Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive6

The original MRA?
Here is a rather, er, "interesting" essay from 1908 called "The Legal Subjection of Men", written by one E. Belfort Bax. It's modeled after Mill's , but reads like a typical MRA screed from today, albeit in more flowery prose. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably worth a historic mention, if nothing else.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you the strangest thing? He was, not a wingnut, but a moonbat! (See Wikipedia.) Faunas (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A legitimate issue
Those in the MRA could make a legitimate complaint about this. Acei9 03:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One suspects that one needn't be in any MRA group to think that is pretty silly stuff, both from the mother but more particularly from the school that gave in to her. DamoHi 03:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am in no group and I thought it was pretty pathetic. Acei9 03:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * People are always decrying the negative consequences of absent and uninvolved fathers on children's lives but when a school tries to encourage some activities it is sexism. I feel a little icky agreeing with Bob McCoskrie on something though.  DamoHi 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, McCoskrie is bit...off. At least he isn't Cam Slater. Anyway - if my local school cancelled something like this because of this I would be making a lot of noise about it. Acei9

This article is obviously written from a feminist perspective.
An article about a movement that argues feminism doesn't work for the best interests of society, is not correct in its theoretical model of the world, and is not synonymous with "women" or "equality". Written from a feminist perspective, which takes as granted that feminism is the best interest of society, is correct in its theoretical model of the world, and is synonymous with "women" and "equality".

Isn't this kind of like having your article on the Protestant Reformation written from an explicitly Catholic perspective?
 * We don't intend to be neutral, just as we're not neutral against Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, alternative medicine, or Andrea Dworkin. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you want to pretend that all feminists are hateful lesbian separatist radfems. The vast majority aren't, and don't even particularly like those people. (Which is not to say that lesbian separatist radical feminism is a complete ass-pull or power play -- it's an overreaction to the traumas a great many women, especially gay and bi women, have faced in life. It's wrong, but it's at least less wrong than the typical MRA ideology.) EVDebs (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with pretending that all feminists are hateful lesbian separatist radfems, though. That assertion in and of itself shows that you are addressing the argument that feminism's theories don't accurately model the world from the perspective that takes it as given and thus not requiring of evidence that feminism's theories accurately model the world. And how come a woman who is traumatized and becomes a radfem is something you excuse, but on the very page we're talking about, a man who is traumatized and becomes a misogynist strain of MRA is mocked and derided?
 * Feminist theory DOES NOT accurately model the world and the statements it makes about the world are either unfalsifiable or quickly shown to be false. Heck, this article itself acknowledges that just as many men as women are raped, and then kind of brushes it off by saying "well some MRAs say all rape victims are lying so we can ignore this whole thing" (a straw man) instead of stopping to acknowledge "Holy shit, this disproves everything feminism says about rape, which is the absolute cornerstone of how feminism views how society relates to women! Feminism says that all women live in fear of rape, that rape is a crime committed by men against women, that we have a 'rape culture' encouraging the rape and hatred of women and that is why we must all focus on making women safer, and that entire worldview is completely incompatible with this fact!" This article does that a lot, really, provide a valid MRA argument, say "well it doesn't count because of [insert emotional reasoning to dismiss it that doesn't have anything to do with the claim]", and doesn't stop to look at "do these arguments actually say anything about the world? Do they support the claims of this ideology? Do they show the claims of the ideology it opposes are false?" It just takes it as given, without needing to provide evidence, that all of feminism's assertions are true, and therefore only the smallest pretext for dismissal of an opposing argument is needed. 68.58.57.85
 * They aren't, but the monster who wrote this hate article is. --06:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One day, one day, these drive-by IPs will not be hard of fucking thinking. One day - David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Might we need a "What about the menz?!" template to go with the "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALwiki?" template? EVDebs (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Feminist theory DOES NOT accurately model the world and the statements it makes about the world are either unfalsifiable or quickly shown to be false. - Don't go full retard. You never go full retard. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

One day feminists will actually listen to what MRA people have to say rather than making them out to be some sort of misogynist bogyman. One day.


 * Why not actually address some of the points the poster above made? I'm not saying he's right on all of them, but simply dismissing them out of hand proves him right on that at least. Mcc1789 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not even wrong example
Under the "Common MRA characteristics" section, the last point listed in "Denying patriarchy, claiming that it hurts men anywhere near as much as women" which is linked with the "Not even wrong" article. I think its correctness or incorrectness can be determined. Aside from that,I've seen many feminists agree that patriarchy hurts men too, such as in the ways you discuss in the next section, "Various claims." So, I don't think it can be called "not even wrong." I have removed that link for now. Mcc1789 (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've taken it out again.  09:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I seriously the only one?
Am I really the only one in here who sees the barely concealed misandry in this article? I mean, I'm not even into this sexism claims bullshit (Both sides are pretty much a complete cluster of fucktards who claim to be the biggest victims), and I'm certainly not in favor of the MRM, but it is simply impossible to read this article and the feminism one without drawing severe comparisons. While the Feminism article gloats in the superiority of the movement and its achievements, barely touching its subjects of criticism and often disregarding them as quickly as they're brought up, this one seems to make it its personal mission to attack and destroy every claim made by the MRM, even if it is not a claim that is directly related to the MRM but to the real situation of society in the modern world. For example, there's a part that recognizes both that men are in higher risk of getting either physical ailments and growing mental instability and yet women are often the center of attention in health programs; but tries to justify this partiality with how women need reproductive health and how men got Viagra out of the deal. So in the end there's really not a reason for men to get the short end, it is just about how men got a, frankly very superficial, benefit. How is the treatment of an issue a sign for equality, or even superiority in the system? Especially when we consider the treatments women have also got for their sexual dysfunctions due to menopause? Are we seriously doing that? Are we seriously derogating real issues of our social organization with such arguments? How exactly does "I got the life expectacy but you got the cock lift" is gonna help us get to a higher state of conscience about this issue? Where's the part about feminists protesting a redefinition of rape that would make it possible for a man to denounce a female aggressor and that their argument against it was that men could use it to falsely accuse a woman, as if to say that women would not use the current one to falsely accuse a man? That's a real occurrence, and yet it is never really addressed in either article. I ask this because as a man that fully endorses equality and women's rights I feel betrayed by seeing "rational" people try to talk off true problems that affect everyone, including women, by making it, again, about what women didn't get, by how they're victims. And isn't being a victim the same as being an object that is being acted upon by an agent or a situation? How is exactly all this feminist BS empowering women by making every claim about inequality about how they're victims? I just see it very conflicting, they can have power over anything, until their condition as victim is of benefit. Seriously, how is this: http://manboobz.com/ supposed to not be offensive? 201.141.29.247 (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you need to reread. The article admits that not all men in the so-called MRA are misogynists and even goes out of its way to point out that there are groups that try to debate the gender roles of men and how these have an adverse affect on the population (i.e. the reluctance to see men as victims in rape or domestic violence). That being said, this site is primarily focused on combating fairness bullshit. And it's hard to argue that a large part of MRA is merely reactionary backlashes against the progress of the feminist movement. And while the feminist movement has had a long and arduous process towards equality, the MRA has (in certain segments) been simply a tool to keep one's place on top. It is for this reason that there might be more criticism in this than in the other. If you think we could have a better article though, please make contributions. Better to edit and be edited. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 04:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. --Kahran042 (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Five months later

 * Really, Captain Swing? If nothing else, compare the language style:
 * "Feminism is a philosophy rooted in promoting the equality of women to men. It also promotes reassessing the value of that which is conventionally perceived as "female". For example, women are often associated with emotion, men with logic and rationality. In Western cultures, emotion is often dismissed, or even held in disdain, and had never been considered an important part of morality and ethics. Feminism questions both sides of that equation: that women are more emotionally driven, and that (therefore) emotion is somehow "less than". "


 * versus,


 * "The men's rights movement (also known as men's rights activism (MRA), masculism or "The Men's Human Rights Movement"[1]) is a collection of people, mostly men (duh), who believe that social, legal and economic discrimination against men qua men is present in society to the extent that fighting it deserves an organized effort mirroring feminism."


 * and,


 * ''"As the movement found the internet, a new breed of men's rights proponents found a venue for a highly anti-female view of "men's rights," no longer just focused on generally accepted inequality (like family court issues), but an overall idea that men have it bad because of women. Wonder if they'll miss all the boot-knocking.
 * Critics of both camps of the movement liken it to reverse racism and argue that men who subscribe to the ideology are merely trying to hold on to privilege granted them by a long history of patriarchy. The term "movement" is itself challenged, since "men's movements" function more as a social salve,[2] rather than actually redressing inequality in the overall social structure. There remains relatively little barriers to men's achievement in the world compared to women's, and few real areas where one can demonstrate a "lack of equality.""''


 * This is thinly veiled sarcasm. "Duh"? When's the last time you have ever seen this word in a piece of academic writing? And if occasional lip service to MRA's position and pretension of neutrality is "out of their way", then I feel speechless.
 * After some time I spent going through this site, it seems such unprofessional language as "shite" and "fuck" is everywhere. Well, "rational" as in "rational wiki" might indeed be a poorly chosen name when neutrality is openly discarded, it seems "wiki" is even poorer choosing of word.
 * 202.171.163.7 (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is not neutral and doesn't claim to be neutral. 17:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed I learnt that when I got to know the site a bit more. That's why I say "wiki" is as poorly chosen a name as is "rational". And that is not the reason to include swearing words and words like "duh" and "lol" in an article. Furthermore, it is only tolerable when dealing with groups of people who have so little merits in their arguments that they deserve the taunting. The Men's Right Movement isn't such a group. The claims and refutation section admits that they have a point about prison sentence, divorce and custody laws, domestic violence, etc, which constitute the central idea of the whole movement. To use such assertions as "(there are)few real areas where one can demonstrate a "lack of equality."" on this subject is unacceptable and isn't explained away even if neutrality is forsaken.
 * Furthermore, forgive my lack of knowledge, butis it representative of feminist worldview to attribute every female privilege as patronising and objectifying women and hence not really privilege at all, and every male privilege as evidence for the "Patriarchy" and ghastly oppression of women, as this article seems to do? As a side note, do you consider the way males gave up their spot on the lifeboat to women and children in the film Titanic is condescending or patronising to women? Thank you.202.171.163.7 (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Wiki" is a poorly chosen name? Come again? A wiki is a collaboratively edited website. It doesn't mean "a clone of Wikipedia", so complaints that a wiki is not written in a academical style are ludicrous. I wonder what will be your reaction to the TV Tropes Wiki...--ZooGuard (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

All right, kids. I'm a serious fan of this site, and I want to make the suggestion that we (you people) make a new category, because the dude's critique from above is pretty freaking accurate. I suggest not labeling it only as "Sexism", because it's not all sexist. MRAs occasionally have some really good arguments, and many were listed, and deemed good, and it seems odd that the tone was so intent on deriding it at every point and turn. I'm not saying the movement doesn't have dipshit members, but damn people, give them a fair shake. Hence, make a separate category for the non-bullshit arguments and one for the others. While there is a good amount of mental retardation here, the same could be said for certain sects of Feminism (which I may add some criticisms of at a later date). But to claim this is all simply sexism as implied by the category, is simply, well, sexist 06:13, 9 May 2013
 * A category does not necessarily reflect on the entirety of the topic covered by the article. For example, the New Deal article is in Category:Pseudohistory because of the conspiracy theories attached to it, despite the fact that the New Deal most certainly happened.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Give me some help?
I've heard the "female viagra" cabal from feminists before. How would that even work? It's nonsensical, like demanding "male IVF treatments." For all the anger over sexual education among libs, they could use some here.
 * http://lmgtfy.com/?q=female+viagra 01:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so, I kind of actually know about this argument, and it actually doesn't have to do with literal female viagra. It's actually a reductive failure to properly make a DIFFERENT argument: what happens when people repeat the general idea too much and somebody who doesn't actually get it picks it up and tries to use it on their own. OK SO, there is a trend that even if women have a concern, if men have the same concern, their demands are heard much more loudly and their needs filled in a natural, immediate way where women may sometimes need to fight centuries of denial of their problems to even make it known that a problem exists. The example for this often given is female sexual dissatisfaction, which at least in western society comes from the Victorian idea that sex is the penetration of a penis into a vagina. This is not enough stimulation for most women to bring them to orgasm, and the branding of female genitals and sexual pleasure as unspeakable or at the very least whoreish and unattractive led to the clitoris being pretty widely neglected. So if a dude couldn't get it up, it was a tragedy and therefore sex couldn't happen. But if the woman wasn't able to be aroused, the act was still considered a sexual success and that she should be satisfied even though her needs weren't met. Or better yet, not be 'satisfied' at all because it wasn't a woman's place to be. If this all seems really cavemanish and gross, bear in mind that this attitude persists today in many cultural ways (the idea that very few women are seen in media with sexual agency that's not branded as bad or at least threatening or not there for the enjoyment of a straight male audience, for example) and was the general understanding of things in wider culture as little as fifty years ago. That's not a lot of time. So this whole long big text dump argument gets reduced to WHERE IS THE FEMALE VIAGRA by people who don't actually know the whole story, or are tired of explaining the whole thing and have given up to be lazy about it. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR longissimus non legeri 01:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I heard that using caps makes your argument stronger and makes you appear more knowledgeable. Acei9 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool Story, Bro --Revolverman (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that the best you can do? Disappointing. Acei9 08:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ace, what the fuck are you even trying to say? That you don't think the argument is legit? That you don't think that I'm legit? In a topic that you really don't know anything about, you just felt so absolutely moved to comment here so uselessly? Contributing absolutely nothing? Can you keep your shit on the bar and off of talk pages? It's not like you actually contribute to articles anyway. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 13:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Please advise me when I hit the contrib limit which allows me a comment. I didn't know I had to make 'x' amounts of contribs before I made 'y' comments. Sorry, my bad. Didn't mean to MAKE an ISSUE. Acei9 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you actually six years old. The point is not that you didn't make contributions. The point is that you traipse onto talk pages to say banal useless garbage and I have no idea why you think this is okay. If you actually, maybe, for once, said an elucidating comment on an actual topic or at the very least admitted that you don't know shit and humbled the fuck up about yourself, the posts you make on talks would not be useless. But you don't. You come in here like some kind of sitcom character nobody likes douchy mc asschunks and expect a laugh track to your horrible garbage. Please go away unless you have something constructive to add.±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 13:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very upset by what you just said. But I don't "traipse" into situations. I saunter and strut like a cocksure John Travlota while carrying my knob. Acei9 04:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What you said is true. but it's also legitimate to ask where actual female viagra is, since, as my LMGTFY shows, it's possible. 06:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: viagra doesn't create arousal, but rather vasoconstriction. This makes it easier to achieve and maintain erection.  So it doesn't make you horny, but if you're on it and you get horny, your horn will be as stalwart and valiant as Siegfried and Galahad combined.
 * We don't actually have a drug that creates arousal (and viagra was initially blood pressure medication, until marketing found out it made your dick hard, so to speak). So making a female equivalent of viagra can't simply be blamed on neglect.-- "Shut up, Brx." 08:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, considering what I've just said, we do have viagra for women: lube -- "Shut up, Brx." 08:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Functionally speaking, viagra and artificial lubricant fulfill the same purpose-- "Shut up, Brx." 17:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No they don't. 20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh. Coulda sworn this was the Saloon Bar.  Weird.-- "Shut up, Brx." 08:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * that's nice, brx, but you missed the point. The point is that sex is (wrongly) considered most legitimate penile -> vagina, and when a man can't bring his penis it's something usually treated with sympathy and considered legitimate enough to get medication for, whereas if a woman chronically can't bring her vagina, well, the stereotypes of 'tight pussy,' or 'going in rough' suggest that women's needs are subordinate to man's needs and she should just grit her teeth because the dude doesn't 'need' her to be ready to inflict sex upon her, rather than her bringing half of sex to the table herself. Saying that 'but we need to talk about literal female viagra' is sort of like saying that we need to talk about 'actual welfare queens' in a debate about unemployment rates because some yahoo doesn't understand that the argument isn't actually about them.±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 13:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This yahoo regrets his incursion among the gifted HOUYHNHNMS. But please, enlighten me.
 * What is this talk of female viagra about? You say it's about inequality in sexual intercourse, that a man's pleasure takes precedence over his partner's, and as a result, society has brought forth medication to enable men to overcome erectile dysfunction, ignoring a woman's needs.  Is that what you are saying?
 * And are you then saying that society has not made comparable efforts to improve the sex lives of women?
 * If that's what you're saying, then I don't believe you're exactly correct. As I mentioned parenthetically, viagra as we know it was something of an accident.  A scientist didn't sit down and decide to make penis pills.  Rather, blood pressure medication was discovered to be effective in treating erectile dysfunction.
 * Moreover, a somatically similar analog exists for women, at least in terms of heterosexual vaginal intercourse. Lubricants such as KY jelly allow for sex when the desire is present but the physical means are lacking.
 * Or are you saying that this is about the orgasm, and that viagra, meant for vaginal intercourse (really, any penetrative intercourse, but for simplicity's sake let's focus on vaginal), is the culmination of society's prioritizing the male orgasm?
 * If that is what you are saying, then I would point to the fact that the vibrator has been in existence long before viagra. Of course, I must concede that it was originally conceived for the fictional and highly sexist diagnosis of female hysteria.
 * If none of this is relevant to what you're talking about, then I would beg that you condescend to explain it to me. Or at least, if you lack the desire to assist me, you could  deign give me a link to a web page that could do so in your place.  Thank you-- "Shut up, Brx." 17:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Brx, you're missing the point by a long way. True, viagra doesn't create sexual arousal where there is none, but it does promote the physical effects of arousal, the enjoyment of sexual stimulation and orgasm.  Lubricant doesn't (directly) do any of these things; it simulates the vagina's readiness for sex rather than actively promoting it.  It's only equivalent to viagra if you think that the only purpose is making penetration viable.  This is an example of what Knight's talking about: the attitude that it doesn't matter whether a woman enjoys sex or whether she suffers from sexual dysfunction, cause she can just lube up and get on with it.  If you looked at some, or even just the first one, of the results showing up in the LMGTFY link above, you'll see that there is both demand for and ongoing research into drugs that could boost female libido and/or treat women with sexual dysfunction, amid opposition from some quarters arguing that society could collapse if women enjoy sex too much.  20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are using the wrong lube? http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-relationships/sex-potions Acei9 04:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad somebody clicked on that, after i went through all the trouble of creating it. 02:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Define achievement
"There remains relatively little barriers to men's achievement in the world compared to women's....."

Please define achievement - without resorting to gender differences about what the goals of life may be. 82.2.75.224 (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Constantly equal scale
Women clearly dealt with sexism in the past. Anyone who denies this would be a moron. But the thing everyone overlooks is how the sexism directed towards women was just as much sexism directed towards men. People always visualize things on a scale facing up ,-' with gravity pulling the heavier side with more 'rights' down. But in truth the scale should be represented on it's side, with both sides remaining relatively equal, because when you move things around they don't disappear.

These analogies will make more sense with this simple anecdote. A boy is born in the 1950s, wants to have kids and a wife that works so he can stay home and watch them. Well guess what, he can't. Women had that role. And what of a woman who wanted to work? Unfortunately the picture has always been painted that men had more opportunities, but it's not really true.

I am a man, and I dealt with this male role as a child. Being a boy, it was almost essential that I play football, wear ill-fitting clothes, and like the color blue and other 'manly' things. If I chose another route the word queer comes to mind. Of course though, no one sees the boy who wants to be 'girly,' who enjoys dressing well or feminine, enjoys Broadway music, prefers pink but ends up being forced to live a manly ideal as being a victim. Only the girl who wants to be manly and play football is seen.

At every school I've gone to, there have been special engineering groups for girls, special feminist classes for girls, constant support about being truthful to yourself, and nearly every other possible club or group you can imagine. There were no cooking classes for men who wanted to learn to take care of themselves, knitting classes for men, or anything that is feminine. It's like women get the man stuff and the woman stuff, but men only get the men stuff.

The thing I hate the most is the constant litany of oversexualization of women in the media as if men didn't have to deal with the same fucking problem. Have you ever seen Men's Health? Have you ever watched a movie? Men are always muscular, well defined jawbones, rugged, strong, and almost never pictured as weak with exceptions being the wise-man. And of course people overlook it because women are never shallow and never pay attention to male image. Only men are shallow because we don't care about personality ever. No man has ever felt insecurities rivaling those of women because of weight issues or image issues.

Wherever we see inequalities for women a same weighted inequality crops up for men, it just appears different. The workplace example earlier is still prolific. It's almost shameful to be a man who wants to be a houseman or whatever you call it. It's always assumed that the right to work is a right, and not the need to work. It's only a right to work if we have a right to deny it and not be accused of being a terrible man.

I'm all for women being able to pursue the same things as men, and the right to be as manly as they want and as smelly as they can be, but it needs to go both ways. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Bolshak34 / talk / contribs
 * So, what you're saying is that effeminate men have to deal with a lot of shit for being unmanly. Also, feminism is totally cool, but we should work on forming a masculinism as well, if only to stand up for aforementioned effeminate men. Did I get that right?
 * Let me also just add that as a man in this day and age it has now become totally cool to cook and it's not difficult at all to get cooking classes. We still don't have a lot of recognition for knitters (probably because nobody really cares about knitting), though we do have a lot of recognition for taylors, on the upside, so it's all good on the clothes making front! Cheers. Nullahnung (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, addressing these issues is among the goals of feminists. Many feminists have noted that not only have women been seen as inferior, but so as femininity, which also hurts feminine men.  Julia Serano is an excellent example; her book Whipping Girl focuses on what she calls "the scapegoating of femininity."
 * This argument would hold water if masculine women weren't derided just as much as feminine men are. 64.134.234.80 (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By contrast, much of the men's rights movement is about misogyny, not equality. You might want to consider who actually addresses the issues you have.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  19:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "much of the men's right's movement is about misogyny, not equality"
 * Bullshit, Wehpudicabok. No prominent MRA community endorses anything even remotely misogynistic. By "much of", I can only presume you mean "a tiny but vocal minority of", which applies equally to feminists. 64.134.234.80 (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This argument comes up all the time. I don't think anybody denies that patriarchy limits men as well as women, but the "just as much" or "just as bad" claims simply don't stand up to scrutiny.  Plus there's an undertone of "feminists have nothing to complain about because blah blah blah men aren't allowed to knit", an attitude which generally tends to hinder progress for either gender.  21:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One, the word "patriarchy" itself invites defensiveness because it implies that men are responsible solely or mostly for the state of affairs in which we find ourselves, which is wrong. Two, men don't have it "just as bad" as women. Arguably, they have it worse, because even if you disregard the myriad minuscule as well as massive advantages held by women, the mere fact that a man, at any time, for any reason, can be sent to die in a foreign field, trumps pretty much all disadvantages women have, put together. Three, just as you argue that few (I'm being generous here and inferring that by "nobody" you mean "a negligible number") feminists deny that "patriarchy" hurts men, I can argue that a negligible number of MRAs actually deny that feminists have something to complain about. 64.134.234.80 (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement?
"In 2010, 1.27 million women were forcefully penetrated and 1.27 men were forced to penetrate."

Is this a typo or an intentional crack? While I understand the purpose of the statement, if it is an intentional joke, it does sort of undermine the accuracy of the article given how it is presented, especially since the report cited in the next sentence certainly contradicts that, to any reasonable account, stating that 2.2% of all men have reported being "made to penetrate an intimate partner".
 * Looking over the numbers in the papers, it actually appears that 1.267 million men were forced to penetrate someone in 2010 and 1.270 million women were forcibly penetrated. My guess is that the writer's intention was for both the numbers to be millions, but didn't explicitly mention it in the second.  Thanks for pointing this out, and don't forget to sign your comments with "~" (without the quotes) so we know who is posting and when.  Shadow of Lords talk  16:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like an apologetic...
"In all species of mammal mothers play a bigger part in rearing the next generation than fathers, also in all human cultures the mother is the primary care giver in most families. Therefore there is a case for suggesting women are biologically better suited to be primary carers for children."

This almost seems to be an attempt to handwave the issue of family court bias against the father via appeal to nature. What do you guys think? I personally think that the article ought to acknowledge that there is at least one or two places in which women hold an edge. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was just bullshit, and I removed it. Genes may code one way but there are plenty of exceptions that arise from the complexities of human culture.  Trying to base laws on genetics is essentially eugenics.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  03:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, though there is one last point of issue I take with that section. It claims that biased family courts are rarer and easier to challenge. I found this RW page trying to look up the Voice for Men blog (I noticed its libertarian flavor right away), which does have one particularly nasty horror story about how Child Services of New York state went to great lengths to take a guy's daughter away from him on his ex-wife's order. I can't vouch for the veracity of the claim, but a Youtube video showing them nitpicking over all his actions to get "evidence" of being an abusive father was cringeworthy. So I am thinking there's more to this than "less common and far easier to challenge" lets on. At the very least we ought to avoid hyperbole in this particular instance. If I find the video I will link. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not completely gone. But I laugh when MRA's think that old data of women winning the majority of family courts is proof of "female privilege." Osaka Sun (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. You laugh? check your privilege.
 * The trouble with the custody angle is that prior to the mid 20th century, the father was the default custodian of children, kinda like a de facto "owner" of them, and got the kids near 100% of the time. When that ended, they went to the "most suitable parent" model. Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Linking to Wikisource
The Bax links should be to wikisource. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism) Is there a way to do that with the tags or something similar? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can make Template:Wpl link to other Wikimedia projects by providing it with the appropriate prefix, e.g. but the way it's formatted will create the impression that it's a link to an Wikipedia article. I suggest using direct external links or creating , analogous to Template:See-wp.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Men's rights and clothing
In the Western world if a woman wants to dress in a 'mannish' suit, nobody comments.

If 'a chap' decides to wear 'female' clothes (outside panto and 'traditional drag' - Dame Edna Everage, the 'headmistress' of St Trinians etc) they are considered 'most peculiar.' 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? Google "women wearing mannish clothes"Dowdicus (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with teh OP. Cept the problem isn't "men's rights" it's that women are seen as inferior, so any man doing a woman's job, or wearing women's clothing is belittling manliness.  I doubt you'd find any men's right group in support of a guy acting girly. [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  17:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I googled the phrase Dowdicus recommended, and got an Indian fashion designer who makes some pretty awesome stuff. Doesn't say anything about the issue that women wanting to be like men is complimentary, but men dressing like women is derogatory, but it's pretty cool anyway. --Kels (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Layout
I think the side-by-side is pretty lousy and lazy. It's a way to try to get out of writing actual coherent structure for that section (e.g. "Many claims center around perceived fairness...", etc).

Would anyone object to major rewrites and reorg?--talk 02:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Not I," said the Fly. --Kels (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do. 12:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence
On the whole, an excellent article. There is one issue I'd like to raise though - under the "Goals" section, this sentence appears in the rape section:

"The very notion we should treat rape victims differently from any other victim of a crime (by assuming they are lying, rather than the other way around) is indicative of the real attitude of our criminal systems."

In my opinion, and from a purely legal standpoint, this sentence needs to be changed. The presumption of the innocence of criminal defendants is a common feature of criminal justice systems, and necessarily includes the right of the defendant to claim that the crime never took place. Victims of crime, like any other witnesses, are assumed to be either lying or mistaken unless and until their evidence (usually in combination with other evidence, as eyewitness testimony is not the most reliable) proves the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We should, and do, seriously investigate claims of rape in the same manner as other crimes, but from the perspective of the judge/jury, skepticism towards the claims of witnesses (including victims) is (and must be) the first response.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. It's a touchy subject, but that's a product of the adversarial trial model. Pascal yuiop (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, presumption of innocence does not mean victims & witnesses are "assumed to be either lying or mistaken". That's pretty much the opposite of what it means.  It means, regardless of the nature of the evidence, an accused person cannot be legally treated as guilty until convicted within the relevant due process.   12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so I'm prepared to admit that I'm advancing a somewhat... hardline stance on the presumption of innocence. I have plenty of quotes I could dig out, if it helps? At any rate, criminal courts certainly do not take witnesses at face value and accept their testimony unquestioningly. A minor change is all that would be necessary - the line "by assuming they are lying, rather than the other way around" seems to imply that courts assume that witnesses are telling the truth. If this was the case, we wouldn't have cross-examination. Pascal yuiop (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So make a minor change. What's stopping you?  17:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Military Conscription
It is not the true that in most western countries military conscription is banned. Instead, it is just suspended, meaning that it can be put into effect from one day to the other. These countries are for example Germany, France, Italy, USA; compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Countries_with_and_without_mandatory_military_service

I've read somewhere that it is also suspended in Sweden, but in case of a conscription coming into effect both genders will be drafted.

It also a relevant topic of discussion in countries where it hasn't been suspended. Sweden and the US does not make up the entire world. 79.205.249.119 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

MRA characteristics
This is perhaps the most immature criticism I have ever read.
 * Thanks. We try. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 03:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It really shows. Thanks for being so blatant and immature and one-sided. It really brings much needed attention to Men's issues and a lot of the farce that female supremacy advocates advance. Thanks.
 * Shut up and make me a sandwich. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 10:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (pic) Take a survey (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mature, as expected. It's not like it's possible I might not actually be part of this scary "MRA movement," and perhaps just see this as childish name calling and social taunting on a grade school level? Because all men are MRA's, the pigs.69.43.88.2 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you are part of the movement, aren't you? Hipo crite 23:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, we are all open to constructive criticism. Where is this article immature? How could this be improved? If you can provide us with valid reasons to change it, we'd be more than happy to, yet all you do is describe the article as "immature". So, what are the major issues? Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect a serious answer to that. Scarlet A.pngbomination 13:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, to be honest [[File:Non.gif]] Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is fairly biased and has a fairly condescending tone. I don't support MR movements, but the least you could do is try to write an article without smug contention. And Hipocrite, try not to take the writing so literally.69.43.88.2 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's slightly better, but could you please point out exactly what parts make it like that? Besides, we have refuted the areas that require refutation, and yet you have done nothing to poke any holes in our refutations. You're trying to make a point without any evidence. In addition, we are not meant to sound mature, professional and neutral like Wikipedia- we take on a very clearly Snarky Point of View in cases like this. Moreover, if this article was as bad as you made it out to be, do you think we would give any of their ideologies a chance (like we do), or would we just go "nope, they're all stupid"? Finally, and this is pretty important, but did you actually read the whole article? Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Various Claims
Might something be added to this section to address the "1.27 million men forced to penetrate vs 1.27 million women raped in 2010" sentence? The chart on page 18 of the referenced CDC report shows lifetime statistics, presenting a comparison of 5.5 million men subjected to being forced to penetrate at some point in their lives vs 14.5 million women subjected to "completed forced penetration" at some point in their lives (the number is given as 21.8 million for 'rape,' though I don't know enough about statistics to understand how the numbers add up to this). I can add something, but I'm new here and this will be my first edit, so I wanted to bring the issue up on the talk page first. Dowdicus (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've actually dealt with the 2010 NISVS myself quite a bit. The actual figures are 1.267 vs 1.270 specific to 2010. The problem with the lifetime figures is the 2010 NISVS split childhood victims of each gender into three age groupings and then excluded two out of three for males. So basically it's like looking into three rooms on each side of a hallway to see how many people are in a house and skipping two rooms on one side. Shadowex3 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While the 2010 NISVS does show that incidents of rape among men are higher than prior conclusions were, and that's an important discussion we should be having with more studies done on the topic, maybe the article should note that MRAs are still drawing incorrect conclusions from the data? A popular meme has showed up in MRA circles that "40% of rapists are women" which isn't something they could possibly have learned from the available data. The assumption at work seems to be that every rapist will have precisely one victim, which is kind of ridiculous on the face of it. Radical Pacifist (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Having seen the data myself it actually is a perfectly valid approximation. The calculations start by taking the last 12 months of male rape victims (hidden away under "other assault: forced to penetrate") and applying the CDC's long term data that 80% of male victims reported a single female attacker. To rebut that you need to claim that even though 80% of male victims have always reported a single female attacker suddenly that changed massively for one single year.
 * So you say it's a "perfectly valid approximation", huh? Here's the CDC's own take on the 40% thing: http://www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/1lq3n3/cdc_responds_are_40_of_rapists_women/
 * Go read it. Nullahnung (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding my point of contention; I'm not saying the 80% of men reporting a single attacker are lying, I'm pointing out that MRAs have been using this data to claim 40% of rapists are women. And they have been doing that (http://i.imgur.com/wd4XiOd.jpg). 80% of male victims reporting a single attacker is not the same as those 80% of men stating their attacker only had one victim. The MRAs simply don't have that kind of information, they're substituting reasoned argument for speculation.
 * Furthermore, the 40% number hinges on a second factor which is the MRA contention that half of all rape victims are male, which I'm extremely skeptical of. The conclusion was arrived at by comparing the twelve month estimate for men forced to penetrate with women forcibly penetrated, seeing the two numbers are similar, and concluding that the lifetime estimates must in reality be similar too. On the face of it, that's pretty obviously just bad statistics.
 * It's then attempted to square this away by citing a 1997 study which speculates the huge difference between men and women's views on their childhood sexual abuse stems from either a failure in measurement techniques or men being more unwilling to disclose the information. I can actually see how that's true, since men who are sexually abused as children tend to be treated as if they'll eventually become abusers themselves. What I don't see is the relevance to the 2010 NISVS, which was conducted with adult victims of rape and sexual violence, not children. I'm also perturbed that MRAs are willing to believe that 76% of all adult male victims of rape will stop viewing their assault as rape but unwilling to give women the same sort of benefit of the doubt when they came up with their numbers. Brazenly declaring that women are responsible for 40% of the rapes in the US kind of attests to that, don't ya think? Radical Pacifist (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit, it took a while for me to parse both the CDC reply and your post here. To make sure, if I see it right, the major problems are that lifetime reports and 12 months reports were thrown together, and that the possibility that one perpetrator might have several victims was ignored, correct? Yeah, that is bad statistics. But while throwing together two different timeframes is never strictly scientific, I don't think it should be held impossible to infer information from it. Unless there has been a dramatic rise in male rapists forcing other men to penetrate, it is not unreasonable to estimate that the lifetime pattern might more or less also hold in the "last 12 months" timeframe. I also don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the amount of female multiple case rapists is in the same ball park as the amount of male multiple case rapists. So, at least in 2010 for the area of the report one could reasonably assume, but not scientifically prove, that 40% of rapists (using a saner definition of rape as the CDC...) are female. Of course, one could not estimate that the other way around for the lifetime timeframe.
 * While MRA use this data, personally, I don't think one needs to make interpretation of the data an ideological dividing line... Octo8 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is that there are two sets of lifetime numbers, the numbers the CDC reported and the numbers the MRAs inferred from the 12 month estimates. And yes, my initial point of contention is the graphic I linked to claimed 40% of rapists were women, which if true would mean every female rapist assaulted precisely one man, an uncharitable assumption at best. I'm not holding that it's impossible, I agree that the 12 month made-to-penetrate estimate being nearly on-par with the women's 12 month forcibly penetrated estimate while the lifetime estimates are widely divergent is odd. I'm not suggesting that 2010 was unusual in the extreme number of men who were raped that year, I think that'd be a difficult claim to prove. What I'm suggesting is that the assumption that 76% of men just stopped viewing their assault as rape is unproven and dubious at best. I don't really value that kind of conjecture, I need hard information before I accept that inference as fact. In a more partisan "gotcha!" sense, I also wonder why the MRAs who made that graphic don't apply that same level of skepticism to female rape victims. Radical Pacifist (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you mistake the calculation used by the MRAs. There are not two lifetimes estimates. It is not the pattern of the 12 months report applied on the lifetime report, but the other way round. Look at the 12 month report: The only alternative to most of the "forced to penetrate cases" being committed by women is that they are committed by other men. While possible, it is IMO more reasonable to assume that the pattern of the lifetime report (i.e. 80% of all 'forced to penetrate cases' committed by women) more or less will also hold in the 12 months report. That way, we would have 40% of all rapes (in the broader, saner definition of the word) being committed by women. This does not automatically translate to 40% of all rapists being women, yes, because one rapist can have multiple victims... but that's true for male rapists as well. Hence the second IMO reasonable assumption, that the amount of multiple case rapists is more or less the same among male and female rapists. If both assumptions hold (as I've said, neither of them scientific but IMO both reasonable), then indeed 40% of all rapists, at least in 2010, were female.
 * Personally, I don't think there was anything odd in 2010. There is a number of ways how the discrepancy can be explained: 1) under-reporting of male rape victims, as the MRA claim, and as truthfully will be a factor to some degree at least and 2) it is well possible that, just as female crime rates slowly creep closer towards male crime rates in general, there are more rape cases committed by women nowadays than there used to be. Of course, that's just a possible explanation. If that truly is so would have to be determined by more research. As generally more data here would be helpful, also to replace the "reasonable assumptions" with scientific fact... but well, in the absence of scientific fact, reasonable assumptions will have to do...
 * The really funny thing, in any case, is how much the MRA concentrate on the "40% of all rapists are women" claim. I mean, for their purposes "There are nearly exactly as many men raped than women these days, and yet it isn't even recognized as rape!" would be enough, and indeed is a valid social concern (especially the latter part is downright outrageous). They would have stood on entirely firm ground with that. But no, they had to play around with the data to get to a "see how bad women can be, too" conclusion... Octo8 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please please stop with the amateur statistics, you guys. Stop drawing conclusions from numbers you don't fully understand. Nullahnung (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The REAL question here is why the very idea that men are raped by women offends people so much that they become vitriolic and almost driven to violence when confronted with the evidence. For anyone who wants to put an end to rape culture there's absolutely no reason to fight this, it singlehandedly changes things from a rhetoric of "men bad women victims" to "we're all in this together". Shadowex3 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're building a strawman. It never was "men bad". Octo8 (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How about we stop with the "X amount of women rape" (which just spreads anger, blame and hatred), and focus on the "X amount of men are raped"- You know, actually helping out the victims, and trying to prevent mire of this? Isn't that a lot more helpful- and accurate? Also, could somebody please explain to me why the fucking CDC doesn't see "made to penetrate" as rape? I thought that rape was any form of non-consensual sex- regardless who penetrates whom. It seems to me that this is just a perpetuation of another sexist stereotype- i.e. the whole "women don't like sex as much as men, women are too weak and fragile to do such a thing", you know, that one. As you can see from this context, it's a double-edged sword. Also, just curious- does the CDC's definition count as a legal definition in the US? Like, if a man was forced to penetrate, and went to court about it, would the charge the rapist with rape, or just sexual harassment or something? I was pretty sure that it could still be rape, but now I'm a bit confused. Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle 13:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)