Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive8
[edit] What does it take to lose 'silver' status?
In spite of the occasional backtracking, the hate and malice in this article is so evident that it amazes that it would be granted any credibility by the supereditors on this site. Although reading the 'Men's movement' article makes this article seem thoughtful and balanced by contrast...Actually screw 'Rational Wiki' this is a stupid, fake site. Sorry 'bout that.— Unsigned, by: Rosie / talk / contribs 09:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are no "supereditors" on this site. The site quite evidently exists, so it's not fake. As for the rest, I suggest clicking on the "Random page" link on the left a few times.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
When did this article lose its Silver Brain status? I notice the Talk page still has the article marked as Silver. --Tracer (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Eugene Kanin’s Study Of False Rape Reports
Pretty good article here [1]. Is there a rule on this Wiki against tumblr links? I know most of the content on there isn't suitable for references but this article would hold up to most editors and is one of the more concise criticisms of Eugene Kanin's study that MRAs spout like dogma --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why not just link to the original study? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is such a good idea, I don't know why I didn't think to do that. Thank you --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- But that would miss out everything that's wrong with the original study, which is surely the Scarlet Woman's point. I see no reason not to cite her blog or the Alas one she links to. Anyway, it should go under rape or rape culture rather than here. The rape culture article already has some content about the myth of false rape reporting and about police attitudes to rape investigation, but I had no idea that police use polygraph tests to interrograte victims as well as suspects. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wait... what???? Victims are polygraphed? sighs. (watches anger level rise). One tin soldier (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- It seems like they used to be, or at least, they did in the Kanin study that MRA groups use to support their take on false rape accusations, which is based on the study of a small Midwestern town that used them regularly. I thought they meant use one of the counter-studies that Scarlet Woman links to rather than the article. I guess we could do both? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wait... what???? Victims are polygraphed? sighs. (watches anger level rise). One tin soldier (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- But that would miss out everything that's wrong with the original study, which is surely the Scarlet Woman's point. I see no reason not to cite her blog or the Alas one she links to. Anyway, it should go under rape or rape culture rather than here. The rape culture article already has some content about the myth of false rape reporting and about police attitudes to rape investigation, but I had no idea that police use polygraph tests to interrograte victims as well as suspects. Wèàšèìòìď
- That is such a good idea, I don't know why I didn't think to do that. Thank you --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Feminism swoops in
I'm not sure if this is on purpose, but every valid point given by the MRA strawman is immediately claimed to be championed by feminism and not by the people actually working towards it — Unsigned, by: 24.30.76.11 / talk / contribs 03:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- You mean these guys?: http://goodmenproject.com/foundation/
- They appear to be described in the second half of the page as the guys actually working towards it. Nullahnung (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why are the real men's rights activists mentioned at the bottom of the article, while the rest of the page deals with strawman arguments? It would be like a feminism article talking 99% about militant TERFs who want to castrate men and using that to make fun of the entire women's rights movement. This article is slanderous and dishonest. 2.86.33.99 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your opinion of who the REAL MRM is seems to differ from that of the article author. See No True Scotsman, maybe. Nullahnung (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I made a point below that right or wrong, mainstream internet and in some cases mainstream news (I've seen NY Times, and Quebec's daily paper do this) use MRA as a term to define the icky groups in the "manosphere". (And while manosphere is common on the interwebs, I've never seen it used in mainstream media yet). We have to address that reality, because people googling MRA are not looking for Father's Rights groups, or Divorce lawyers - they are look for "what did Time mean when it said the shooter was part of a growing trend of Men's Rights Activist sites". (googling "men's rights activism and news) https://www.google.com/search?q=men%27s+rights+activists&client=firefox-a&hs=cMc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=ctKRU9DbCeqH8AHL8IDwBQ&ved=0CAsQ_AUoBA&biw=1280&bih=927. One tin soldier (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your opinion of who the REAL MRM is seems to differ from that of the article author. See No True Scotsman, maybe. Nullahnung (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why are the real men's rights activists mentioned at the bottom of the article, while the rest of the page deals with strawman arguments? It would be like a feminism article talking 99% about militant TERFs who want to castrate men and using that to make fun of the entire women's rights movement. This article is slanderous and dishonest. 2.86.33.99 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] How this article has changed
It's wonderful to see how this page has changed say from 2011 (http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=893811), it really has gone down hill.
As some other people have pointed out this is a hate article; and it's not even done well. This page has gone from a page that discussed both misogynists who hide behind the MRM (who are mostly fringe groups and don't represent) and those seeking genuine equality (custody issues, male circumcision, conscription, public treatment of men who are raped for example).
This has turned into a disgraceful shit-throwing fest that makes me ashamed to be a part of the online atheist community.
Yes, most gender based discrimination is against women but this page simply does not even acknowledge that there is discrimination against men in some areas.
This page acknowledged that it is a varied group with no clear set goals then makes broad statements like the wonderful 'goals' list completely ignoring the legitimate complaints.
Grow up. 182.239.132.46 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- But see, the article isn't about gender discrimination. It's not about sexism. It's not about "me too" ism. IT's about men's rights movement. One tin soldier (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- "This has turned into a disgraceful shit-throwing fest that makes me ashamed to be a part of the online atheist community." Good - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Yes, most gender based discrimination is against women but this page simply does not even acknowledge that there is discrimination against men in some areas." It seems to me that as long as people who are genuinely concerned about any real discrimination that men may face fail to keep that huge mass of misogynists and misogyny from participating in the debate, then their concerns will never, ever be taken seriously. Like it or not, hatred for women and feminism is largely what defines any sort of masculinist discourse in the public sphere. Those are the guys who have become the defacto spokesmen for your concerns. Clean up your own house, and then come worry about ours. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- "This page has gone from a page that discussed both misogynists who hide behind the MRM (who are mostly fringe groups and don't represent)"
- -Yeah, see, that's the point. Those aren't just the fringes. That is the movement. What have MRAs actually done about cutsody rights, male circumcision, conscription etc.? Have there been any real campaigns or activism? Seems to me, those are merely talking points MRAs use in order to attack feminism (nevermind feminism is not responsible for a single one of them).Octo8 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- As the superlative recent Cracked article points out, each of these groups considers all the others to be mere fringe groups. Hence the ludicrous hairsplitting in response to Elliot Rodger - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- If the Cracked article is good, maybe we should link it somewhere that talks about MRM response to Elliot Rodger? Sounds useful. Nullahnung (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- As the superlative recent Cracked article points out, each of these groups considers all the others to be mere fringe groups. Hence the ludicrous hairsplitting in response to Elliot Rodger - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Yes, most gender based discrimination is against women but this page simply does not even acknowledge that there is discrimination against men in some areas." It seems to me that as long as people who are genuinely concerned about any real discrimination that men may face fail to keep that huge mass of misogynists and misogyny from participating in the debate, then their concerns will never, ever be taken seriously. Like it or not, hatred for women and feminism is largely what defines any sort of masculinist discourse in the public sphere. Those are the guys who have become the defacto spokesmen for your concerns. Clean up your own house, and then come worry about ours. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Cracked article is good, very proud of them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Have you already forgotten the discussion at the top of this page? Feminism is very much to blame. Your very comment reveals a refusal to fix men's problems. All governmental equality bodies (with the big hoses of money) are governed and staffed by feminists, which, just like you, are unable to deal with the fact that to solve men's problems you must allocate (make available) resources, which will be away from shoving money at women.
- I would also like to point out how incredibly misandrist the whole Elliot Rodgers discussion is. Apparently a lot of folks utopian society would be so misandrist, even crazy people would only kill men. Not to mention the blatant doublethink people are willing to engage in. In other contexts none of you would have any trouble citing the real reasons for high violence rates in the US. Yet in this instance no-one thinks to draw comparisons to foreign nations. Granted, it's not trivial to investigate the internet culture of a foreign nation.
- For shame. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think I realized, even in the face of running around as a feminist all my life, how deep the denial goes for some of these men (BON here, specifically). "Feminism has caused men's problems by... by.. by... well, I can't tell you how, but they bleed once a month, so surely that's part of it. One tin soldier (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- What an intellectual response. I am the same BoN as in the section on the top of the page. You are free to critique my "denialism" over there. So far no one else has taken it up. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think I realized, even in the face of running around as a feminist all my life, how deep the denial goes for some of these men (BON here, specifically). "Feminism has caused men's problems by... by.. by... well, I can't tell you how, but they bleed once a month, so surely that's part of it. One tin soldier (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think I can firmly diagnose that everything bad that happens to you is because you're an idiot, not because you're male - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
How about these things?:
1. Blatant gender imbalance in the leadership of (most shockingly governmental) equality organizations.
2. Conscription
3. The poor condition of the men doing the worst (relative to women, tying into point one)
4. Lack of research into these male issues from a gender perspective. Dearth of qualified experts. (he would scoff at most things "pro-feminist", but there is simply very little anything available)
5. Custody disputes
6. Men have worse educational results of boys and men (the commentary on this is probably the lowest point of the current article)
7. Men's health. %50 more is spent on women's healthcare.
8. Men have dangerous lives - higher rate of work deaths and work accidents and suicides
9. Feminist discourses dominate "equality"
10. Expectation of masculinity
--82.128.250.221 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- What exactly is the Men's rights movement doing to combat these things? In my experience, Feminism has done more for men's rights than MRAs. There are many women's shelters set up by Feminist groups in my country and they are all unisex by law. Similarly, a breakdown of patriarchal gender roles would give men more freedom to live without the pressure to act certain ways. I've also found, at least in my own experience, that the consistent hostility towards rape victims actually makes the Men's rights movement a horribly disturbing space for male rape victims, who have enough difficulty with the law as it is. I'm not sure what you mean by "Feminist discourses dominate 'equality'", as the movement has entire facets dedicated to Intersectionality, as well as Black Feminism, Transfeminism, Womanism and Queer Feminism. Many of these are valid points but this isn't an article on "Why men have it worse than women", it's an article on the Men's rights movement, and the movement has done very little to combat any of these things. Maybe if the movement didn't waste so much time writing sexist articles and harassing Feminists online and spent more time doing... well... the actual activism that many Feminists do, then it wouldn't have such a pathetic reputation --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember you say these things are *women's fault*, not just that there are things in life that are unfair. So, an equality organization that exists to help balance the overall outlook of, say a corporation or say a government, should be equal? It *exists* because the world is not equal. When the world equals out, such groups will naturally equal out. or, you know, disappear. Conscription was created cause rich men go to war on the bodies of poor men and women. Yes, women. We may not be drafted, but we are there. we make up 1/2 the causalities of a war. I have no idea what "3" is. There is research into "male things". quite a bit of it actually. it's just that it largely goes by the term "research" instead of "male research" because our world is focused on all thing male. Custody disputes - finally a real one. But what does feminism have to do with it? 6,000 some odd years saying women's only role is to be a mommy has left a scar on the judicial system who now thinks only women can be a good parent. We're working on that as feminism, but working on general gender issues in the first place. "men have worse education results", and yet they get the best jobs. interesting, that. I have no idea where you get the idea that "50% more is spent on women's health". what is men's health, and women's health? Is skin cancer a woman's health issue? If the only issue is in teh reproductive systems, then yes, women get lots more money spent on care and research. Cause society likes healthy babies. "Men have dangerous lives". sucks typing at that computer, doesn't it. Is this really true? Do you really think men work harder, longer and more dangerously? They did, at one time, but now that statistically, most jobs are safe, it's just not an argument. Of course, birth still takes out more women than working takes out men, just saying.... "Equality" is dominated by women, cause men don't need to fight for equality. they already are above equal. Note, please, equality discourse in general is dominated by anyone who needs to be noticed by society. African Americans, the deaf community, gays, etc. "expectation of masculinity" - again, dude, who do you think came up with that? women? Feminists are the ones fighting FOR your right to be as womanish as you want. One tin soldier (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Men really DO work harder, longer and more dangerously. Studies made on doctors revealed that men work statistically 10 hours more per week than women. 93% of work-related deaths happen to males. I think that is a noticeable statistical discrepancy, don't you think? :) And as far as feminism goes... can you care to explain to me for example the results of the famous, oft-quoted CDC 2011 report? This report, made under the influence of feminist Mary P. Koss, deliberately reclassified 5,200,000 male rape victims as merely sexually assaulted, and NOT raped. Mary P. Koss said that calling a man forced by a woman to sex a rape is wrong. Why is feminism trying to hide 5,200,000 male rape victims? Why practically no feminist sources mention that (only MRA-related do)? This is the famous raport for "1 in 5 women raped". - Azradun (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for being serious. There is a lot I want to say in response to that, so it will take a while (I can't compose it all in one session within the limits of my pseudo-ADD and I'm not going to work on it every day either) before it's ready, but I wouldn't be so rude as to never respond. One big theme I want to cover are the policy documents published by the Finnish top level equality officials. I don't promise to be quick, I promise the facts.
- Also the "section on the top of the page" I was talking about above just got archived, so anyone still wanting to have a look will have to find it in the latest archive. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've been way too lazy, but this is still on the to-do list. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember you say these things are *women's fault*, not just that there are things in life that are unfair. So, an equality organization that exists to help balance the overall outlook of, say a corporation or say a government, should be equal? It *exists* because the world is not equal. When the world equals out, such groups will naturally equal out. or, you know, disappear. Conscription was created cause rich men go to war on the bodies of poor men and women. Yes, women. We may not be drafted, but we are there. we make up 1/2 the causalities of a war. I have no idea what "3" is. There is research into "male things". quite a bit of it actually. it's just that it largely goes by the term "research" instead of "male research" because our world is focused on all thing male. Custody disputes - finally a real one. But what does feminism have to do with it? 6,000 some odd years saying women's only role is to be a mommy has left a scar on the judicial system who now thinks only women can be a good parent. We're working on that as feminism, but working on general gender issues in the first place. "men have worse education results", and yet they get the best jobs. interesting, that. I have no idea where you get the idea that "50% more is spent on women's health". what is men's health, and women's health? Is skin cancer a woman's health issue? If the only issue is in teh reproductive systems, then yes, women get lots more money spent on care and research. Cause society likes healthy babies. "Men have dangerous lives". sucks typing at that computer, doesn't it. Is this really true? Do you really think men work harder, longer and more dangerously? They did, at one time, but now that statistically, most jobs are safe, it's just not an argument. Of course, birth still takes out more women than working takes out men, just saying.... "Equality" is dominated by women, cause men don't need to fight for equality. they already are above equal. Note, please, equality discourse in general is dominated by anyone who needs to be noticed by society. African Americans, the deaf community, gays, etc. "expectation of masculinity" - again, dude, who do you think came up with that? women? Feminists are the ones fighting FOR your right to be as womanish as you want. One tin soldier (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing does more to win people over to your point of view like ending your comments with "Grow up." --Tracer (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] To add, but where?
One thing I think it's worth adding is that fact that largely, MRA groups DO NOTHING. they have all these supposed injustices, but other than some rallies and flooding school rape reporting systems with faux reports, they don't actually do anything. In my own personal lingo, this is what separates "MRA" from people fighting for the equal treatment of men in the Courts, for example. I'm not sure if "activism" (or serious lack there of) should be tucked up in another section, or should be a small section on its own. opinions?One tin soldier (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- "List of political activist campaigns undertaken by MRAs:
- That said, I do know there are groups working re: child custody in Quebec/Canada. while I imagine that some of them do something resembling proper political activism and aren't loathesome examples of human patheticness, the one guy I met last year who claimed to be involved in the movement was a real piece of work. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are tons of honest, hard working, women loving men who want to change the Court system to improve men's circumstances especially in child custody, but also the lingering cases of alimony. And they should be highlighted. but when I go to manboobz (n/d/b/a Mammoth something) and read how enraged they are about X or Y, and then see that their rage has led them to ...um... MAKE POSTERS FOR THE INTERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHOOHOO, I just cringe. Cause it does give real men's issues, bad bad light.One tin soldier (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you shouldn't be judging whether "MRA groups" do stuff by what you read at ManBoobz. There are organisations like the ManKind Initiative, The Good Men Project, and Fathers for Justice who do actually campaign, lobby, protest, fundraise, etc. on issues affecting men. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Again, MRA groups are quite different from groups of people fighting for men's equality. There is a reason Fathers for Justice stays 10000 miles away from the term "mra" or its associations.One tin soldier (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's a false distinction. These are groups who campaign on men's rights issues. If you arbitrarily define "MRA groups" instead as internet forums & their users, then sure, it's easy to conclude that "they don't do anything" but that doesn't seem like a fair appraisal of the movement as a whole. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's not? Everyone I know who has heard of the MRA has the opinion that they are just basement-dwelling neckbeards on the internet, even those who don't know much about feminism (recalling that by definition MRA is a reaction to feminism). It may have started offline, but words change their meanings as the world turns. Nullahnung (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think the general argument Weaseloid is making is that we should differentiate between fathers rights organisations and groups like ManKind Initiative (who do some good work - conservative values of its leadership aside) and the bulk online MRAs who are unconnected (and much more radical) in comparison. We could do this quite easily by adding a sentence disclaimer of sorts, or by saying "many" rather than all. I agree that the extremist online groups are a disgrace to the few real life groups who do try to change things, especially as the more moral alternative tend to be quite small groups, but it wouldn't cause any harm to add a short note to this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- (EC, to Nullahnung): How are you defining MRA then? The offline activists are already mentioned within the article. Redefining the term to exclude these groups so that we can make the fatuous generalisation that "MRAs don't do anything" is needlessly moving the goalposts. There's plenty to criticise MRAs for already without this. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 01:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- (EC, to Drowninginlimbo): The article already does differentiate between more respected organisations and the assholes at internet forums. But they all belong within the wider concept of "men's rights". Once we start arbitrarily redefining that as an online-only movement, then criticising it for being an online-only movement, it gets silly. There is an overlap anyway: while they maintain a good public image and a (mostly) sane leadership, those men's rights & father's rights organisations do still attract a fair number of misogynist wingnuts to their ranks. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 01:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I can see your point. Nullahnung (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- (EC, to Nullahnung): How are you defining MRA then? The offline activists are already mentioned within the article. Redefining the term to exclude these groups so that we can make the fatuous generalisation that "MRAs don't do anything" is needlessly moving the goalposts. There's plenty to criticise MRAs for already without this. Щєазєюіδ
- I think the general argument Weaseloid is making is that we should differentiate between fathers rights organisations and groups like ManKind Initiative (who do some good work - conservative values of its leadership aside) and the bulk online MRAs who are unconnected (and much more radical) in comparison. We could do this quite easily by adding a sentence disclaimer of sorts, or by saying "many" rather than all. I agree that the extremist online groups are a disgrace to the few real life groups who do try to change things, especially as the more moral alternative tend to be quite small groups, but it wouldn't cause any harm to add a short note to this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's not? Everyone I know who has heard of the MRA has the opinion that they are just basement-dwelling neckbeards on the internet, even those who don't know much about feminism (recalling that by definition MRA is a reaction to feminism). It may have started offline, but words change their meanings as the world turns. Nullahnung (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's a false distinction. These are groups who campaign on men's rights issues. If you arbitrarily define "MRA groups" instead as internet forums & their users, then sure, it's easy to conclude that "they don't do anything" but that doesn't seem like a fair appraisal of the movement as a whole. Weaseloid
- Again, MRA groups are quite different from groups of people fighting for men's equality. There is a reason Fathers for Justice stays 10000 miles away from the term "mra" or its associations.One tin soldier (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you shouldn't be judging whether "MRA groups" do stuff by what you read at ManBoobz. There are organisations like the ManKind Initiative, The Good Men Project, and Fathers for Justice who do actually campaign, lobby, protest, fundraise, etc. on issues affecting men. Wēāŝēīōīď
- There are tons of honest, hard working, women loving men who want to change the Court system to improve men's circumstances especially in child custody, but also the lingering cases of alimony. And they should be highlighted. but when I go to manboobz (n/d/b/a Mammoth something) and read how enraged they are about X or Y, and then see that their rage has led them to ...um... MAKE POSTERS FOR THE INTERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHOOHOO, I just cringe. Cause it does give real men's issues, bad bad light.One tin soldier (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
We do a pretty decent job of dealing with various approaches to feminism on their own terms -- we don't lump TERFs with more mainstream approaches, and our articles on figures like Dworkin show how some editors can have issues with her approach without dumping all over feminism writ large. Seems we could do the same in this case. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is probably one of size. These is a minority who stand for almost entirely different things to the MRAs that are most vocal online. For every one person contributing in some way to supporting male victims of domestic abuse there are hundreds harassing feminists and circulating misinformation concerning the statistics of false rape accusations. It's the inverse of Feminists and TERFs so it makes it more difficult to write on them. If anything the online ones just make it more difficult for the few who do seem to have good intentions (edit: I just remembered quite a good article on this [2] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- We've been down this path many times with this article. But at some point we need to take the bull by the horns and accept how mainstream internet culture, if not main stream American culture is using the term "men's rights activists". I think we have the ability (in fact, I think we already have done, but clearly not to everyone's standards) to distinguish the "types" of men's rights, and exactly what is meant when blog after blog starts calling shooters "MRA-type".One tin soldier (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict x 3)
- Oh, I think the article as it stands does this just fine. I was just saying we should make the distinction in the new section when added, otherwise we'll probably just get MRAs coming here to add the exception in a considerably less neutral way --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a new section is needed or justified for this rather and circular tenuous point. At best, we can say (e.g. in the last paragraph or two of the 'history' section) that the MRAs at Reddit, MGTOW forums, etc. don't appear to be involved in any activism. It would still be rather a generalisation; some of them may well be involved in IRL groups too. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a new section is needed or justified for this rather and circular tenuous point. At best, we can say (e.g. in the last paragraph or two of the 'history' section) that the MRAs at Reddit, MGTOW forums, etc. don't appear to be involved in any activism. It would still be rather a generalisation; some of them may well be involved in IRL groups too. Щєазєюіδ
- Oh, I think the article as it stands does this just fine. I was just saying we should make the distinction in the new section when added, otherwise we'll probably just get MRAs coming here to add the exception in a considerably less neutral way --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- We've been down this path many times with this article. But at some point we need to take the bull by the horns and accept how mainstream internet culture, if not main stream American culture is using the term "men's rights activists". I think we have the ability (in fact, I think we already have done, but clearly not to everyone's standards) to distinguish the "types" of men's rights, and exactly what is meant when blog after blog starts calling shooters "MRA-type".One tin soldier (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict x 3)
[edit] Social Justice Category
Not agreeing with that being used to describe MRM. More like Social Injustice. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I did that accidentally. Too many tabs. Reverted. ·Femilisk♥ 17:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- You may think the term "social injustice" is an opposite term to "social justice", but actually it is a supporting term. Why? Because social justice is used to address the social injustice there is. Think about it. Nullahnung (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- So what would be an opposite term? Biggotry? Zero (talk - contributions) 18:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bigotry*, could work. Nullahnung (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- So what would be an opposite term? Biggotry? Zero (talk - contributions) 18:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- You may think the term "social injustice" is an opposite term to "social justice", but actually it is a supporting term. Why? Because social justice is used to address the social injustice there is. Think about it. Nullahnung (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is a strange article, as detailed all the heck over the talk pages. but as a concept of "men's rights" it is a social justices. Fathers are generally (thanks to a patriarchal set of standards, but that's not here or there) screwed if they want full custody. Those states that still have alamony are equally screwing men. and that is a legitimate "social justice". but then the MRA as understood by the vast majority of hte internet world, and now some measure of mainstream press, is yes, highly "injust".One tin soldier (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- One argument: MRA belongs in the SJ category for the same reason that Bull Connor or Orville Faubus belongs in a wiki category about the civil rights struggle -- one cannot understand a political movement without understanding its opposition. MRA, as it is usually expressed in its own little sphere, is an expression of what progressive activists should be working against, and you can't understand one without understanding the other. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- There's an important difference; people like Connor and Faubus were actual obstacles to the civil rights movement - they were public officials who had real power and influence. There is no real comparison with MRAs. To put it another way, black people lacked rights and equality because of people like Connor and Faubus. By contrast, while MRAs well may be opposed to women gaining rights and equality, they are not the reason women lack them in the first place. This isn't necessarily a reason not to put it in the SJ category, just a point.FullMetalJacobin (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- One argument: MRA belongs in the SJ category for the same reason that Bull Connor or Orville Faubus belongs in a wiki category about the civil rights struggle -- one cannot understand a political movement without understanding its opposition. MRA, as it is usually expressed in its own little sphere, is an expression of what progressive activists should be working against, and you can't understand one without understanding the other. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Out of curiosity...
Can anyone tell me about the Fedora thing? Why are Fedoras and MRA's associated (and to a lesser extant - Liberatrians)? Acei9 05:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where it started, but some men (often of the MRA or libertarian variety, though sometimes just of the social outcast variety) pair up the fedora with other weird bits of formal clothing (e.g. trench coats) while eschewing things like proper grooming and ignoring the other pieces of clothing necessary to make a fedora work (like the suit and tie). I had a friend who stopped being my friend after he began to hang out with some really weird people. His typical attire was a wife-beater shirt and jeans with a fedora and trench coat over top. Normally I'm not one to cut contact with someone over poor fashion choices or other friends, but his attitude changed once he started to hang around them and he definitely moved into MRA territory.
- It makes me sad though, because there's still no better companion to a nice suit than a well-cut and fitted fedora. Ah well, perhaps some day the association with MRAs will fade. - Grant (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have never owned, nor desired to own, a fedora though I do think personal grooming is fairly important in todays world. Not sure why anyone would want to adorn themselves in such a fashion as detailed above. Acei9 05:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea either. While I do like the idea of wearing a fedora with a matching suit, that's not the main use of those hats these days. - Grant (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not a hat person. Though I do own a number a tailored suits I prefer nice cuff-links and a well fitted shirt with an understated tie. Acei9 06:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I feel like I could be a hat person, but I'm not at the moment either. I'm with you on the cuff-links, shirt, and tie, however. In many ways I think men's fashion is a bit of a lost art to many people. I wonder if folks like MRAs co-opt certain bits of men's fashion (such as the fedora and trench coat, formerly two staples) in order to try to co-opt some of that prestige. It's an interesting thought. - Grant (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have a friend who is a Milliner (or hat-maker if you prefer). Consequently I have a fair few hats. They come in useful surprisingly often - most notably when I am gambling on the dogs or the horses and need to be dressed in a suit or tie out in the sun. They make me look respectable enough that no one cares when I am pissed before five. Tielec01 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll admit I am quite interested in fashion. I like to wear tailored suits, own several coats (none of which could be considered 'trench'), several pairs of cufflinks, colognes and shoes (admittedly they are all sneakers). But what I have most of are t-shirts. It is an expensive way to dress oneself but I like the look and feel of nice clothes. Anyway, isn't that the point of life? Acei9 06:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- When you say tailored do you mean bespoke, made to measure, or bought off the rack then tailored? Tielec01 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Off the rack is unacceptable. Acei9 07:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- +1. It's nigh impossible to find an off-the-rack suit that can be altered appropriately anyways, unless you happen to fit almost the exact body type that the store in question caters to. While many people think that you can obtain a good fit by buying an off-the-rack suit and having it altered, there are very real limits to how far alterations can go, and you'll very rarely get a good fit going that route. Besides, the extra cost of altering everything often makes it more expensive to go that route than it would be to take a step up to made-to-measure. - Grant (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm quite interested in clothes, mostly vintage (some of it smart, some not so much; not really into suits so much). I have a few hats & like them but basically don't wear them unless the weather makes it necessary. I find it uncomfortable to wear them for too long & a hassle to carry around if I take a hat out with me & end up not wearing it much. Plus it feels like a bit of an affectation: we're never going to return to the pre-1960s days when a hat was an essential daily item of dress, & wearing a hat just for style rather than weather conditions seems a bit vain. I guess that's partly where the archetype of internet losers with fedoras comes in (not only MRAs, but also bronies, libertarians, angry atheists, etc). There's a bunch of photo memes of these kind of people wearing hats indoors (which is vain & silly in itself), and it's usually a really trashy fedora (something like this, though arguably a trilby; it's a fine distinction) and badly matched with T-shirts or other casual clothes & awful haircuts or facial hair. Image search for fedora + neckbeard for a bunch of examples. I guess it's kindof about individuality & non-conformity (a big deal for MRAs & libertarians), which fails badly because of a lot of these people's poor aesthetics & lack of self-awareness. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Suits are kinda necessary for me as I do a bit of consultancy and some of my clients wouldn't take me very seriously if I strolled up in my casuals. As to hats worn inside - that is a definite no-no as per The Sopranos:
- I'm quite interested in clothes, mostly vintage (some of it smart, some not so much; not really into suits so much). I have a few hats & like them but basically don't wear them unless the weather makes it necessary. I find it uncomfortable to wear them for too long & a hassle to carry around if I take a hat out with me & end up not wearing it much. Plus it feels like a bit of an affectation: we're never going to return to the pre-1960s days when a hat was an essential daily item of dress, & wearing a hat just for style rather than weather conditions seems a bit vain. I guess that's partly where the archetype of internet losers with fedoras comes in (not only MRAs, but also bronies, libertarians, angry atheists, etc). There's a bunch of photo memes of these kind of people wearing hats indoors (which is vain & silly in itself), and it's usually a really trashy fedora (something like this, though arguably a trilby; it's a fine distinction) and badly matched with T-shirts or other casual clothes & awful haircuts or facial hair. Image search for fedora + neckbeard for a bunch of examples. I guess it's kindof about individuality & non-conformity (a big deal for MRAs & libertarians), which fails badly because of a lot of these people's poor aesthetics & lack of self-awareness. Щєазєюіδ
- +1. It's nigh impossible to find an off-the-rack suit that can be altered appropriately anyways, unless you happen to fit almost the exact body type that the store in question caters to. While many people think that you can obtain a good fit by buying an off-the-rack suit and having it altered, there are very real limits to how far alterations can go, and you'll very rarely get a good fit going that route. Besides, the extra cost of altering everything often makes it more expensive to go that route than it would be to take a step up to made-to-measure. - Grant (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Off the rack is unacceptable. Acei9 07:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- When you say tailored do you mean bespoke, made to measure, or bought off the rack then tailored? Tielec01 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll admit I am quite interested in fashion. I like to wear tailored suits, own several coats (none of which could be considered 'trench'), several pairs of cufflinks, colognes and shoes (admittedly they are all sneakers). But what I have most of are t-shirts. It is an expensive way to dress oneself but I like the look and feel of nice clothes. Anyway, isn't that the point of life? Acei9 06:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have a friend who is a Milliner (or hat-maker if you prefer). Consequently I have a fair few hats. They come in useful surprisingly often - most notably when I am gambling on the dogs or the horses and need to be dressed in a suit or tie out in the sun. They make me look respectable enough that no one cares when I am pissed before five. Tielec01 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I feel like I could be a hat person, but I'm not at the moment either. I'm with you on the cuff-links, shirt, and tie, however. In many ways I think men's fashion is a bit of a lost art to many people. I wonder if folks like MRAs co-opt certain bits of men's fashion (such as the fedora and trench coat, formerly two staples) in order to try to co-opt some of that prestige. It's an interesting thought. - Grant (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not a hat person. Though I do own a number a tailored suits I prefer nice cuff-links and a well fitted shirt with an understated tie. Acei9 06:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea either. While I do like the idea of wearing a fedora with a matching suit, that's not the main use of those hats these days. - Grant (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have never owned, nor desired to own, a fedora though I do think personal grooming is fairly important in todays world. Not sure why anyone would want to adorn themselves in such a fashion as detailed above. Acei9 05:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Acei9 00:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- When it comes to clothing, I'm a traditionalist myself. When the occasion isn't formal enough to warrant a suit, I'm in dress pants, a dress shirt, and a nice blazer; sometimes with a nice silk knit tie (always four-in-hand for such informal occasions). Hats, as you say, are tougher (and are never to be worn indoors anyways). There are only a few hats that are appropriate to wear with a suit (or with a blazer), and now-a-days it's far more common to use an umbrella in rainy conditions and not bother with the hat. Admittedly, it doesn't help that this non-conformity ideal has led to the fedora - generally the only hat acceptable for use with a suit other than the bowler for a brief time in the '30s - being "taken" by MRAs and the sort. Hats inside, on the other hand, are (as Ace said) a huge no-no, and that rule existed well before the Sopranos existed. - Grant (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I used to skate and snowboard so a lot of casual clothing choices stem from those early heady days. Nothing beats the feel and look of a tailored shirt and suit - I like arriving at job interviews better dressed than the interviewer...simple pleasures..:-) Acei9 03:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, very nice. I used to dress more casually, but I was never really happy with the way I looked. A year ago I decided to re-invent my image, and thus I began dressing myself using the same standards I use now. - Grant (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I used to skate and snowboard so a lot of casual clothing choices stem from those early heady days. Nothing beats the feel and look of a tailored shirt and suit - I like arriving at job interviews better dressed than the interviewer...simple pleasures..:-) Acei9 03:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- When it comes to clothing, I'm a traditionalist myself. When the occasion isn't formal enough to warrant a suit, I'm in dress pants, a dress shirt, and a nice blazer; sometimes with a nice silk knit tie (always four-in-hand for such informal occasions). Hats, as you say, are tougher (and are never to be worn indoors anyways). There are only a few hats that are appropriate to wear with a suit (or with a blazer), and now-a-days it's far more common to use an umbrella in rainy conditions and not bother with the hat. Admittedly, it doesn't help that this non-conformity ideal has led to the fedora - generally the only hat acceptable for use with a suit other than the bowler for a brief time in the '30s - being "taken" by MRAs and the sort. Hats inside, on the other hand, are (as Ace said) a huge no-no, and that rule existed well before the Sopranos existed. - Grant (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
What you guys consider "formal" wear is down right amusing. Do you even match your leathers? I for one would argue that hats are never acceptable in semi-formal or formal situations (inside and outside) except in a blatantly "Western" semi-formal setting. Lager (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, why do you find it amusing? Men's formal wear in the western world hasn't exactly changed much in the last few decades, and if you're ever attending a black tie or white tie event, the dress code is fairly strict and leaves little to the imagination. While fashion is always going to be a subjective thing, the rules for these classes of formal wear aren't so flexible yet, at least by current social standards in the Western world.
- That said, hats are indeed not generally acceptable for semi-formal (black tie) or formal (white tie) events. However, for less formal occasions, such as when wearing a standard suit, a hat would still be acceptable if it weren't for the popular conflation between fedoras and MRM types. - Grant (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Unnecessary & Immature content
> Its membership is primarily male (duh),
Is the duh really necessary
> "Goals" of MRAs
Scare quotes do not belong in a wiki article. If there is an need to emphasis the slacktivism towards these goals. "Goals proposed by MRAs" or "MRA Discussion Points"
> Our schools today discourage boys from fighting. (Oh noes!)
Come on really. This is suppose to be a rationalwiki page not an encyclopedia dramatica page
> The more batshit view held by MRAs include ideas that women usually lie about rape. (See where this is going?)
Holy shit, just state it plainly no need for the drivel filler.
>Every study done by the FBI suggests that false reporting in rape cases is no higher than in any other type of criminal case.
As a side note : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_statistics Not identical, but likely within normal variation. Citations are good, especially when the works already done for you.
>(although it is apparently all right with them for men to be more socially allowed to be child care givers, school teachers, or maids without stigma)
This is in contrast to claims that men should be more socially allowed to be child care givers, school teachers, or maids without stigma. Writing in a belittling manner just makes the statements or commentary appear more of a joke than report on the facts.
> Most countries only require men to participate in the draft or national services. This means life is more risky in those countries, simply by being born male and possibly having to go to war.[26]
Side Note 2 : I think it is worth mentioning the issues military women face, such as the frequency of violence and rape against them. The Various claims section is well written, but I feel like the sections prior to it will likely put off a lot of people before they reach it.
> They also blast feminists for their "man-hatred," but they dump copious amounts of hatred on men who don't subscribe to their agenda share their persecution complex.
If you have to strikethrough it it doesn't belong there at all. Googolplexbyte (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Much of this commentary seems to be directed towards the tone of voice. Please see RW:SPOV. Swerve (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Avoid [...] anything childish" I'm fine with humour, but "Oh noes", "duh", & scare quotes are bottom of the barrel humour at best. Indeed humour is a useful tool for skepticism, but this kind of "snark should support our site missions", I don't think this does. Googolplexbyte (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Men's rights in the office
In summer women, even in more formal contexts, can wear sandals and season-specific clothes. They can use umbrellas of all colours. It is considered acceptable to have a spare pair of tights and footwear in a drawer in case of rain etc.
Men have to wear shoes, and, in more formal situations, full suits, and long ties (even in close proximity to fax machines) rather than bow ties. Umbrellas have to be dark colours. Spare shoes and socks would be considered odd. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am a man and keep shoes in my drawer in the office for days when I jog into work, as well as a fold-up raincoat. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Misoyginist?
Should we really describe an entire movement as "Misoyginist"? MRM certainly contains elements of Misogyny, held by certain groups and/or individuals within the movement, but it certainly doesn't summarise the views held by the entire movement.
120.151.52.231 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm… it's been a while since I've read this article and I'm a lazy shit… which specific quotes or whatever bother you? GØØBY PLS What is this that stands before me?
05:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- This one? Fuck yes. - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I find myself heavily disagreeing with the majority of this article and in particular the labeling of the MRA as Misogyinist, to criticise feminism is not the same as attacking women and all in all this seems to carry an incredible bias that I did honestly did not expect of a wiki such as this. I do not personally identify as an MRA but rather an egalitarian however I find myself agreeing with many issues they bring up. Additionally feminism while it claims to tackle some of the same issues, I have rarely seen anything of the sort come from them. Ouroboros85 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It is not Rationalwiki, after reading about malae right movenments, i would name it Biasedwiki, or feministwiki — Unsigned, by: 62.65.221.1 / talk / contribs
[edit] pension ages
A major MRA issue left out here are the difference in pension ages. In many countries, the state age for pension and benefits is higher for men than women, so women are eligible for a pension and healthcare at age 60, men at age 65 — Unsigned, by: 212.159.124.6 / talk / contribs 04:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
