Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 31

Loss of privileges ?
Seriously ? Would it be possible to introduce an article about some very serious and concerning problems that people of masculine gender encounter in our modern society (higher rates of extreme poverty, suicide, no prenatal choice about paternal responsibility, taboo and extreme stigma of male on male rape victims etc.) without implying that people bringing them up are nothing more than oppressive men wanting to maintain some sort of fantasized privileges ?

Especially when it is done by quoting an opinion piece by the guardian (great newspaper, poor choice of source when it comes to infer that "the disadvantage some men feel is argued as often being due to loss of entitlement and privilege."), these are real sociological and economic issues, that deserve to be treated seriously and brought up with a little consideration for heaven's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RocBrizar (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of the men's rights movement or for vague and non-specific commentary concerning what you see as deficiencies in this article. If you have specific suggestions for improvement (i.e., concerns about a specific cited source and/or claim in the article), please feel free to make them here.  General Ization  Talk  23:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , It seems to me that the Guardian piece being used as a source for that sentence was a 'specific' suggestion. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact is that it is indeed often so argued, whether it is right or wrong. The article makes no endorsement of that viewpoint, but we cannot simply omit it because it offends the OP, as it exists. See WP:DUE.  General Ization  Talk  23:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is clearly duplicitous and out of place. The article, if you read it, is not about men's rights movements but about backlash against feminism and a growing sense of unbalance by men.
 * So whoever wrote that quote with that source made that connection themselves (and gave that claim a lot of weight by wording it that way), but the original articles does not specifically address men's right movements or any issues developed here.
 * Regardless, the wording here is absolutely not impartial, you wouldn't introduce an article about global warming or the age of the earth by claiming that the scientific consensus on those matters are controversial and argued as being "the manifestation of a conspiracy against america" or some other fantastical claim, regardless of their relative popularity.
 * There are some objective advantages and disadvantages experienced by both gender, and (properly sourced) stigma and controversies regarding men's right movement should be addressed in their own sub-section.
 * RocBrizar (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019
" and the disadvantage some men feel is argued as often being due to loss of entitlement and privilege." -> should be erased.

The last line of the introduction infer that there is some general consensus that men's right activists movement are either fraudulent or fantastical in their claims.

The source (an opinion article by the guardian), cannot be used to make such a grandiose claim, especially when the rest of the article makes clear that some concerning social issues are experienced by men preferably over women (and the stigma on unsuccessful men make it difficult for them to have a voice).

This is a very awkward and partisan way to start a serious article about some serious issues and I think it should be erased (the proximity with some heinous groups already being stressed should be sufficient to put some things into perspective without going too far). RocBrizar (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅, but with some serious caveats. The ultimate request is valid, but your reasoning is not.  I was somewhat concerned with the WP:WEASEL wording used in the statement, but that's fixable.  However, the statement in the article does not accurately reflect the source, which is  an opinion piece as you claim.  Moreover, the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, while this wasn't.  It might be possible to flesh this out in the body of the article somewhere, but as it stood, it didn't belong.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was thinking something along the same lines. The piece is not an opinion piece (though the Guardian is far from a neutral source when it comes to gender issues), but this whole concept is not really discussed elsewhere in the article. Additionally, the Guardian piece doesn't really narrow in on this concept, but rather is a hodgepodge of almost random statements that don't really come together in the end. It seems to have been added in the method of "write a sentence first, then find a source for it". —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    00:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Opening needs to mention men and boys -
Activism on non-consensual circumcision (long part of the MRM) is almost exclusively for defending the rights of boys - among many others like educational neglect/educational underachievement.

"in some cases structurally discriminate against, men"

needs to be

"in some cases structurally discriminate against, men and boys"

See this page for how to structure this inclusion in the opening, and why all females, and all males would be mentioned for women's and men's rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyBuscuits (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of SPLC false Hate group status violates Wikipedia's policies of being non-biased, Cyberbullying, Harassment, and Discrimination
I have been receiving targeted harassment, cyber bullying, and I have been made a social outcast in my town, a feminist mecca, because of the false claims from the SPLC, a far-left political organization that coordinates smear campaigns to create a permanent boogieman that never goes away, the Imaginary Misogynistic Pig (IMP) in order to get donations, their war chest current at $500 billion. The SPLC is using what is called Rage bait, which are emotionally charged articles with salacious headlines designed to drive people into predictable sales funnels using what in AI are called Reflex Agents implanted into your brain using stimulus pairing. Companies like Facebook are exploiting our emotions in order to maximize the amount of time we spend watching ads on Social Media, and they do this by getting us angry, sad, or other emotion so that it socially isolates most. When you act on emotion you become predictable, and thus can be brainwashed to believe the brainwashers political message.

The harassment I have received is online and in person. I am a victim of the Family Court system and I support Fathers rights, one of the Men's rights campaigns, and the SPLC's smear campaign has destroyed my social life. I've never treated a woman as inferior, but these articles have caused people to believe that I am a dangerous misogamist, and it has prevented me from finding work. I now have to live on food stamps because I can't even leave my house due to fear of being beat up. I've witnessed people talking about how they want me dead because I support Men's Rights. I've had many people start fights with me and they start calling me an Incel. I have a startup, and it's caused sever damage to my startup and my life's work. All of my close friends stopped talking to me. I have done nothing. They think I'm part of a radicalized hate group, which is not true. I have had people follow me around at a bars and tell people I'm a dangerous misogynist. These kind of accusations can destroy your life and career.

No where else on Wikipedia will you find a hit-piece from a far-left or far-right political organization right up on the top. Not only does it violate wikipedia's policy on being non-biased, it also violates Wikipedia's policy on cyberbullying and harassment.

Not only does it violate all of the above policies, using Misogynist to describe someone who is jaded at women is factually incorrect. Misogamy is and always has been the world's oldest prejudice. It's where you treat women as if they are inferior to men. Currently what is going on is that women control 2/3 of the US economy, they influence 85% of every purchase, and control the wealth in 90% of marriages, but women work on average 52 minutes less per day than men. Women start 14% of startups, yet own 43% of businesses. Obviously the numbers aren't adding up, women are getting overpaid due to them having uncounted income sources. All I have to do is tell people how I've been screwed over by women and tell them some basic facts, and then all of the sudden they say that I'm a misogamist. This is brain washing. Women in the US are treated like goddesses. They are so far removed from Muslim-style Misogamy there is not comparison, but they have had fear of this IMP boogieman they argue with on social media, and it causes people to see Misogamy when it is not there. They think any sort of criticism is hatred, and they now life in safe spaces and they fire all of the older white males who speak up for themselves as I am doing. This is causing women to report false sexual harassment accusations because they have a constant fear of being sexually harassed due to the constant media converge and demonization of the boogieman; and sadly the target ends up being ugly people and lesser-value males because women usually don't report sexual advances from attractive people, only those they don't want to get with.

Factually, the men are actually being treated as inferior, because women have a 60% college graduation rate (40% of men graduate from college), only the top 15-20% of the social class of men are having any luck on dating sites, men are actually getting treated as inferior now due to men making less money than women now. As it turns out, white male privilege isn't limitless and you can't just attack this non-existent patriarchy until you destroy it without destroying innocent people in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KabukiStarship (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to go against the popular opinion before and realised its a futile effort when brainwashed zombies who are told what to think and not how to think judge themselves to be the arbiteurs of knowledge along with their allied post-modernist 'sources'. Hey, there is just no point complaining to this mob because wikipedia is an unfunny joke. Just about everyone I've spoken to in academia views this organisation (Wikipedia Foundation) with disdain derision. Unless it is STEM (which has minimal to no subjective answers), then anyone with an agenda can edit it (just look up some of the authors here and there). Just about everything that isn't a hard science is basically just leftist mental masturbation. Disregard, disavow, and distance yourself from anything that could be propaganderised. It will do wonders for your mental clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.105.233 (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede again ...
Hi, I think someone should look at the lede again, which is not well constructed. First of all, it's curious that in an article of this length, the summary of the rather brief criticism section is given equal space in the lede; more than equal, if one considers "Some scholars have described the men's rights movement or parts of the movement as a backlash against feminism.[1]" as criticism. Of course the lede should _also_ present the criticism section, but not _only_ that, given that there are 20 other sections. Another problem concerns references. Ref 7, Dragiewicz, is not quoted on misogyny in the criticism section, so why is she quoted on it in the lede? To check, I found R7, or parts of it, online, and checked; the book seemingly doesn't even contain the word "misogyny" (or "-ist" or "-istic"), but that maybe because the entire text was not available. Could someone produce the actual quote? If not, I suggest to eliminate that ref in the lede. TiA! T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I am changing the section to be renamed "Criticism of rights for men" as I think something so bold needs to be labeled as such. The term 'rights' refer to things that all human beings by design deserve. This is not a Wikipedia page for 'male supremacy', it is for men's rights. No Wikipedia page detailing human rights should have a criticism page, as rights only means equal treatment among all sexes, not special treatment. The fact that a criticism page exists, is ironic, because it details exactly why there is a movement for men's rights (i.e. our culture is conditioned to view anything to do with men's rights as not valid and inappropriate). I don't think you would see a criticism page under female rights, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. It reinforces the insidiousness of movements against men (i.e. to even prevent a discussion, the topic is deemed innapropriate to begin with). If someone has a differing viewpoint I am glad to hear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1940:9550:A593:8C81:94F6:AAA5 (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Something is Wrong here, why is this linked to feminism portal!!? Why are we prevented from editing this. Who exactly is doing this, and what is the motivation
Why are all the topics here unavailable for the public to edit. For a human rights page this seems especially suspect, as groups which are discriminated against are often censored from even discussing issues in order to butress the dominating power's supreme position over those it oppresses. Also suspect is the Feminism portal, this is men's rights, it is not a part of feminism. And if you are not bothered by this, I ask you, would you be okay with feminism being a part of the men's rights portal? Makes me wonder what's really going on here and if groups are using power of oppression to prevent the truth from being expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1940:9550:A593:8C81:94F6:AAA5 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason you can't edit this page is it is semi-protected WP:PP. Usually this is done because the page has been subject to persistent vandalism, edit warring or similar. If you register an account on Wikipedia you will be able to edit this page after becoming auto-confirmed. The page is linked to the Feminism Portal because it is an associated topic which readers of the encyclopaedia may want to read about for specific or comparison purposes. If you want to make a reasoned argument as to why it shouldn't then you can do this at this talk page. Wikipedia does not censor information but it must be supported by verifiable reliable sources WP:RS. Wikipedia is not about editor's personal opinions. Wikipedia does, however, limit how editors edit if they are being disruptive to the purpose of building and encyclopaedia. You may want to read up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines so when you want to edit the article pages you do so following those protocols. Here is a main link to help - WP:5P. Further information can be found with links at the top of this page in the 'yellow' section. Hope that helps. Robynthehode (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal/Edit of Critique of men's rights rape discourse section
I believe the section "Critique of men's rights rape discourse" should be either heavily rewritten, moved to the criticisms section, or removed entirely.

First, it's redundant, the issues being critiqued are easily covered in the "domestic violence" and "false accusations against men" sections. Second, it's clearly written as a specific criticism of an aspect of the men's rights movement so it doesn't make sense that it's found in the issues section. Even if it was moved to the criticisms section however, it would still be redundant as the specific criticisms raised are already more broadly covered there.

Thirdly, the whole section has only one source and is the only time the citation is used in the entire page, which I personally find a sign of dubious relevance. In conclusion I don't believe the section is written in such a way as to uniquely convey either a issue held by Men's rights activists or a unique criticism of the movement. and should be either removed or edited 71.53.146.122 (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Why didn't that part include MRM being for inclusion of forced envelopment into definition of rape in laws of different coutries?Gray Librarian (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird Twitter link
Why is there a random link to Twitter at the top of this page? 176.104.180.97 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This page has been hijacked
If you look and compare the page on feminism and this page, you will find a sea of difference. While the page on feminism highlights the that movement, this page portrays the men's rights movement "as hateful and violent." I tried to make very innocuous and grammatical improvements, but even those changes were not allowed by women who are watching this page. Such conduct is not good. I feel, per the Wikipedia standards and purpose, both the pages should be treated in the same fashion. If negative comments about this movement are allowed to be cited in the introduction itself, negative comments about feminism should be allowed to be cited in the introduction. If that negativity is not allowed on the feminism page, then they should not be allowed on this page as well.

Men and women are both integral part of our society. Treating one particular gender with disdain and branding it as "hateful and violent" is not in the interest of the society. There are bad actors in both the movements and there are good ones as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"A Review of Parental Alienation, DSM-5 and ICD-11 by William Bernet"
As seen here and here, I have twice reverted Wilkn on changing "Scholarly consensus has rejected PAS as an empirically-supported syndrome" to "Some scholars have rejected PAS as an empirically-supported syndrome." Use of "some scholars" is WP:Weasel wording and is not supported by the source. The source is WP:MEDRS-compliant and is the type of source we should use for such content. Wilkn is contradicting scientific evidence by adding "some scholars." What WP:MEDRS-compliant sources support PAS? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Flyer22 Frozen is trying to add their opinion in the name of scientific research. I do not disagree that the said article is scientific research, however, it does not imply a consensus. The review is of a book not of literature as required per WP:MEDRS. A contrary research is here.

If a research finds that lighter aircraft are more prone to accidents than heavier ones - it does not imply that there is consensus about it. By this argument, every research article will negate any contrary research about it and preclude any further research. I twice pointed the above fallacy to Flyer22 Frozen, but they are attempting to forcefully impose their point of view on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs)


 * Trying to add my opinion in the name of scientific research? Oh please. As made clear in the Parental alienation syndrome article, "use of the term 'syndrome' [in 'parental alienation syndrome'] has not been accepted by either the medical or legal communities and Gardner's research has been broadly criticized by legal and mental health scholars for lacking scientific validity and reliability." And don't go mucking up that article by trying to add WP:False balance to it either. You will be reverted. As for the book, do you not see where WP:MEDRS states that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" are one type of ideal source for medical material? Do you not see its WP:MEDBOOK section? Furthermore, the book examines the literature on parental alienation syndrome, which is why it states in its very title "Is Parental Alienation Disorder a Valid Concept? Not According to Scientific Evidence."


 * If I need to bring other editors in on this matter, I will. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am responding to a request on my talkpage by Wilkn. In this case I agree with Flyer22. PAS has not been accepted by the medical, psychological or legal community.  There is no empirical evidence to support its existence.  There are multiple reliably sourced articles supporting this including the one listed above but also . Even those who support the concept-such as Bernet, and the writer of the article Wilkn cites above- have shyed away from using the term, preferring to the slightly more acceptable "parental alienation" or "parental alienation disorder" instead.
 * Wilkn, as I mentioned before, if anybody is having a problem with "forcefully impos(ing) their point of view" on Wikipedia it is you. I understand that you have been through a very hard time, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, nor to promote your book, nor to complain about judges who have ruled against you.  You really need to stop, or you are going to find yourself sanctioned in some way by an uninvolved administrator. Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

____


 * @Slp1 ha ha! how do you know that I have been through a hard time? May I recommend to you to concentrate making sure you are doing your administrators job on Wikipedia properly, something that I clearly see you fail miserably in due to your feminist biases. (feminism is a great and much needed movement in the world, but it is some bad women who bring disrepute to it.Look at any field of human endeavor and look at the top 10 in that field - you will always find that at least 8, if not all 10, of those top ten positions will be males. Why?) Just because you brought it up - thank you, but no I have not had hard life and actually feel that I have been very lucky compared to have accomplished far beyond my abilities.


 * Following is excerpt from Bible - 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13. For Adam was formed first not the Eve. 14. And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. 15. Nevertheless she will be saved in child bearing if they continue in faith love and holiness with self control.


 * It will be interesting to know what do you and Ms. @Flyer22 Frozen have to say about what is written? It will reveal your inherent biases. *smile* Attacking me just because you disagree with me is very amusing!! Perhaps you will attack God because He said the above cited excerpt? *smile*


 * If the question is just for the use of the word 'syndrome.' I recommend that we omit it and just keep parental alienation. However, parental alienation is well accepted phenomenon and there is lack of consensus disregarding the phenomenon. In reply furnished by both of your feminists - I again cite another article that clearly disagrees with your point of view.


 * Abstract


 * Parental alienation has been an unacknowledged and poorly understood form of family violence. Research on parental alienation and the behaviors that cause it has evolved out of decades of legal and clinical work documenting this phenomenon, leading to what could be considered a “greening,” or growth, of the field. Today, there is consensus among researchers as to what parental alienating behaviors are and how they affect children and the family system. We review the literature to detail what parental alienation is, how it is different from other parent–child problems such as estrangement and loyalty conflicts, and how it is perpetuated within and across different social systems. We conclude by highlighting research areas that need further investigation to develop and test effective solutions for ameliorating the devastating effects of parental alienation that, we posit, should be considered and understood not only as abusive to the child but also as a form of family violence directed toward both the child and the alienated parent.

Wilkn (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn
 * Your above rant is off in a number of ways. It's clear that you don't understand WP:MEDRS, WP:Due weight and WP:False balance. You need to try to understand those rules. Reading them thoroughly would be a start. I'm not religious. And, regardless, I don't see why you brought up religion. I don't identify as a feminist. You calling me "Ms." just shows your line of thinking. And as for attacking you and personally disagreeing with sources? This is about how Wikipedia works. Also, parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome are two different topics. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Flyer22 Frozen Your wikipedia page in which you seem to be at loggerhead with the entire world says a lot about you. Will you be okay with me rewording the two sentences under question as follows?


 * From: Others cite parental alienation syndrome (PAS) as a reason to grant custody to fathers.[91] Scholarly consensus has rejected PAS as an empirically-supported syndrome.[92]


 * To: Others cite parental alienation as a reason to grant custody to fathers.[91]


 * OR To: Others cite parental alienation syndrome (PAS) as a reason to grant custody to fathers.[91] Existence of Parental alienation is a contentious issue in literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sighs. Oh, yes, my current Wikipedia page says all there is to say about me. Every last thing there is to know about me. It should be used to characterize who I am as a person, rather than being completely fed up with Wikipedia POV-pushers (including pedophiles and the like, mind you), other problematic Wikipedia editors, and those expecting me to be cheery in cases where I absolutely should not be cheery. Get a clue. I've been with this site since 2007, and have seen it all. I'm not changing my user page/talk page (which I recently changed to what it currently is) to be cheery for you or anyone else.


 * Read up on our policies and guidelines. Adhere to them. I'm likely not replying to you in this section again. At this rate, you will find yourself reported at WP:ANI.


 * As for your proposed wording, let's see what Slp1 thinks. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Wilkn, I cannot tell you how utterly, utterly inappropriate much of your posts above are. I suggest that you  read  WP's policy on personal attacks and assuming good faith and then reread your post.  Hopefully you will see the problems with your posts and revise them accordingly.
 * Regarding those two sentences: per WP:V, we must follow what the sources say.  That means, of course, that we cannot change wordings to ones that are not supported by the reference. In this case the source uses "parental alienation syndrome" and so must WP.  The second sentence is also supported by the reference given, but does not mention any connection to Men's rights activists etc.  Because of this, there is a problems with WP:SYNTHESIS.  Admittedly, this is a problem with a lot of the text in the article, and there should be a good pruning of the argumentation back and forth about specific topics of interest to men's rights activities.   However, I have found other good sources that make the connection more clearly e.g. .  At some point today I will revise the sentences using these as sources.  The article that Wilkn lists above also does not mention Men's rights activism so it isn't an appropriate source for this article, but if anybody can find other reliable sources on the intersection between men's rights and parental alienation now would be a good time. Slp1 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree these comments are completely inappropriate, and I would support a block at this point. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ms. @Slp1 - ha ha! your comments do not bother me. You are obviously a biased admin. While I agree some of my comments may have violated the thresholds of decency they were in response to repeated, excessive and unwarranted attacks by both you ladies on me. You commented on my response to @Flyer22 Frozen, but you did not read their initial comments. "Trying to add my opinion in the name of scientific research? Oh please." What is this? "And don't go mucking up that article" was this WP:AGF and WP:NPA compliant. I just presented few of the several examples from her online harassment towards my innocuous edits. It is clear that that woman does not have the most basic civility that any human should have to be called a human let alone AGF or NPA.

You also do not reflect on what you wrote and I quote "I understand that you have been through a very hard time, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, nor to promote your book, nor to complain about judges who have ruled against you." Was this assuming good faith WP:AGF or was this per wikipedia policy of no personal attack WP:NPA? Disgusting!!

What does your perception about what I have been through got to do anything with my edit. If my edits are not proper, then they should be reverted as were done by them Flyer22. In case of disagreements between me and another editor, as was the case between me and Flyer, you as an admin as the right and duty to take an unbaised call. Why should motivations be attributed to my edits? It amuses me to see the conduct of both of you ladies and it saddens me as to how some women malign such a great gender. Womankind represents love and kindness and care and understanding - but some women are pathetic harangues who try to engender and nurture hate and conflict unnecessarily even if it is over the internet and with strangers. Sigh!!

Madam I respectfully ask that you do not clutter the Wikipedia with your own personal conflicts. You as an admin have a big responsibility towards the society and obligation to be fair. Such bashing because of my different gender is improper.

Specifically addressing the topic of this section whether there is a *consensus* regarding parental alienation or parental alienation syndrome and if men's rights movement is properly a proponent of this phenomenon. First, I agree that a lot of the article lacks the WP:SYNTHESIS. Second, I think you are carrying the relevance requirement a bit to far. I agree everything in an article should relate to the main topic, but the relevance can be direct or indirect. Let us take the present case for example - Men's rights movement claims the existence and detrimental effects of parental alienation (syndrome). There is an article that is needed to relate the two. However, after that the discussion can continue about the existence of parental alienation (syndrome) through citations that do not necessarily include reference to men's rights movement. It is like an airplane needing a runaway to take off, but then it needs its aerodynamic integrity to stay afloat (no runaway is needed to continue to be airborne). I agree that relationship betwen men's rights movement and parental alienation is missing in the article - but assuming the relation exists we can talk about the existence of the phenomenon. They are both are very contentious issues. It does not take a lot of effort to see that. I am for keeping the two sentences, however, the word consensus should be omitted. My earlier citation reproduced here and and. Actually, and though I do not want this to be reflected in the article - a very quick google search will reveal that the votaries of existence and detrimental effects of parental alienation (syndrome) on little children far outnumber the voices that deny its presence.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I continue to unequivocally oppose the word 'consensus' and ask that it be omitted from the two sentences under question. Possibly a good read:

Thanks and Regards! Wilkn (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn

The distribution of lede
Per an earlier admonition by an admin @Slp1, the lead should summarize the article. However, the present state of the lede has two paragraphs: One that talks about the movement and the other that criticizes it. I think it is very unbalanced presentation of the movement in which the reader is at the outset made to feel that the movement is negative. Generating such a point of view has not basis in secondary sources. At least none of the present cited sources indicate that. @Flyer22 Frozen disagrees with my assessment. S/He feel that the distribution of the lede is proper because according to them "[my] movement has received substantial criticism." I, hereby and respectfully, seek the opinion of other Wikipedians to resolve the disagreement between me and @Flyer22 Frozen. Thanks and with kind regards! Wilkn (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn

Suicide material
Levixius, regarding this and this? Adding differing academic opinions is not enough. For material like this (about one's mental or physical health), we need to adhere to WP:MEDRS. For any academic material in the article, we also need to adhere WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:Due weight. One of the most important, if not the most important things, about adhering to WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP is looking to prioritize secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources. A single study, for example, shouldn't be used to contradict the general literature. We also don't give things that don't have the same weight in the literature the same weight. Thoroughly read these guidelines and policies I'm pointing to so that you understand. If you still don't understand something them, ask me about it here in this section.

And I'm not stating that the current section on suicide in the article is great. It's not. But, after seeing your latest edit there, I knew that I needed to go ahead and start this section before you kept piling on to the material in unsuitable ways. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, regarding adding old or very old sources like you did? See the WP:MEDDATE section of WP:MEDRS. No need to be adding a 1976 source, for example. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the larger issue beyond MEDRS is that this is an article about the MRM, not a forum to debate the issues of potential interest to the MRM in Wikipedia's voice. This material regarding suicide would be far more appropriate at the Gender differences in suicide article. Material in the Men's Rights Movement article should only be about the Men's Rights Movement. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The gender paradox matter is already adequately covered at that article, which I also watch. But, yes, point taken. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree that the problem really is that people add material debating the various issues, rather than material about the issue as seen by the MRM and those who comment on the MRM. Maybe it should be a Covid project to take a section as a time and purge all the OR/SYNTH that is going on. Anybody up for the project? Slp1 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Sorry for ghosting, I couldn't afford time to look deep into the topic for a reply till now. Anyway, there is no general consensus on the causes of the gender suicide paradox, the literature has been inconsistent and contradictory. A lot of research does mention flawed reporting or differences in reporting rates of suicide attempts as one of the contributing factors. I realize I was wrong to cite very old studies, but that tidbit of information is still legitimate and I advocate adding it in. For the suicidal intent issue, a lot of literature supports it, this was the most comprehensive study (spanning 8 EU countries) I could find, and it supports the findings of the following studies that men have a higher intent:    LΞVIXIUS  &#128172;  13:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scholars generally attribute the suicide paradox to men using more lethal methods. So, per WP:Due weight, we give most of our weight to that. And to repeat, the type of sources to stick to for this topic are WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Primary sources/single study sources should be avoided for this topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Prominent MRAs?
I realized I started a new section called 'Prominent MRAs' in the article without seeking opinions here. Apologies. Leads/other users are free to remove that section if they feel it doesn't go with the article at all. Levixius (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for asking. I really don’t think this is needed. If people are interested in the bios, they can click links to the actual articles.--Slp1 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a very long entry given that only one living "prominent" member of the movement is identified. Either there are other prominent people not mentioned, or one person constitutes a movement. Nicmart (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Homelessness
The article mentions a Pennsylvania study that claims there is little difference between the number of homeless males and females, but does not necessarily reflect the whole population of USA. Then, it links to another article - Homelessness in the United States, which says the following: "According to the 2017 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report 60.5% are male, 39% are female". Shouldn't this information be included, since this is data that is supposed to reflect the entire population, while also being credible enough to be quoted in the other article? 162.249.161.41 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The only way a statistic showing a disparity between males and females can be used in this article is if the statistic is described in the source in terms of the men's rights movement. So, no. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, what? How is it better to use a misleading study that doesn't represent the population as a whole. Whether it mentions the MRM movement or not, at the moment the data we are using is cherry picking a result that doesn't represent the true story at a larger scale. It should be fine to cite a source saying "MRM advocates argue X" then cite another source that is the best authority on data/statistics reflecting the point in question. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    03:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove the misleading study!
 * It would be a violation of WP:SYNTH to tell the reader various true statistics if the sources for the statistic are not talking about the numbers with regard to the topic at hand. That knife cuts both ways, so if you hold everybody to it, you get a neutral article. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, how is the Pennsylvania study more relevant than the Annual Homelessness Assessment Report? The Pennsylvania study is cited pretty much randomly, and could be very well replaced with any other citation - it's not a claim somebody made specifically against MRM, or anything like that, just a random study on the topic. 162.249.161.41 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Creating a separate article for 'Men's Issues' or something
The issues section in this article runs long (in my opinion). Should it warrant a separate article? We could shift some information there and make the section in this article more concise.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 00:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Men's issues redirects to Men's movement. We don't need both a Men's movement article and a Men's issues article. That would be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and likely a WP:POVFORK. As for size, how are you judging size? See WP:SIZE. You should only be counting readable prose size. Articles often look longer than they are from the table of contents because of all the headings. It's also often that not all of those headings are needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Addressing hostility in the article
This article has a significant amount of hostility, often being dismissive of the issues being discussed or openly hostile. What can we do to address this problem and make the article more factual or neutral? 210.8.99.22 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It seems to be about simply attacking the movement, and doesn't actually lay out their beliefs or causes at any point. I recommend that a new section be added above 'history' that lays out their goals and causes, and move all criticism to a dedicated section. This seems like a fair compromise and is in line with other articles. TiggyThe FairyFox (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Objectivity
There appears to be a lack of objectivity in this article, with elements of bias both in support and against the movement. This is a controversial movement and a controversial topic, but surely the editors of Wikipedia could do a little more to remove bias from this article. One thing I wanted to note is that in the "Issues" section, the article focuses a large amount on rebutting common MRA talking points (ie: mentioning how larger examples of femicide justifies larger amounts of female DV shelters) and while I do not believe that there is no place for that in the article, I believe the "Issues" section should be dedicated solely to listing and explaining issues of the MRM, not debating them. One suggestion I had in mind is to remove rebuttals from the "Issues" section  and moving them all to the "Criticism and Backlash" (ie: "Some have claimed that larger instances of femicide justify larger amounts of female DV shelters). This, I feel, will to a great extent help to increase the impartiality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:344:C300:4DC0:E414:EDF6:D91D:F066 (talk • contribs)
 * You are suggesting that the article move farther away from neutrality by ghettoizing the criticisms all in one section. The essay WP:CSECTION talks about how it's more appropriate and more neutral to have criticism directly connected to the thing being criticized, not saved for later. That's because isolating the criticism sidelines it, makes it less part of the story, less prominent, and less impactful. We already have a criticism section, but every effort should be made to introduce criticism of an idea as soon as that idea is fully introduced. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What about the MRA talking point that says that women used to kill men at an equal rate statistically, until Women's Shelters and Battered Woman Syndrome became popular? And what about MRA claims that the homeless are, in part, men forced out of their homes by abusive wives and partners? Can these be mentioned? TrickyTessa (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How about if you bring your references here for discussion, and suggest a specific change? Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Marginally related/irrelevant information in the header
The second paragraph in this article is not related to the goals, ideals, history, science, or politics of the men's rights movement. This paragraph should be removed or moved to another article along with with section 4 (Criticism and backlash), "Criticism of Men's rights movement". Cantersoft (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. The first request would violate WP:LEAD because it would make the article fail to tell the reader some of the main features of the topic, as described in the article body. Your second request, to remove the offending criticism section, would violate WP:NPOV because the article would then fail to be neutral in relating to the reader the negative aspects of the topic. The criticism section is anchored by publications from respected scholars on the topic, the best possible sources, so I don't think you'll ever be able to form a consensus for removal. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice it barely mentions any of the positive parts of the movement before launching into an entire article attacking them... TrickyTessa (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it accurately reflects the public perception in that respect. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Accurately according to whom? Your statement is purely based on a subjective idea of yours. Iaja (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Claim of Misogyny
I have no doubts that sources can be found which label the entire men's rights movement misogynistic, and I have none that certain slices of it are. My question is, why is this claim featured prominently in this article, including in the header, while a simple ctrl+f on the article Feminist movement finds a grand total of 0 results for misandry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.165.182 (talk • contribs)


 * False equivalence. The men's rights movement is not equivalent to feminism. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But they are both movements dealing with gender, and feminism does have some fairly serious anti-male elements. They've fought against equal rape laws in both India and Israel, for example. The MRM has never done that, as far as I'm aware. I feel that should be mentioned. TrickyTessa (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But the MRM is reactionary to modern feminism, at most 50 years old, while feminism is working against at least 3,000 years of male domination. MRM just wants to roll back feminism so that wimpy males can still dominate females. Feminism has by far the bigger job to accomplish, to reverse the unnecessary and unproductive quashing of the female in favor of the male. As always, if you want to make a change, bring your references for discussion and make a specific suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reactionary to modern feminism is your opinion, Men's Right Movement has nothing against feminists in their premise or name, that they want to “dominate females” is also an idea coming from you here. On the other hand, in Reddit these groups are quarantined for being “hateful” while subreddits that openly attack men's rights can operate freely and see absolutely no consequence because of their actual hate. Iaja (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this article about any form of advocacy for male rights and gender equality for men or specifically for thr movement called "MRA/MRM"?
I see a problem with this article. It seems to be describing 2 things at once : - Any movement for gender equality for men (including profeminist men's liberation movement, masculism, men's movement etc) - Specifically the movement called "men's rights activism" that is rekated to the "manosphere" and has been described as misogynistic and antifeminist.

If the answer is the second, which I think it is, Men's rights_movement should be moved to either Masculism or to Men's movement because those issues aren't exclusive to MRAs but are talked about by most masculists, including the profeminist ones. And also it should be specified that this page is only about specifically the MRA movement and not about any form of advocacy for men's rights and gender equality. And pages such as male rights and men's rights should redirect to either masculism or men's movement

I don't know what should be the umbrella term for all forms of male rights and gender equality. Even Wikipedia itself isn't sure. Men's movement says that masculism is a part of men's movement but masculism page and template says that men's movement is a part of masculism. So which one is it?

In any case I see it as really problematic when people search for all ideologies that advocate against gender inequality against men and they see this article and think that the only movement there is is misogynistic and antifeminist. So it's better to figure this out.

93.15.241.95 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020
In regards to custody.....cited articles state that Men do not seek custody of their children. That is Not correct they do and are rebuked at ever turn. The articles that were cited are not on point were never peer reviewed and even more distressing do not provide emperical evidence that men do not seek custody. Men's rights groups are seeking a "rebuttable presumption for shared and equal parenting time". as long as both parents are WILLING LOVING AND ABLE. If men don't seek custody then they can walk away from their equal parenting time...Right? So why is this law being so heavily opposed by Domestic Violence groups. 207.153.6.158 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe the change that the original asker wishes is fairly clear; the statement under custody fails to be a neutral view, and asserts facts which are not backed up by the citation. It asserts that men don't ask for custody, but fails to explain that men are frequently discouraged from asking for custody, or flat out told they cannot during the legal process. The statement as written in the article is biased, not neutral, without facts or bearing. Although only a single anecdote, here's a good example discussing the bias. https://www.blbsolicitors.co.uk/blog/are-the-family-courts-really-biased-towards-women/

Please rewrite this to remove the bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.154.206 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that Honey badger (men's rights) be merged into this article. There is no need to repeat the history of the men's rights movement in a separate article which is about a subset of activists. Female men's rights activists are men's rights activists by definition. As suggested [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honey_badger_(men%27s_rights)#Is_this_article_notable? here], the sections which don't duplicate content here can be merged into the "history" section and any of the individuals profiled can be merged to "prominent men's rights activists". Mo Billings (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , , Mo Billings (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the Honey badger (men's rights) article is quite large, very well cited, if I do say so myself, and there is a noticeable number of sources focusing specifically on the Honey Badgers. Yes, they're MRAs by definition. So? They're an identifiable subgroup of MRAs that have got extensive press separate from the other MRAs, plenty enough for a separate article. We've got articles on Yellow Dog Democrats, Bourbon Democrats, Conservative Democrats, dozens of them in Category:Factions in the Democratic Party (United States), we don't merge them all into "democrats" though they are all that by definition. --GRuban (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The men's rights movement is a fringe political movement. The Democratic Party (United States) is a mainstream political party. One is relatively modern, loosely organized, and not very large. The other is almost 200 years old, one of the two dominant political parties of the US, and has almost 50 millions members. Mo Billings (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And the Bourbon Democrats and the Yellow Dog Democrats are both defunct groups so each have 0 members. They're still respectable articles. We don't write articles about groups based on membership, but on reliable sources. Honey badger (men's rights) has enough of those. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. The amount of attention an encyclopedia gives a subject is usually often sometimes in proportion to the amount of coverage it receives in general. Both of the articles you cite are fairly short, with a small but adequate amount of references. They serve their purpose, which is to tell the reader something about the subject. Mo Billings (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Er, I must have. Just reading what you wrote now seems like your point is that they shouldn't be merged because they are so short, while Honey Badger (men's rights) should be merged because it is so long? What? Or are you saying it should be merged because the topic doesn't get enough coverage? That would be a fine argument, but, man, the article has 58 references! --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is going to be a very short discussion if you keep trying to put words in my mouth. I have given my reasons in the initial statement. Mo Billings (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose User:GRuban did a pretty good job explaining why.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 09:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The honey badger (men's rights) article has nearly no reason to exist other than to tell the existence of an obscure slang term, and point out the existence of female men's rights activists which isn't noteworthy and can just be mentioned in the men's rights movement article. The biographies of individual MRAs in that page can just be moved into the main article, which also makes the encyclopedia more organized rather than split off. The article's existence might even be considered agenda-pushing because the existence of female MRAs is a common talking point used to defend the MRM, even though the existence of female MRAs doesn't constitute an actual separate subculture or sub-movement and isn't particularly noteworthy in any other way. PBZE (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why I was pinged, but I would 'oppose such a merger. As is evident in the sources currently cited in the Honey badger (men's rights) article, the concept of "women in the men's rights movement" is notable. A move discussion can take place on the Honey badger article's talk page if the term "honey badger" is regarded as not common enough to be the WP:COMMONNAME of the topic of "women in the men's rights movement". Any material specific to women's contributions to the men's rights movement should stay on that article. feminist (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose GRuban has convinced me that women in the men's right movement have individual notability. Dimadick (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose User PBZE argues that "the existence of female MRAs doesn't constitute an actual separate subculture or sub-movement and isn't particularly noteworthy in any other way [besides the fact that they're women]." I find this view rather incredible, given that there is no such thing as a 'separate' subculture, a subculture by definition being part of a larger culture. Of course, if by 'not an actual separate subculture' PBZE just means 'not an actual subculture' then that's wrong too - the subculture even has a name, several attendant podcasts and websites, and organized activist activities. PBZE also says that the article's existence may constitute 'agenda-pushing because the existence of female MRAs is a common talking point used to defend the MRM' - What? Wikipedia has a page on Effects of nuclear explosions and people who argue for nuclear disarmament often bring up the 'effects of nuclear explosions' as 'a common talking point used to defend nuclear disarmament.' Does this mean that the Wikipedia page on the effects of nuclear explosions can be considered agenda pushing? The fact that people 'bring up' something when pushing their own agenda does not mean Wikipedia cannot have a page about that thing. The Honey Badgers are a unique cultural movement, different in many ways from the broader men's movement, and they are particularly noteworthy in their own right. There is no need whatsoever to merge this article. JoePhin (talk) 17:15, 01 February 2021 (UTC)

I am very grateful to all of you for the existence of this thread as it helps me appreciate with a little more realism the depth of the political character of the entire debate. I am so impressed to see such a civil discourse about such a touchy topic! I am also inspired to see points being made on consistently rational, rather than merely emotional grounds. Also, I am working to improve the antifeminism article as it is atrociously biased, any help appreciated! Destrypants (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Peter Wright book
Hello all... I see that Peter Wright, Robert Brockway and Paul Elam's book "A Brief History of The Men’s Rights Movement: From 1856 to the present has been cited in the article.  I am concerned that this is a self-published book.  Academic Century Press sounds impressive, but it has only published books by Peter Wright..  Amazon.ca lists the MRM book as "independently published".. Although the information cited is interesting, I don't think that we should be using self-published sources for this article per our various content policies (e.g. WP:RS. What do others think? --Slp1 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Issues section
The issues section feels like it has become something of a dumping ground for random papers and articles that one editor or another thinks represent issues that should be of interest to the men's rights movement; however, we can't perform WP:OR / WP:SYNTH on that ourselves. Anything mentioned there needs to have a source relating it to the men's rights movement directly. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Issues with the article's neutrality
The inclusion og the "Rights" box strikes me as pretty dubious, as classifying the MRM as having anything to do with human rights seems to go against what relevant scholarly sources say about the movement.

Furthermore, the article puts the false claims made by the MRM under a heading called "Issues", and while the text under each heading thoroughly debunks the claims made by the MRM, while pointing out that the issues they're concerned with are either non-existent and based on conspiracy theories, dishonest framings of reality based on deliberately misrepresented statistics, or are legitimate issues, but have been appropriated by the MRM from other human rights movements to deflect from their true concerns and push their misogynist agenda, that doesn't become immediately obvious from the overall layout of the article, which suggests at first glance that this is indeed about a legitimate human rights movement, rather than a reactionary countermovement to feminism.

I would propose that the entire "rights" box be removed, and the heading "Issues" be changed to "Claims", with the added clarification in the first paragraph that these claims have been discredited by scholars. Another change I would recomend is a complete removal of the "Prominent men's rights activists" section, and simply add the names with links to their articles (if any) to the "Movement" subheading. I'm recomending this because the section doesn't seem to serve any other purpose than to inflate the already long article and attempt to grant greater legitimacy to the movement than it actually has, with a one paragraph long endorsement of prominent members. readers who want to learn more about these people can just read their relevant articles. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of what you recommend, and I have removed the Rights sidebar, which was the easiest change. I don't agree that the header "Issues" should be replaced with "Claims" (see WP:CLAIM). Perhaps a better treatment of the list of "prominent" MRM people would be to remove the list and instead work the people into relevant sections about issues. That way the people would be presented in the context of the larger topic, and not given a mini biography to inflate their importance. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a list of prominent members at the end of the "Movement" subheading. The names should simply be listed there, and the entire "Prominent men's rights activists" section needs to be deleted. It's little more than an endorsement, which is not encyclopedic.
 * On a sidenote, you should probably look at the Erin Pizzey article as well. It feels like it's POV pushing, and people involved in discussions of the article's talk page aren't even trying to hide it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Lingard
I've removed this statement as WP:UNDUE. These (apparently non-notable) authors seem to be describing the men's liberation movement, which has its own article. Although they cite Kenneth Clatterbaugh on these "liberal" men's-rights activists, Clatterbaugh himself says the MRM is "overwhelmingly hostile to feminism or pro-feminism" (2007a). Ditto for the majority of sources in the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2021
Child Custody, paragraph 2: "overwhelmingly majority" -> "overwhelming majority" Child Custody, paragraph 3, sentence 4: "argues that contrary" -> "argues that, contrary" Child Custody, paragraph 3, sentence 5: "the children, and that" -> "the children and that" DeityofAutomation (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your succinct and very clear request is much appreciated, thank you! I performed your first 2 edits verbatim. The 3rd edit I opted to rephrase the sentence a bit, instead of simply delete the comma, as the sentence was kinda running long even with the comma. Cheers! — Sirdog (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021
I would like to request an edit because the following text presently in the page does not represent faithfully the source (e.g., no mention of sexual orientation nor sexual identity nor that it's racial minorities who are affected for example, this looks like WP:SYNTH, rather the study identified factors and in fact the most important ones were not even mentioned here, such as place of residence, which sounds like WP:CHERRY).

Edit requested:


 * Female privilege, last paragraph: "(e.g., gay, trans, racial minorities)" -> ", with the primary factors being, in order of decreasing importance: place of residence, low education, low income, occupation, race, smoking, marital status, ethnicity and housing conditions" 213.211.155.159 (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * : the sub-population parenthetical included info not mentioned in the source, and I've removed it. Good catch. That said, I'm not sure where you're getting your ordered list. I'm marking this request as answered while we review the source and build consensus. How would you feel about the sentence ending with "specific sub-populations of men, most of which are connected to low socioeconomic status." (addition in italics)? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Health section
I'm not regular wiki user, but to me the following statements of "Health" section seem like WP:SYNTH:

However, women and minorities had typically been excluded from medical research until the 1990s.[146][147] Viviana Simon states, "Most biomedical and clinical research has been based on the assumption that the male can serve as representative of the species." Medical scholars warn that such false assumptions are still prevalent.[148] Contrary to antifeminist assertions, empirical findings suggest that gender bias against females remains the norm in medicine.[149][150][page needed]

None of the linked sources refer to the movement or it's claims in any way, they are primary sources from medical/public health research. It seems like the editor is arguing with presented claims. In my opinion those statements should be removed, or sourced with better citation. --31.0.81.22 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BenBugajski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

New "Prominent men's rights activists" required.
After everything Jordan Peterson has done to advance Men's rights, I do honestly believe he has a right to be on this page.

Apologies for the short "talk" but I do think it speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metzmeister (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is that since calling someone a men's right's activist is potentially pejorative, we would probably want to first make sure that that it's either a common way he is described in high-quality sources, or to be sure that he uses the label himself. A quick search suggests it is not really a common way to describe him - there are some people who call him that, but it doesn't look significant relative to the rest of his reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

 * "Some, if not all, men's rights issues stem from gender roles and, according to sociologist Allan Johnson, patriarchy."

I would like to see added sources that pin the NOW to [protecting alimony and child support] while rejecting paternal surrender, among other things. This is not patriarchy, this is feminism.

Likewise I would see references to the Duluth model and Tender years doctrine placed appropriately.


 * "pro-rape arguments, including that sexual violence is a gender-neutral problem, feminists are responsible for erasing men's experiences of victimization, false allegations are widespread, and that rape culture is a feminist-produced moral panic."

I'm sorry, what exactly is 'pro-rape' about any of these things? WP:QUESTIONABLE Advocate for removal.


 * "Critics suggest that men's rights groups view boys as a homogeneous group sharing common experiences of schooling and that they fail to account for how responses to educational approaches may differ by age, disability, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and class."

Not critics, feminists. I would like to see this and similarly obscured WP:BIASED sources qualified properly. It is curious how this statement is never made in regards to feminism.

Finally, I also would like to add to the incarceration section that the gender disparity is nearly 6x that of the racial one. [Michigan State] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicalShyft (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The two linked sources say nothing about the men's rights movement. Please provide reliable sources that mention these issues in connection with the MRM specifically. Anything less would be improper synthesis, which is a form of prohibited original research. already mentions the disproportionate number of men in prison. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The sources in incarceration are similar to mine and do not exclusively mention mens rights. They are supplemental to the specific issue itself.
 * "Group A argues X (source), an issue repeatedly opposed by Group B (source)" is not improper synthesis as it reaches no original conclusion. It is written all over the place that these groups are at odds. We're just not allowed to present any aspect of feminism as part of the problem. Blaming the vague 'patriarchy' is valid, but pointing to specific activism and policies is not.
 * And I read through the 'pro-rape' source. It does not state pro-rape anywhere. This IS an original conclusion and needs to be removed. Otherwise it's quite obvious there's an agenda here.


 * These articles seem like they need WP:IAR there is systemic bias against the issue leading to a plethora of slanted sources that are cited as professionals or critics and not opponents leading to undue weight that does not properly represent the majority opinion and why it is held. Why do MRAs blame feminism and not patriarchy? You won't get an answer here. Because patriarchy is to blame and they just hate women.LogicalShyft (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that attributing it to "critics" is a mistake, but since it's a high-quality academic source with no indication that there's any disagreement over it, the appropriate thing to do is to just describe its conclusions in the article voice. At best we might attribute it to the source directly, but I don't think it's appropriate to do that unless there's a reason to think that it is disputed (since it implicitly downgrades it to an opinion, and we have no reason to treat the source that way at the moment.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be an entire section covering this: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/woman-pretended-to-be-a-man-dies-assisted-suicide-realizing-difficult Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Unecessary information under "Prominent men's rights activists"
Specificaly, I don't see a reason to include: "Most men's rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, heterosexual men", as I am unsure of what this adds

A mere "Most men's rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, heterosexual men" would sufice before listing the members themselves, if such a initial pharagraph is even necessary

Including because at least one of the sources for this section apears to be against MRAs and as such might not be impartial in it's description Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comited a typo, I meant to write

>A mere "Most men's rights activists in the United States are men"

On the second pharagraph Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Severe bias
The literal second paragraph of this article discusses some Men's Rights Activists as being misogynistic and violent. My question is why isn't the feminism page having the same treatment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.38.140 (talk • contribs)
 * You are assuming a false equivalence, which is a logical fallacy. The MRM is not at all the same as feminism. Not by a long shot. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC).
 * Again, you are asserting your own viewpoint as gospel which it is not. If only to be consistent with other pages, criticism should have it's own section within the article, not be used in the headline as a broad statement on the topic indicating unequivocalness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.31.171 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of self-proclaimed feminists who are sexist and discriminatory just as there are plenty of self-proclaimed men's rights activists who are sexist and discriminatory as well. None of these people actually align with the ideals of the movement they are a part of so why even mention them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.38.140 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not going to try and argue numbers with you, even though the number of feminists who don't fit with the "ideals of the movement" is extremely small. Wikipedia is not here to try and set up a false balance between feminism and MRM, to make MRM look artifcially good or to make feminism look artificially bad.
 * Wikipedia is here to summarize for the readers everything significant that has been published in WP:Reliable sources. The reliable sources are newspaper reporters, college professors, investigative scholars and so on, publishing in mainstream platforms. You're looking at the results when you see the MRM article describe the adherents in a bad light. That's what is found in mainstream writings. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can show me evidence that there are significantly more misogynistic MRA members than misandrist feminist members than I would be happy to agree. :: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.38.140 (talk • contribs)
 * This talk page is for specific suggestions toward improvement of the article. It's not for debating the topic itself. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't have sources, I'm sure you won't mind if we move that aggressive second paragraph down to the criticism section. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe this could be a case of WP:UNDUE. The 2 paragraphs of the LEDE are about the same length, and the second one is exclusively depicting the movement as extremist. It can be argued that the LEDE does not represent faithfully the content of the page, describing next to none of either what the movement is doing (only what it aims, and only very shortly) and what it succeeded to do for example (maybe nothing, I'm not a specialist of the topic). Another indication is the use of WP:WEASEL words (eg, "Many scholars"). 213.211.155.159 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. First of all it's not mainstream, second, it does not have nearly enough hatred and sexual frustration as feminism. 83.33.23.234 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur that the second introductory paragraph is overly critical of the MRM and not representative of the MRM as a whole. This paragraph either belongs in the criticism section or should be modified to better reflect those interested in men's issues.Leavit2stever (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Leavit2stever I agree. I would challange any one who supports the second paragraph to explain where this hateful stuff is and why it is heavily suppressed in MRA spaces but not feminist spaces. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Early Men’s Movement: 1810–1960 (potential source material)
The following page Early Men’s Movement: 1810–1960 provides a catalogue of men's rights initiatives (each linked to or otherwise citing verifiable source material beyond the blogs on which they are collected), which may or may not be useful for expanding the scope of the main entry. Naturally these run counter to the "1970s feminist origins of the men's movement" narrative propounded by Messner and others, so discussion is perhaps warranted regarding the veracity of the "feminist origins" of the men's movement widely disseminated.

Examples:

1810 A network of meeting places under the collective name ‘Henpeck’d Husbands Club’ are established for men who were enduring abusive behavior from wives. The club set up dozens of chapters across Britain and in Europe, which offered support and advice for men enduring emotional or physical abuse.

1856 A long newspaper article entitled A Word for Men’s Rights is published in Putnam’s Monthly, which discusses sexist laws that oppressed men and benefited women, including the practice of frivolous, unjustified lawsuits for supposed breach of marriage promise.

1857 A Mr. Todd proposes a “Men’s Rights Conference” be held in response to exaggerations of the women’s rights movement.

1875 Article entitled Women’s and Men’s Rights appeared in the 1875 volume Historic and literary miscellany by G.M.D. Bloss

1886 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, writes his first major commentary on gynocentrism and misandry, ‘Some Bourgeois Idols; Or Ideals, Reals, and Shams.’

1890s New York Alimony Club (informal)

1896 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, co-authors book 'The Legal Subjection of Men' (Twentieth Century Press).

1896 Anti-Bardell Bachelor Band, Atlanta Georgia. Formed to fight against a national campaign headed by activist Charlotte Smith (Women’s Rescue League) to promote a tax on bachelors. Another, similar effort was made by the Hoboken Bachelor’s Club in Hoboken, New Jersey.

1898 League for Men’s Rights formed by Mr. William Austin in London. The movement is reported in newspapers of the time as a “Men’s Rights Movement”.

1908 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, republishes his 1896 book, The Legal Subjection of Men (New Age Press)

1911 Anti-Alimony Association, New York

1912 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, writes a landmark book ‘The Fraud of Feminism’ in which he called feminism a fraud and discussed “female privilege”

1912 Anti-alimony leader: George Esterling – Denver, Colorado.

1925 Samuel Reid, “Alimony Sam,” the “alimony martyr” of California

1926 Men’s Rights organizations formed Bund für Männerrechte, Vienna, founded by Sigurd von Hoeberth (Höberth) and Leopold Kornblüh in March 1926. In January 1927 the Bund split into two organizations circa: Aequitas (Hoeberth), Justicia (Kornblueh); journal “Self-Defense”

1926 Themisverbandes (Men’s Rights organization for female members, Sigurd Höberth von Schwarzthal). The founding of this organization led to a schism in Bund January

1927 Aequitas Weltbund für Männerrechte (Aequitas Word Federation for Men’s Rights) (international), Vienna, following a schism in Bund für Männerrechte (Federation for Men’s Rights). This was Sigurd Hoeberth’s new organization for men’s rights which welcomed female members.

1927 Justitia Verein für Männer und Familienrecht (Justitia Society for Men’s Rights and Family Rights), Vienna, founded by Leopold Kornblüh following a schism in Bund für Männerrechte (Federation for Men’s Rights). This group did not allow female members.

1927 Alimony Club of Illinois, Society of Disgruntled Alimony Payers, Chicago, founded by Dr. Vernon B. Cooley and second wife, Mrs. Bessie Cooley

1927 Alimony Payers Protective Association, led by Robert Gilbert Ecob

1927 Milwaukee Alimony Club, Wisconsin

1927 Fifty-Fifty League, London; manifesto “The Sex War”

1928 Tibet Men’s Rights organization (name of org. unknown), founded by Amouki

1929 ‘World’s League for the Rights of Men’ formed in the UK, advocating for male issues, and holding an anti-“ultra-feminist” stance. The League had chapters in Vienna, Berlin, Munich, and other Continental centres.

1930 D. A. M. Association, Kansas City, Missouri, founded by French L. Nelson

1930 National Sociological League, Dr. Alexander Dallek, executive secretary

1931 Organization “The Modern Men’s Rights Movement” (formation date unknown) publishes broadsheet, The Gauntlet outlining goals for gender equality and “emancipation of man from feminist domination.”

1932 Alimony Club of New York County (Adolph Wodiska) (cited Jan. 9, 1932)

1932 Ohio Alimony Association, Cleveland

1933 National Divorce Reform League, Theodore Apstein (cited Feb. 14, 1933)

1933 “Men’s rights” org ‘1933 Men’s Association’ started by lieutenant colonel R. A. Broughton, England

1935 Alimony Reform League, New York

1948 Society for Men’s Rights forms to address various forms of social and legal discrimination against men, London.

1948 Men’s rights magazine ‘Men’s Review’ launched in England, with at least two consecutive volumes circulated across the country.

1960 Divorce Racket Busters (incorporated 1961 as U.S.A. Divorce Reform, Inc.) – California – Reuben Kidd. This initiative continued to operate into the late 1960’s.

_________________

Bear in mind that although we are talking of a single men’s movement, it is more accurately defined as the aggregate of separate initiatives in the same manner as separate feminist initiatives are spoken of as one movement. Should some of these be included in the entry, or do we stick with the 1970s 'feminist origins of the men's movement' story? Discussion welcome. 2001:44B8:21A7:7400:EDD2:F663:765A:4E6 (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"destructive feminism" - kick off chapter
Hi, to get away from yes/no discussions, pointing fingers, etc that distract from getting issues solved and get to the next level, I'd like to bring your attention to how the debate on religion versus cults got a breakthrough and move to a next level by the insertion of the term "destructive cults".

So I would propose developing a chapter on "destructive feminism" and "destructive masculism".

There is nothing wrong in bringing men or women together in a mens-only or women-only group for eg therapeutic reasons, to accelerate healing or catching up: traumatized men or women that have lived under a dictatorship - terror - pathocracy ran by a gang with an antisocial personality disorder, e.g. women discussing and testifying to other women there is another way, there are other societies, or that they have found refuge in a democracy and that it is ok to let go of ptsd - destructive coping mechanisms. This is to shorten the time it would take to get fully functional and to a happy life into normal mixed groups.

Sincerely, SvenAERTS (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

If a ten-years younger brother hits his abusive (260.24&25) caretaker sibling, in New York State, he is instead the one guilty of elder abuse under (120.05-12). If John or Bruce Wayne's characters where in real life today, they would be incarcerated two years for each punch as felony assault. Provocation is no longer defence for assault, rage is no longer allowed to dethrone reason but is accused of blaming the victim. Injuctive restraining protective orders deny you the ability to confront your accusers and punish you for crimes you MIGHT commit; this "precrime" was predicted by George Orwell as "thoughtcrime". This is what happens when leftist parents didn't let their kids play with cap guns in the 1960s.

https://ncfm.org/know-the-issues/mens-rights-issues/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/the-feminization-of-america https://law.unc.edu/eichner-research/ https://roarmag.org/essays/left-populism-feminization-politics/ https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/meet-the-mens-rights-movement/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)