Template talk:Violence against men

November
Add MGM aka Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) into this list. Reasons so this word is totally suitable for this act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulknerck2   (talk • contribs)  06:08, 1 November 2012‎
 * 1) Cut off the healthy foreskin of healthy infants
 * 2) Penectomy - removal of the penis without any medical reason
 * 3) Penile subincision - no benefit and also lead to many infections.
 * 4) Castration without a reason


 * Not a reliable source for the proposed edit.   12:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Mutilation definition is something like that.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilation mu·ti·late (mytl-t) tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates 1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1. 3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

so cutting of a penis is indeed a mutilation. Faulknerck2 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with the proposed edit.   02:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

why not? what they do to male's foreskin is exactly a mutilation according to the definition of Mutilation beside cutting someone's genital off without a proper medical reason is against the medical ethics. if you don't know most of circumcisions have done for religions reasons so it's indeed a mutilation. beside I saw on wikipedia cutting off female genital named as FGM aka Female Genital Mutilation so why when it comes to males the double standard? beside it's not just circumcision

Penile superincision Penile subincision Circumcision Infibulation Penectomy

a lot of things have done on males and it's exactly same as FGM.now you tell me there isn't a MGM term? Faulk (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This list is about violence against men and MGM is indeed a violence, perhaps you can refer this site and see it by yourself what is MGM and the horror of MGM and how it becomes a violence. http://www.mgmbill.org Faulk (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Violence against men MGM aka Genital Mutilation:
 * 1) http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Woman-Accused-of-Cutting-Off-Husbands-Penis-125423033.html
 * 2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197485/Scorned-woman-chops-cheating-boyfriends-penis-flushes-toilet.html
 * 3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/julia-munoz-huaman-cut-off-boyfriends-penis-flushed-toilet_n_1854924.html
 * 4) http://newsone.com/2005360/woman-cuts-off-mans-penis-before-stabbing-him-to-death/
 * 5) http://newsone.com/2005360/woman-cuts-off-mans-penis-before-stabbing-him-to-death/
 * 6) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/orange-county-prosecutors-charged-a-garden-grove-woman-wednesday-with-two-felony-counts-for-allegedly-cutting-off-her-husband.html
 * 7) http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-who-cut-lovers-penis-is-jailed-for-manslaughter-20120829-2514h.html
 * 8) http://abcnews.go.com/Health/penis-cutting-wife-held-million-dollar-bail/story?id=14135086
 * 9) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8635418/Woman-cuts-off-husbands-penis.html

And there a lot of incidents like that. Did you tell me these incidents are totally okay? why the heck can't you realize these are some sort of Mutilations? Faulk (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So you appear to be changing the kind of edit you're proposing, because the list of sources you just put up are not at all like the MGM bill you offered first. You are now proposing that the list have added to it:  violent assaults against men to the genitals?  Domestic violence and Sexual violence are the targets that cover the subjects of the sources you provided, and the are both already in the list.    02:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If MGM shouldn't be in this list then why FGM in Template:Violence against women? According to your theory it's also a violence against women and it covers in both Domestic violence and Sexual violence sections. Both of these categories present in that list with FGM. Your point doesn't make any sense. Genital Mutilation isn't a sexual violence beside if something happens outside of home it isn't considered as a domestic violence. Faulk (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your source for you claim that this is a characteristic form of "Violence against men"? Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

first I've made so many sources in here about that if you can't see them you must surely blind. okay I will make another sources too:
 * 1) http://www.mgmbill.org/
 * 2) https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:z1yFnQprv7gJ:www.anth.uconn.edu/degree_programs/ecolevo/mgmarticle.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiT6z_C5cTVwd-9yTUvztbLsTOEvvIly-cFfx6lEwH16-zi261m66GOeTUwNna6y4qaCksOPeuVdzGZ1TZnPnG6sBiR2QRKB0uv4w5nFVc7RhnSMPI0ghV8SPbIzVe7m43orsdE&sig=AHIEtbS405P47Lpw7Tdqg-_-Oqllfpjokw
 * 3) http://www.noharmm.org/muted.htm
 * 4) http://www.self-help-sexuality.com/male-genital-mutilation.html
 * 5) http://www.bestgore.com/murder/man-murdered-cock-and-balls-cut-off-dead-mouth/ (This is clearly a Genital Mutilation)

now I kindly ask you stop abusing your admin powers and leave this topic in this list. Faulk (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we need reliable, secondary sources that make this connection. None of these sources qualify. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

May
Here Zad removed acid throwing, male genital mutilation and circumcision from the template, as well as putting Stop Abuse For Everyone in non-alphabetical order. I am going to revert this because I believe reliable sources DO support these changes. These are violence against men, and here is support for that:
 * 1) BBC: Some campaigners regard male circumcision as a form of abuse similar to female genital mutilation.
 * 2) DailyMail: sudden surge in acid attacks on MEN by WOMEN

Beyond this I am also going to add in the Brit Mala which is a ritual that adds to the abuse and violence inherent in circumcision by also incorporating sexual assault. Ranze (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources provided are insufficient to support the proposed additions to the template.   20:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Expanded response: Ranze, the focus of my revert was the addition to the template of the following items:
 * Acid throwing
 * Male genital mutilation (including circumcision)
 * The issues are pretty much the same for both of them: The linked Wikipedia articles and the sources used at them do not support additions. The article acid throwing says that most victims (80%) are women, and the underlying source at that article supporting the figure, the documentary Defacing Women: Acid Attacks on Film, clearly characterizes acid throwing a gender-based attack against women, and does not focus on men at all.  In fact the article acid throwing doesn't cover acid throwing against men at all.  Before that link can be added to the template, well-sourced support for it first needs to be developed in the acid throwing article, as right now there is none.  There's no justification for adding an entry to a series template directing a reader to an article that doesn't cover the template topic.  Regarding Male genital mutilation, Wikipedia actually does not have that as an article, but has Genital modification and mutilation with subsection Male genitals.  Like at acid throwing, there is no content there to support the idea that it is a characteristic form of violence against men.  It's also unclear why a special mention of circumcision would be needed here but not any mention of the other five types listed Genital modification and mutilation, so that is also unsupported.  Regarding the question posed here, for circumcision in particular, it may not seem fair, but authoritative reliable sources do not equate circumcision with female genital cutting.  Many people believe that, logically, they should be viewed in parallel, but the reality is that authoritative reliable sources do not treat them equally.  For example, this document from the World Health Organization (WHO) treats circumcision as a largely benign practice with useful health benefits, while this other document from the WHO treats female genital mutilation as a practice to be eradicated.  On Wikipedia, we don't take sides, we just make our content reflect the authoritative sources.  In this case, the sources don't treat them equally, so Wikipedia content should not either.  Hope that explains it.    20:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your removal doesn't seem justified to me. Even if the number of male victims IS as small as 20%, it is still an issue of violence against men. You also removed penis removal which clearly, in its article, cites that this is done to war captives. This is not penectomy, we are not talking about an elective surgery here, you intentionally removed an article that is about violence against men by the removal of their penis, and there's no "women are the greater victims" excuse for that. That shows a clear bias warranting removal from this discussion, I think.


 * Defacing Women: Acid Attacks on Film, clearly characterizes acid throwing a gender-based attack against women, and does not focus on men at all

So what? The film is about 'defacing women' so obviously it will focus on attacks against women, not men. Just because a specific film chooses to focus on a gendered presentation of assault doesn't mean that the violence only applies to one sex. If someone made a 'female victims of serial killers' we would not list 'serial killing' as solely a VAW and not a VAM issue.


 * there is no content there to support the idea that it is a characteristic form of violence against men.

That is because the page cleverly titles it 'modification' and focuses on that aspect. It is clearly more than a modifier, it mutilates, because it amputates healthy nerve cells. How are things like prepuce circumcision not 'violence'? This is ridiculous.


 * the reality is that authoritative reliable sources do not treat them equally

Which 'authorative reliable' sources? WHO? Are so-called "authorities" reliable if they show a bias?


 * we don't take sides, we just make our content reflect the authoritative sources

So we say, but sides can be taken indirectly in regard to which sources we dub 'authority' and which we consider 'reliable'. If I located a source presenting a contrary viewpoint, that MGM is to be eradicated (or conversely, that some FGM is benign) there is no doubt people would be up in arms trying to find any reason to dub it as unreliable and without authority. By what neutral means do we consider WHO an authority? By what neutral means do we dub something like WHO reliable? Ranze (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ranze, you haven't addressed really any of my points here: First, as I mentioned in my response, the target article Wikipedia has is Domestic violence against men; Violence against men is a redirect.  The scope of that article, as it states in its lead, is "Domestic violence against men refers to abuse against men or boys in an intimate relationship such as marriage, cohabitation, dating, or within a family."  Regarding Penis removal, violence that happens to men in war isn't part of the scope of the article Domestic violence against men.  I see you have added the template Violence against men to the article Penis removal and accordingly that's not an appropriate placement of that template.  Second, as I mentioned regarding Acid throwing, there is no content or sourcing at that article supporting the idea that it's a characteristic form of violence against men, although certainly it happens.  If you can find authoritative sourcing supporting the assertions that acid throwing is a characteristic form of violence against men in some cultures, feel free to develop that theme at that article, and then the addition of the template would be justified (but not until then).  Third, regarding circumcision, you are still using your own definitions; Wikipedia requires that we reflect what authoritative sources say, and I provided authoritative sources from the World Health Organization in support, and plenty more authoritative sourcing can be provided.  That the WHO is an authoritative source is determined by consensus.  See WP:MEDRS, the WHO is listed by name there.  If you still do not feel the WHO is an authoritative reliable source we can ask at WP:RSN and also at WT:MEDICINE, and I can provide others.    03:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This template is about VAM as a whole, not DVAM. While I'm aware that violence against men redirects to domestic violence against men, that does not mean that solely domestic violence should be the focus of this template. If that's what you want, you can go create a template:domestic violence against men or something. Oddly enough, there is no domestic violence against women article since that just redirects to domestic violence while violence against women has its own article.

For some odd reason we have this kind of this strange difference in gender emphasis when it comes to V and DV, I couldn't tell you why, but it would be nice to correct it so that these templates could be set up in a more equivalent fashion. In both cases we should have a 'violence against sex' article and a 'domestic violence' article. I am not sure if 'domestic violence against sex' in either case would be warranted if the issues (sex-based violence, violence-type) got adequate coverage in it, but I wouldn't be opposed to allowing them to exist either.

What I am failing to see here, is your clarification for what makes something "characteristics". For example, if ~80% of acid victims are women, then would ~78% of murder victims being male qualify us to list 'murder' on the 'violence against men' template? Please clarify what makes something gender-characterized violence (if it's something other than statistics) so I know what you're asking about here. Ranze (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Ranze (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ranze, regarding For some odd reason we have this kind of this strange difference in gender emphasis when it comes to V and DV, I couldn't tell you why, but it would be nice to correct it so that these templates could be set up in a more equivalent fashion., I addressed this in my first reply: we just make our content reflect the authoritative sources ... the sources don't treat them equally, so Wikipedia content should not either (emphasis added).  There is no reason that if sources support "X against women" then we must also have "X against men."  If authoritative reliable sources also support X against men, then, yes, Wikipedia should carry that content; if they don't support it, we shouldn't have it.  Here are some authoritative sources from well-respected international bodies that cover the topic "violence against women":
 * The United Nations issued a Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women
 * The UN also has a mini-site devoted to it
 * The UN also sponsors a International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (no such day exists for men)
 * WHO Factsheet Violence against women; could not find one for violence against men
 * From the US Government Dept of HHS, Violence against women site; could not find one for violence against men
 * From the University of Kentucky, here's an entire research department devoted to study of the subject
 * Rutgers University has something similar
 * So there's excellent support for "Violence against women". What sourcing can be produced for "Violence against men"?  I did find this:  http://www.womenshealth.gov/mens-health/violence-prevention-for-men/ which talks about violence against men a little bit, it says in the USA:  Almost 90 percent of homicide victims among 18- to 24-year-olds are males, Homicide is the fourth leading cause of death for black males, and Males are almost four times more likely than females to be murdered.  This is a start on support for adding homicide to this template, although it's US-specific.  Regarding "characteristic" forms, again, we look to the sources. We should not be adding targets to a template if the target article does not clearly support the context of the template.  Acid throwing does not cover acid throwing with men as the victims at all and so it is not justified to add it to the template.  First, develop that content at the article, using good reliable sourcing.  Then, add it to the template.    02:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Penis removal
When exactly did this "no source is reliable enough" stuff step on the face on NPOV? The conflict is clear here: under the claim that we are simply interpreting 'good' sources, people are only declaring 'good' the sources which support their viewpoints. Any source that does not support the popular viewpoint is a 'bad' source. Assuming good faith is becoming increasingly hard when what mostly seems to happen is a focus on eliminating content and not co-operatively exploring it. You cite the UN: they are not the authorities of our knowledge. That the UN and other groups en-masse have a bias is only grounds to document that bias, not eliminate content on its basis. We can say that FGM is considered a bigger issue, but not reflect the bias that it is by only talking about it and squelching documentation of the opposite.

The PR article clearly illustrates that it happens in war, and that the penectomy article is dedicated to consented-to surgial procedures. PR must be added back, it is clearly about gendered violence as opposed to opted-in alterations. Ranze (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please re-read our previous discussion above, from last November. We need reliable, secondary sources that describe this as "Violence against men". Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the wording of 'penis removal' is admittedly broad (even though the article is clearly dedicated to involuntary forms) and confused with elective penectomies, I've linked to "involuntary" instead. We do know what violence is right? We know who has a penis, right? It isn't original research to call a spade a spade.
 * So to clarify, this would be a "primary" source? Is it a reliable primary source? A reliable secondary source would be what, a book that cites this article?
 * Upon re-reading the guidelines, I think it's quite clear that this Daily Mail article is indeed secondary, and I would also say reliable. If it isn't reliable, I would suggest a WikiProject dedicated to exploring which newspapers are reliable and which are not, and how we should determine that. Newspapers definitely aren't primary sources about the events they describe. Ranze (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Massacre section
I've removed the massacre section, which only had one entry: Srebrenica massacre. Men have always been the primary agents and victims of war throughout history. To call out a particular battle or massacre as an attack on the male gender is absurd. There have been countless massacres throughout the history of war that mainly involved men. During World War II, the Nazis would often massacre all the male inhabitants of an occupied town if they believed there was a spy operating from the town or simply for retribution. See Massacre of Kalavryta, Lidice Massacre, and Ležáky massacre. Sometimes, however, they would massacre all the women as well, like the Khatyn massacre. If the women weren't massacred they were often raped and put into work camps instead, so it can hardly be argued that men were the only victims anyway. The goal of the Nazis wasn't to attack men, it was to attack the enemies of Germany regardless of gender. The mores of the time simply made it more acceptable to kill men during war. These "male massacres" were certainly not limited to the Nazis, however. For example, the Katyn massacre (not to be confused with the Khatyn massacre), involved almost all men, although this is because it targeted military officers, police officers, and the intelligentsia of Poland, not because it was targeting men in particular. It the same vein, the people who were killed during the Srebrenica .assacre were killed primarily because they were Muslims, not because they were male. Many women and girls were killed during the Srebrenica massacre as well, just not in mass killings. Regardless, to list every battle or massacre that primarily involved men would be to recite the entire history of human warfare. Kaldari (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is even simpler than that: the target article is actually Domestic violence against men, wartime violence is not in the target article scope so its addition to the template is unsupported.  See the discussion right above this one, I made the same point there.   05:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree: while we can't argue that men are the only victims, in the case where party A is murdered and party B is enslaved or raped, party A is clearly the primary victim. It is not absurd at all to recognize various massacres where men specifically are singled out and killed while women are not killed, that is specifically the type of gendered violence this template should highlight. We could have a whole section dedicated to it if they become numerous, or if you want to create a new template for them, we could remove them after that point. Ranze (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please re-read our previous discussion above, from last November. We need reliable, secondary sources that describe this as "Violence against men". Jayjg(talk) 20:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Jayjg. I haven't seen any reliable sources that report the Srebrenica massacre (or any massacre other than the École Polytechnique massacre) as gender violence. Rather than listing hundreds of random battles and massacres, I would suggest finding some sources that discuss the gender aspects of warfare and creating an article on that topic (if in fact there are sufficient reliable sources to justify such an article). Otherwise, such content is essentially original research. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring the section, the justification for its removal is silly. Men being the primary victims of massacres in general does not negate that they are significant events of it. As for women being raped and put in work camps: that does suck, but that is not part of a "massacre" (which means killing), it's the after-effects of not having protectors. To list men as the primary victims of a massacre (since they die) does not at all insinuate they are the 'only' victims of war. Ranze (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Masculism
I am confused seeing this term on the template. Is Masculism some type of violence against men? I had thought it some feminism cognate. Feminism is not part of template:violence against women so I'm confused at the presence here. Ranze (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, Ranze. It was added here, I removed it.    02:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon review of your deletion I happened to notice it linked to a specific subsection, Masculism which discusses violence against men. This seems like a potentially valid link now, that it deals with attitudes about VAM. But it would need a more specific title. "Masculist concern about violence against men" is kinda long though. Ranze (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Forced prostitution
I removed this link from the template because, although it's probably an issue for some men somewhere, it's vastly more of a female issue, and the article itself is mostly covering women; indeed, the infobox on the article is Template:Violence against women. It seems a bit misleading to say that the article is in a series about violence against men when the article barely touches on that topic at all.

If the article itself is modified with (sourced) information about male forced prostitution I probably wouldn't protest against it being added back in to the template (perhaps as a link to a specific subheading in the article?), but it's just not an article that fits this template at the moment. Sellyme Talk 06:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing it from the template. Kaldari (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, am putting it back. If these issues also affect men then it belongs here. People warping the articles with NPOV so that they ignore men do not negate that men have been victims of things like these. To keep it out propogates myths that men can't be victims of these crimes. Ranze (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely disagree that people are warping the articles to ignore men who are victims of forced prostitution. There is no reason why any person would do such a thing. Although it is true that men can be victims of these crimes, you are ignoring the fact that statistically many more women are victim to it than men. Maybe if you could do some research into the issue, add extra sections to the article or maybe write a new one, then you could prove this. As it stands, and as the article stands, it just doesn't feel fitting. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Question of bias
It seems one person seems to be reversing any edits to this template, despite adequate reasons being given to it. I think this is a question of bias and the inclusion of certain patriarchal issues that affect women in the 'Violence against men' category threatens to undermine the 'Violence against women' category, especially as the 'Violence against men' one appears first on the page, when it in fact often covers a minority. The categories in here should be more focused on issues that specifically affect men, or at least mostly affect them. Overall, this template needs to show less bias. I have went through and removed any articles that mostly focus on women or are gender non-specific and left in the ones that do warrant the category. If anyone would like to argue for reinstatement of certain categories, then it could be possible, but at it stood before I edited, this was a very weak template. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary topics
Re: Please justify the inclusion of broad, not necessarily male-specific, or even predominantly male specific, topics in the template. For example, why is "Murder" in here? Why are the massacres of Lazaky and Lidice in here? Why is "Homicide"? Compare with the template Template:Violence against women, where pretty much everything that's in there actually belongs in there. There was a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff added to the template recently without justification in some kind of effort to "buff it up". The topics you put into a template such as this are not arbitrary and need to justified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right; so I removed murder, homicide, and one of the massacres (Lidice was targeted as males, however, so I think it should remain). If there are specific ones you think should still be removed bring them for discussion here please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think Anti-gay vigilantism belongs in here either as that's violence against persons based on their sexual orientation, not (necessarily) based on their gender. I'm not so sure that "Dating abuse" really belongs here but I'm fine with it staying for now.
 * I wasn't entirely sure about Anti-gay vigilantism either. I do think there is an increase in violence against gay men compared to straight men, but I do not think that warrants Violence against men series template should be on the respective article. That said, it isn't currently, so personally I would vote to keep it in the Violence against men series but definitely not on the Anti-gay vigilantism article Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lidice is a very famous massacre. I have never seen it described as "massacre of men". Gender wasn't a primary factor. Note all the women were sent to concentration camps where many died. All the children, of both genders, were also murdered. Lidice has very symbolic meaning and gender was not a primary motivating factor (it wasn't, the assassination of Hedyrich was) for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, in many of theses cases the primary motivation was not gender - it was something else - but the victims were selected for death based on their gender - even in Lidice. I have added that to several other cats in any case, as there was gendered violence all around. I have kept the Anti-gay vigilantism section, since the vast majority of victims of anti-gay hate crimes are men, and much of the literature links this to an intersection of sexuality and gender, they are closely intertwined. See the various analyses of the emo killings in Iraq, for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Why stop at massacres? Why not every battle in every war in history where the primary motivation was not gender but the victims were selected for death based on their gender, since no one selects women as soldiers for the most part?  Just look at the selective service in the US.  Its primary purpose is to select victims of battles based on gender.  I think the whole part of the template ought to come out because it's impossible to define a selection criterion for it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the work by Jones on gendercide, he does make a distinction; the distinction being, killing of enemy combatants in war is not an essentially gendered act, since soldiers will kill other soldiers usually regardless of their gender (although, we do hear stories of US soldiers in Vietnam having trouble after killing female vietcong soldiers). In any case, it's still treated differently in the literature, there is a growing literature around gendercide, but also plenty of older literature that doesn't use that term but discusses the mass murder of non-combatant men.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're backing off from your statement here: "but the victims were selected for death based on their gender"? Is there a source that says that Lidice was gendercide, if that's even a thing?  If not, why shouldn't we assume that the men were killed as potential combatants?  It strikes me that by substituting a link to the category you're managing, whatever your intention, to move the discussion off this one page and on to 17 different article talk pages at once.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, why stop at massacres? Why not individual killings where the victim was selected for his gender?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You just created those massacres categories today? For God's sake... I can already see where this is going.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Types of rape
While all forms of rape happen to men, we should not list any and all forms that can possibly happen. Rather, the focus should be on forms that predominantly or disproportionately affect men. For example, prison rape should be here but date rape (generally understood to be against women and initially coined to describe rape against women) probably shouldn't be. Issues like the FBI's updated rape definition should likely be looked if an article exists.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Wikipedia should cater to the "sexual violence doesn't matter if it happens to men" cliche. Grapesoda22  (✉) 03:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said. The point of navigation templates is to aid navigation to germane topics per WP:SIDEBAR. Many of the topics you're adding don't follow those guidelines.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These edits really seem to fit into that narrative quite frankly. Its not taking anything away from women's struggles. Quite frankly the "Sexual assault and rape" headers on both templates are pointless for the most part considering Template:Abuse, Template:Sexual abuse and Template:Rape already cover those topics in depth. Grapesoda22  (✉) 16:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)