  Whether or not existing laws are unfair is a matter of opinion.  Men are not allowed in women's lavatories for example but that may not be unfair.  TFD (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * you may not perceive it as a compromise but I do. And I know what discrimination means.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know what you think it means. Do you think that separate washrooms for men and women is discrimination and if so do you oppose it?  Why or why not?  TFD (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a step forward Obiwan except that what you are attributing to "some scholars" is actually the vast majority of views. The article needs to convey that the movment is widely critiqued NOT just by "some scholars". The MRM's view of discrimination is in wikipedia talk a "fringe view" of discrimination. As per this site's policy on NPOV in articles about fringe topics "editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views" (see WP:FRINGE/PS]] and WP:GEVAL). This does not detract from the MRM's views' *notability* just their mainstream acceptance. It is a claim by the MRM (until the mainstream of sources agree) that men are discriminated against in certain ways. Just as if this encyclopedia was written 600 years ago it was a claim then that the earth was round. Being 'fringe' doesn't mean an idea is untrue - just that it isn't widely accepted. PS it doesn't matter what construction we personally place on terms it ONLY matters what ones sources use most widely-- Cailil  talk 18:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * (edit conflict) Obi, it makes a huge difference whether any differential treatment exists and whether it is unfair to whether we say or imply in WP's encyclopedic voice, that there is legit discrimination against men. There seems to be a fairly strong consensus in scholarly and other sources that many of their claims and methods are dubious. However, I think we can get around the problem by a much more radical reworking of the whole lead, including moving quite a lot of the material around.  Part of the problem with that sentence is that the disputed information is in the first sentence, which limits its possible structure.  The info doesn't need to be there, and it can be  better contextualized a couple of sentences in.   I have also swapped social movement for human rights movement - the latter is completely unsourced and unsourceable from anything other than MR sources.   Social movement is accurate and has good scholarly sources to back it up.
 * Here's what I propose, it includes a variation of one of your sentences.

The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s over its rejection of feminism. The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses instead on issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression that they have identified.

The men's rights movement have 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), health and female privilege. The movement is made up of a variety of formal and informal groups that differ in their approaches and issues.

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others. The MRM's anti-feminism has led to sectors of the movement being described as misogynist. Slp1 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since men are human, the human rights part should probably remain as the discrimination they're against is from a circumstance of birth. The lead should also include a brief description of some actual critiques against them and any claims of misogyny should also have some attribution. Unnamed "others" shouldn't be there as that's a vague weasel word. It's not notable if the "others" consists of Betty & Barney Blogger. Is it predominant politicians, human rights leaders, etc? --TheTruthiness (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We go by sources not our own logic - and nobody except men's rights activists and their supporters call it a human rights movement. WP isn't the place to promote their spin, so that one is a non-starter.  As to the attributions of misogyny I am fine with that, but somebody deleted them in the last few days saying they weren't necessary so you had better take it up with them. Others including the media, the SPLC, obviously feminist groups too. BTW, we are summarizing the information in the article, and we therefore don't need citations in the lead.  Slp1 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, how is this:
 * The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s over its critiques of feminism. The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses instead on issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression. Activists in the men's rights movement have 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), health and female privilege. The movement is made up of a variety of formal and informal groups that differ in their approaches and issues. The men's rights movement's claims of discrimination and disadvantage have been critiqued by scholars and others, and the anti-feminist stance of some MRM groups has led to them being described as misogynist.
 * I tried to soften the generalizations, as, for example, not all MRM supporters or groups are anti-feminist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But perhaps instead of "critiqued" we could use, " “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.” Carptrash (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure I get what you're trying to say... We could otherwise say "and disadvantage have been contested by scholars and others" or "and disadvantage have been challenged by scholars and others" ? I also note that there isn't any significant criticism in the lede of Feminism, even though that movement has certainly received a ton of criticism from many sides - there is only one line about the earlier "white" feminism issue - but nothing more structural than that. Would you all agree to embedding more critical language in the lede over there? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with how Feminism is handled I suggest that you discuss it on that (those) talk pages. Carptrash (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) OWK, while I appreciated that you are trying for compromise, your version actually misrepresents the article and its sources. We are not here to "soften the generalizations", but to accurately summarize the article. Which your version doesn't. The split off from the men's liberation was not over its "critiques of feminism" but because the MRM rejected the whole approach. That Huffington post article is describing this men's liberation split -though for some reason they don't use the men's liberation term as scholars do - into the two factions: pro-feminist and anti-feminist. It isn't "some anti-feminist groups" - antifeminism is one the defining characteristics of the movement. And I could go on. Before trying to write the lead, please take the time to read the article and the sources used to cite it. Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article itself has major issues, but I don't have time to get into them now. Allow me just to quote from one of the sources used to defend the "anti-feminist" line in the article - the authors selected for study a number of websites of the men's rights movement: "Indeed, the collected sites were far from being uniformly antagonistic to feminism. Three (xxx) actively advanced women's causes. Others were relatively indifferent on the subject of feminism or ignored women entirely while campaigning for men's rights... But also notable is the numerical and ideological dominance of an avowedly anti-feminist, and habitually misogynistic, impetus." - so their study showed that there was an anti-feminist, right-wing centre, but that there was plenty on the periphery that was not anti-feminist - this is the state of the movement today. That's why I suggested the change, to not generalize and paint all MRM supporters as anti-feminist - while one could argue that this is a dominant strand, there is lots of debate on the edges, so we have to be careful with sweeping generalizations.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry OWK but I'm afraid that you are not understanding the literature. The author started from a broad sample from the men's movement, not just men's rights websites.  This is shown by the fact that he includes the profeminist National Organization for Men Against Sexism which men's rights groups hate and despite with a passion, and who would never classify themselves as a men's rights groups.  Promise Keepers, also mentioned,  aren't a men's rights group either.  This is apples and oranges  Slp1 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)