Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive1

3.2 million men
I took a quick look at the link that ToP removed, and it seems a bit misleading. The person who inserted it seemed to be implying that 3.2 million men experienced domestic abuse versus 1.9 million women, but that's the figure for all sorts of physical assault, including caretaker abuse as children, fistfights at bars, and what have you. The study does say that for women, 64% of that is intimate partner abuse, including rape, domestic violence and so forth. I can't find any support at all for the "men almost three quarters as likely to suffer domestic violence as women are each year" claim, and in fact the report states that in one year there were 4.5 million women assaulted by "intimate partners" versus 2.9 million men, and that rape numbers weigh heavily on the female side. So the report seems to suggest the opposite of what the poster claimed. --Kels (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also also, in my anecdotal (read:meaningless) experience, sane and competent divorced fathers usually obtain joint custody and play a large part on the raising of the children they had with their ex-wives. And to pile further dung upon the heap, also play an important part in the lives and upbringing of the children their second or third wives bring to their marriage. The sane ones, anyway.  02:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in my somewhat more relevant experience working as a legal secretary in family law for several years, most custody arrangements involve a joint custody arrangement, although primary residence varies depending on a number of things, unless there's abuse involved. In cases of abuse, often the victim would be the wife, but more usually the children, and during the years I was doing the job never of the husband.  Only one woman's experience, to be sure, but it's experience in both family law and child protection, so it's pretty relevant.  --Kels (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, my comment was only anecdotal. And not based on abusive households, just borken marriages, and then new marriages.  04:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy bigotry, Batman!
I came across some of these men's rights blogs and damn are they fucking sexist. They seemed to have some legitimate points about custody cases, but that was completely washed out by "Oh noez! The ebil feminazis are destroying civilization!" Going by their comments sections, they all seem to have some kind of magical, paradoxical standards for women -- no sluts, but you better put out! Virgins are great because they're not sluts...except when they don't put out. And they seem to have some kind of weird obsession with Russians and Asians. Is this standard fare or did I run into the really nutty blogs? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They are for men's rights, not equality. --85.76.220.87 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing as the massive persecution complex some Christians have. They have gotten so accustomed to the idea of wielding power that if they get the shorter end of the stick even just once, it's evidence of a massive conspiracy that is out to subdue them completely. Likewise, these idiots scream bloody murder if they see (some) women getting preferential treatment in just a single branch of law, then weasel their way out of any discussion about unequal salaries or the near-total absence of women in leadership positions. Röstigraben (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience with MRAs (I have mixed feelings about them), I'd say about 80% of what they say has merit, but they seem determined to say it in the most offensive way possible. For instance, if you've heard the A Voice for Men radio show, Paul Elam basically listed "lies women tell" at some point, as including "this is your baby" and "he raped me."  Now, I think that there are problems in our society with paternity fraud (which paternity testing is solving), and false rape accusations (which the Innocence Project is working on), but to reference this as if women as a collective are somehow responsible just turns people away from an otherwise important issue.--Mustex (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a MRA and a woman and I am inclined to agree with this criticism. There are a lot of issues that I agree that men get shafted in, but many other MRAs really *really* need a reality check, and stop blaming women for their ills. While I am critical of some of the things that other women do I am not compelled to chalk it up to the rest of my gender or even a majority. There are some really legitimate issues that are just...ugh...because they are all "feminism is like the illuminati!" It's not obviously, feminism did a lot of good things for women and it's not to blame for all of the misandry.(Just chiming in with my opinion) Lady Catherine (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New section #1
Some of the issues men's rights groups bring up are pretty legitimate and are not always knee jerk reactions to feminism. The problem with creating equality between two groups is that sometimes efforts to cause both groups to be equal oppress the formerly un-oppressed group. For instance

1.Circumcision is a violation of the rights of male children-Controversial, some people consider it to be a harmless ritual others consider it genital mutilation akin to a clitoridectomy.

2.The "wage gap" has either diminished to insignificance or has been created by lifestyle choices rather than active discrimination (i.e., women taking more time off for family, and getting maternity leave, resulting in slower advancement). This is often extended to saying that corporations got behind the drive for women to enter the workforce due to its potential to expand the labor supply and drive down wages-Actually true. One of the major reasons women make less on the dollar is that they often have gaps in employment (anywhere from 6 weeks to 3 months) that men do not have. As the woman is away from the company and is not doing anything for them, it makes sense an employer would pass them over in favour of a male who did not take that 6 week period off. Additionally, maternity leave can create financial strain for employers who have to give up an employee for a 6 week period and either have to temporarily hire someone to take their place or go without them.

3.The Violence Against Women Act, and primary aggressor laws (laws in some states requiring the man to be arrested in any domestic dispute call, regardless of who the aggressor is) create an environment in which violence against men is not taken seriously-Violence against men is not taken seriously. Women are just as likely as men to be verbally abuse and often times are equally physically abusive but rarely suffer any legal recourse and men very rarely have any resources to help them when they are abused. Additionally, female on male rape is virtually ignored by law enforcement agencies and the FBI doesn't even recognize it as a crime. Additionally there have been several cases where male rape victims have been accused of rape and recently here in Massachusetts there was a case where to 14 year-olds had sex and the male was arrested for statutory rape and the female was not charged with anything despite the fact that both teens were under the age of consent and the female (by her own admission) had initiated the sex.

4.Women are not held equally accountable for crimes-Again completely true. When a man and a woman are tried for the same crime the man will typically receive a jail sentence 30-50% longer than the woman. Interestingly this is due to latent sexism in the legal system as it is assumed a woman would not initiate a crime. However it still effects men more than woman.

5.Men have no reproductive rights, but women do (this usually leads to the claim that, if women have the right to abort pregnancies or put their children up for adoption, men should be able to declare a desire to opt-out of child support, providing they declare their intention to do so early in the pregnancy, to give the woman time to decide how it will affect her decision)-Seems to make sense. Most (sane) people would favour a man forcing a woman to get an abortion but if the man does not want a child he should not be forced to pay for it after it is born.

6.Laws related to child support and alimony allow women to "harvest" the incomes of men, even if the men have done nothing wrong (i.e., no-fault divorces), and often while denying men access to their own children-Alimony may have made sense in the 1950's when most women didn't have a career but today with most women working the idea that someone should get half of their ex husband paycheck is absurd and blatantly racist. While working as a private investigator I testified in court that a man's wife was cheating on him for a significant period of time. After the divorce was over my client's ex wife got custody of his children and a significant portion of his paycheck.

7.Men accused of rape are often fast-tracked for conviction, and even when they are not convicted often have their lives ruined by the mere accusation-Despite accusations of victim blaming in court there is rarely an assumption of innocence for the accused. Additionally ANY arraignment for ANY crime damages a persons reputation and makes it difficult for a person to find a job or get housing. A rape charge makes it virtually impossible even if the accused is found innocent. Additionally, the sex offender registry acts are blatant violations of the constitution because it required sex offenders to register for crimes that were committed before the act was passed, effectivly punishing them after they have already served their sentence.

8.Various statistics related to male health, life expectancy, and suicide rates. Testicular cancer kills roughly the same number of men every year and breast cancer does woman yet receives little in the way of attention, funding, or publicity. Males are four times more likely to commit suicide than female yet male suicide receives little attention.

9.Even though men are more likely to hold office, women are the majority of voters, thus giving their interests special attention -Yeah this just seems like a load of crap--BenB (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who added in that section. I actually agree with alot of that stuff too (to one degree or another), but I know the ideas would be unpopular here.  So, I figured I'd just present it as "here's what they believe," and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions, rather than start a long fight about it.--Mustex (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Versions, bias, etc.
While I don't think we should downplay the fact that "men's rights" is often a cover for sexism, I actually prefer this version to this one that it was reverted to. The latter - the one that appears to have approval - seems to just poison the well from the start by just dismissing it as a "backlash" against "alleged" discrimination. From the point-of-view of making a decent article I think it's best to set it up for what it is (rights pertaining to men exclusively/primarily) and then talk about the abuse, backlash and so on. No one would find this acceptable if it was written for an article on women's rights. ADK ...I'll sanctify your sheep! 12:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is a complex issue. I think it is fair to say that on some issues the "men's rights movement" has some valid complaints, on other issues they go overboard (e.g. needless demonization of feminism, which while it has many faults, has also done a lot of good.) I think we need to avoid the two extremes, of (1; many feminists) there is no sexism against men, only women; and (2; much of the "men's right's movement") there is no sexism against women any more, only men now. The reality is, that while society has made some big advances, there is still a fair amount of sexism against both sexes, and both feminists and the men's right movement have some valid concerns (even while they each, in their own way, tend to go overboard at other times.) 12:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I find that it would be easiest to take refuge in fact when it comes to complex or controversial issues. If there is a general "men's rights" or "mem's rights movement" article it should explain and explore the issues. Then any complaints levelled against people taking it too far should be addressed to those groups specifically. We don't address YEC in the Christianity article declaring all of religion to be bullshit because of YEC, we should treat this one the same. ADK ...I'll exemplify your pie! 13:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These people latch on to one single area - child custody - in which women indeed usually get the better deals, and use that to complain about a vast conspiracy that is putting men at a disadvantage in general. The propaganda starts already with their self-description as a "Men's rights movement", when what they actually want is the preservation of privilege. And I find the sentence "The men's rights movement is a response to feminism to make sure that male rights are not lost while women gain equality." remarkably stupid. Women gaining equality would, by definition, mean that they enjoy the same rights and status as men, so how can that lead to an erosion of "male rights"? Röstigraben (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in men's rights or women's rights, I believe in human rights. But I think there are areas where both sexes are disadvantaged. If you say, there are areas where women are disadvantaged in society, I agree with you. If you say, there are no areas where men are disadvantaged in society, I disagree with you. I think child custody is just one issue among many, there are others also. 13:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? There already is a section called "major claims" in the article. If you think you've got more issues, insert them. My point is that Odonnel's version of the intro is not better than the one we've got now, because it portrays the MRM's supposed grievances as genuine across the board, when their main claim - men now being the disadvantaged gender - is patently false. Röstigraben (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I prefer neither version. I think the latest version is too negative about the movement, while Odonnel's version took some of its more extreme claims at face value. I would prefer a more neutral approach, which recognizes that they have both some valid complaints but also that some of their claims are excessive (e.g. conspiratorial demonization of feminism). There are a lot of extremists in that movement, but there are a fair few extremist feminists too (e.g. Sheila Jeffreys) - should we make the article about feminism purely about the extremists, and ignore the much more reasonable viewpoints of the moderates? No; then why do the same here? 14:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy Bigotry, Batman, Indeed
This article as it is written appears to be a complete dismissal of the men's rights movement from the very first sentence, with very few citations. This makes RationalWiki look very bad indeed, more like a SelectivelyRationalWiki. Support or opposition to political movements is orthogonal to the core principle of skepticism. By backing a dog in a political fight, pages like this compromise the integrity of RationalWiki as a whole. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 68.4.192.188 / talk / contribs
 * u mad, bro? HollowWorld (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * HollowWorld, your response is barely coherent. What on earth are you saying? 12:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Allow me to partake in the rhetoric you often speak in. Anon, because of the likely carefully choosen wording of your sentence of which seems to contain a essence of something known as 'butthurt', I am inclined to inquire if you (as in u) are indeed rather mad, bro. HollowWorld (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your most recent response is as content-free as your previous one, despite taking up much more space. 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * INTERNET MARATREAN, DO YOU SPEAK IT? HollowWorld (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently not. But please don't just dismiss the BoN point there. I also agree that where RW goes into politics the idea of rationality goes often out of the window. ADK ...I'll meditate your cookie cutter! 13:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is often the case. 13:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay fine I will explain it to you, Maratrean. I am asking him if he feels offended by the snark in the article. "u mad, bro" is often used as a snarkish meme response to when people get overly offended ie butthurt. There, a lesson in internet. I have done my good deed of the year. Also, it's not exactly a valid point. He's just saying "well why do you have to be snarky in THIS article and not in others? HUH?"HollowWorld (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is valid because you wouldn't accept dismissing women's rights in the first sentence as a backlash, would you? See above for the more sensible discussion on the topic. ADK ...I'll toast your vomit! 13:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) You know HollowWorld, if you just chose to speak standard English, e.g. "Are you offended by the snark in the article?", everyone would understand you, and you wouldn't need to explain them at all. There is such an enormous variety of slang, "memes", etc., no one can know it all. And I find it very amusing that you think the Internet is a "language"; I always thought is was a network of networks built on the TCP/IP protocol suite. Grok-p? 13:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Maratrean, I find it hard to take you seriously when you're a protoprophet, no matter how joking your religion may be. I'm editing the feminism article so the poor Anon doesn't feel like we're giving undue attention to the negative aspects of men's rights. Also, it's not my fault that you had to make an issue out of this. You could have just gone "well ok" and instead talked about the Anon's issues instead of asking for me to elaborate on something that should have been quite clear. I am rather certain you have the ability to read. HollowWorld (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the Anon has a valid point. I agree with what Armondikov says. I don't think you've really addressed the Anon's point, you've just gone off on a silly edit spree of butchering the Feminism article instead. 13:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're still silly, sorry man. And it isn't butchering. I put in that men now have their own movement to keep their rights and that for some reason people think Wicca is the religion of feminism and ignoring the contributions of Pastafarian and Christian feminists. Either way, so long as we pander, right? HollowWorld (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thankfully others have seen fit to revert those contributions of yours. 13:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you implying my edits have no value, Maratrean? How about you go start a heteronormative article and stop picking at me, you old geezer. HollowWorld (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, so far you've been reverted by both Armondikov and P-Foster. I really don't understand the point of your childish insults. 13:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're on CP, but I'm not bitching about that? I don't get the point of your feeling of superiority. HollowWorld (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this "feeling of superiority" of which you speak? How about making the topic the issue rather than the parties to the discussion? 14:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about you go back to palling around with Andrew? I'm done, I can't listen to you anymore. HollowWorld (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which Andrew? You mean Schlafly? I have not been "palling around" with him. I have had a couple of brief Wiki-based interactions with him, a few months back, and that is it. Oh, and a bit more recently, a few weeks back, I sent him an email, and he never responded. What are you talking about? 03:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased and strange tone
I have been using this site for a few years now. Never would I have thought that I would see such a biased and irrational emotion-driven article on this site. For a wiki like this, is constantly saying things like "MRAs incessantly complain" or "The more batshit view held by MRAs include ideas that women usually lie about rape (see where this is going?)" really appropriate? They are all very opinionated, and the latter isn't even backed up by anything at all.

The MRM is often criticized for "whining", but bringing attention to the problems is just as important as actually fighting against them. You can't expect a Dutch citizen to change anything about how the US handles domestic violence.

As for the argument that MGM is not equivalent to FGM, that doesn't make circumcision any less of a problem. And besides, there are many forms of FGM. Comparing solely one form (removing the clitoris) to circumcision is dishonest.

Next, the suicide argument: "Where women tend to use more knives and pills (which fail quite often), men tend to use more guns and bridges (which don't fail nearly as often)." Again, this doesn't mean that the problem should be ignored. Some people say "women attempt suicide as a cry for help, men attempt suicide as a final solution". How do we know this isn't the reason why women tend to go for methods that fail more often? Shouldn't the chosen suicide methods between men and women require closer scrutiny, before just writing it off?

And finally, this page has a lot of rebuttals against MRA arguments. While some of them are correct, I can think of many other ways in which feminism should be criticized. Yet the feminism page has no such area?

Teraku (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wasting your time Teraku, this entire website is something out of an American college campus these days; it's run by SJWs who think white, heterosexual men are the scum of the Earth, that everything is America's fault and despite claiming to oppose racism, homophobia, sexism and imperialism (only when Britain, America or the Jews do it) think that Islam is the best thing since sliced bread. Trying to have a rational argument on here is like asking Stevie Wonder if he likes your outfit, I just hang out here to laugh at the nutters. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey right-wing nuts, most MRA folk are insane. Yes there are men's issues that should be brought to light such as male rape. Here is the irony, your type of nuts are the group that mocks male rape victims. In summery- Shut the fuck up. Any questions? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Exactly Teraku! "Rational" wiki my ass. Should be renamed "SJW-rant-inal wiki".


 * it's incredibly ironic that someone whose entire worldview is based on propaganda, to the extent that they think there's a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to steal their precious bodily fluids, would call others "nutters." Who here thinks heterosexual white men are bad? You are literally so gullible you've gone delusional. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Biased"? "Irrational"? "Emotion-driven"? Sounds a lot like the content of your post. In fact considering how long you claimed to have been using this site, I'm surprised to know of your stark inability to perceive the liberal bias that has abounded the place from the beginning. If you go to the /r/mensrights subreddit and A Voice for Men, which are the two main hangouts for the overall MRM, you'll see a lot of their efforts at helping men are really superficial and in no way geared toward helping men perceived as "feminine" or intersectionally marginalized categories like trans men and gay men of color. The people who actually do anything, the people who opened the first male rape crisis center, were feminists. The suicide argument is really just a common platitude they use to pretend like they care about men, when as usual they don't do anything about it.
 * If you feel like the feminist page deserves criticism, why don't you argue for it on the feminism talk page and source your information there? Withoutaname (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, my comment is biased. That's to be expected, my comment was written by me alone. On a talk page. I would expect better from a collaborative article on the main wiki itself.


 * "the people who opened the first male rape crisis center, were feminists." Rasmus Jonlund doesn't seem to describe himself as a feminist. But regardless, I am not criticizing feminism, so how is this relevant? The fact that I'm an MRA, doesn't mean I am against feminism. Nor does me being an MRA hurt feminism.


 * But because so many vocal MRA's are absolute misogynistic bell-ends, anyone who cares about addressing any gendered issues which are not women's issues are de facto evil rapists. That's why we have the 'egalitarians are nasty sexists' page here. 81.145.153.190 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * They say the exact same thing about vocal feminists, Chanty Binx in particular. They do not represent all of feminism, just like how misogynist MRA's do not necessarily represent the entire MRM. Teraku (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Besides, people who called themselves feminists, are the very people who went after Erin Pizzey, a woman famous for attempting to open one of the first male domestic violence shelters in the world. About a year back, a group of Canadian feminists went after CAFE, thus preventing them from actually doing the thing, that you accuse them of not doing. This just goes to show that feminism is a very diverse movement, and there are a lot of feminist groups that disagree with each other. It's not as black and white as you think.


 * And a correction, /r/mensrights is a general hangout for MRA's of reddit. Reddit is full of these so-called "inactivists", they are people who post about issues but don't do much about them. I don't think /r/feminism consists of much more than posting news related to feminism, and the occasional complaint about whatever. But that doesn't mean that feminists aren't doing anything. The same thing applies to the MRM. There are MRA's out there, doing stuff. As for myself, I've helped the movement as much as I can, but there isn't much more I can do. Reiterating what I have said before, I can't change US or UK laws, because I'm not a citizen of those countries. Do you expect me to move to the US to try and abolish the Duluth Model?
 * Teraku (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If we look also at the historical record, feminism is a discipline with strong academic roots behind it and a movement with a history of successfully combating discrimination against women in many social spheres, whereas movements focusing on the problems men have (or really any movement focusing on the privileged class in society: the white, the rich, etc) tend to either distract from feminism's main goals or even work to the detriment of more disadvantaged men. I encourage you to actually research and understand feminist concepts in academia, particularly their analysis of social structures and institutions that oppress gendered non-men, and try to get a feel for why they do the things that they do. If you've understood feminism and you have no qualms against it, you should check out the men's liberation movement which has had a better overall track record of solving the problems that more disadvantaged men face and with better cohesion with the feminist movement than the MRM has.


 * Of course it isn't black and white. But its more than just shitty people that make up the MRM, it's just a shitty ideology in general. The great thing also about feminism is its capacity for criticism and self-criticism, particularly the feminist critique of TERF ideology. I haven't heard proponents of the MRM remotely approaching the same level of criticism and self-criticism that feminism has provided.


 * I haven't seen you addressed AVFM and especially how it not only refuses to advocate for paternity leave, it also attacks maternity leave.


 * Seriously, no modern feminist uses the Duluth model anymore. It's interesting as an academic concept studied in isolation, but I haven't seen it implemented anywhere, in any legal or social context. The Duluth model has been abolished a long time now and the only ones bringing it up are -- you guessed it -- reactionaries. Withoutaname (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The past is not always the present. I do not see men as more privileged than women. I say this because women have more parental rights and the wage gap that is brought up the most in the states is enlarged and dishonest. Frankly i dont feel like joining a "movement" when i already have something to call myself: an MRA. I see it as someone who advocates for men's rights(basically a word for a verb) the same way that a feminist sees feminism as someone who believes in equality of the sexes(again a word for a verb). I dont see why i need to play identity politics with movements here or anywhere. I would call myself a feminist if i liked the idea of equality but I personally feel in an imperfect world id be an HRA(both and WRA and MRA). I would rather support more rights than trying to even things like selective service, the prison gender gap, ect. This also brings me to think about issues like the army, and other armed forces that need specific physical requirements that i feel should not be lowered to give women better chances in attaining those careers. I'm all for equality of opportunity but if you cant physically meet the standards then they shouldnt be lowered to help you. Also saying that MRAs dont accomplish things is alittle offensive consider there are situations where people just laugh at the issues. "I see everyday as internation men's day"- in response to someone talking about men's issues like suicide and low life expectancy ; "privileged class"-how you discussed MRAs movement ; i could show more if necessary.


 * What ideology. I thought being an MRA was just simply advocating for men's rights. Yes i do know that feminism is the belief of equality of sexes, but i dont know where you get the idea that being an MRA is a belief. Maybe you hit the issue on its head here though, MRAs do not self-criticize on the level that feminists do. That could be because of a number of reasons but the one i find the most obvious is the lack of either different MRAs or different MRA places. If there is only one or two popular "hangouts" for a group then they would probably all have similar beliefs.


 * I'd like to see these sources as i do not frequent that site. I consider myself an MRA but that does not mean i frequent AVFM, I did read afew articles by Allison Tieman there and didnt see anything blatantly wrong though. My personal beliefs towards those things is that i dont have an issue with parental leave but i do not think it should be paid.

172.56.12.166 (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW I agree about the strange and opinionated tone of this article. It's an embarrassment to a site called RationalWiki, and I'm saying this as someone with no involvement in MRM / MRA and no axe to grind. I'm from the UK, and here, while there have been one or two incidents of misogynists involved in MRA, generally people see it as an advocacy movement with some decent goals such as highlighting the poor legal status of men when it comes to child custody disputes. And I've never heard such groups (in the UK) say that "men overall have it worse than women", or "feminism is evil", or whatever, and that seems to be essentially what this article assumes MRA solely is. 54.95.229.84 (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the very biased view of this article. Also the quality of the prose is really awful, some example of poor word choices: These are not quotes from people, those are phrases from the article. So this is not only extremely biased it is also written very badly. It looks like some of the sections were copy/pasted from forums. Also: Citations from reddit posts?! Criticism sections are far longer than actual "claims sections". 99% of the article is criticism to the movement. Not to mention entire sections without references. I have seen posts on /r/feminism less biased than this article 84.18.145.145 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "overtly misogynist"
 * "blatantly sexist"
 * "So apparently idiocy is a long running problem"
 * "whom I refer to as MRAssholes,"
 * "Complete crap."
 * "oh noes!"
 * "Oh, and there's also ..."
 * "A crushing ignorance of history and/or culture is merely par for the course for antifeminist MRAs."
 * "instead of constructive discourse their response generally consists of hysterical ranting"
 * "And frankly, being hard does not make you "willing.""
 * "The more batshit view held by MRAs include..."
 * "A particularly odious form is the claim..."
 * All the biased phrasings you pull here as entirely justified by their context. Sorry your ideology sucks, stranger.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You honestly sound religious by the way that you suggest that everything is "entirely justified by its context!". That context being "all MRAs are automatically assholes, and anyone that's egalitarian is secretly an asshole!". Rdococ (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to state for the sake of balance anyone who says "the wage gap is nothing to do with sexism" I wouldn't take seriously neither would I take seriously anyone who said "the wage gap is all about sexism". Where as if someone said "the wage gap is down to a multitude of factors, one of which is sexism". I'd say now you're thinking, you're being rational and reflective. Where as this article seems to be just about the second statement, dismissing any other reason or looking for ways to. 77.98.148.212 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it more complicated? This entire thread is people complaining that the article says "MRAs incessantly complain", saying the issue is more nuanced, and then failing the explain that supposed nuance. Saying "the wage gap is down to a multitude of factors, one of which is sexism" doesn't inform the reader(s) what you think those factors are. 14:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Job choice for a start, I feel like I could list them, but they would just be dismissed or reasons to dismiss them would be looked for. Here is a video on the subject. https://youtu.be/BDj_bN0L8XM 77.98.148.212 (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Men's Rights, Gender, and Social Media
This book contains direct quotations about MRM arguments. Doing a side-by-side with the texts presented in the book would be much better than the current attacking of semi-strawmen. 19:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Circumcision "rational wiki" argument
"To be fair, there are several types of FGM, including some that don't remove any tissue"

This statement gives the MRA argument undue weight.

One of the main arguments I have when I butt against MRAs over circumcision is that they regularly claim that MGM is just as bad- or worse- than FGM. (Please note: I am against male circumcision and my own son is intact, so I am in no way arguing "for" circumcision). One of their common arguments is that "some FGM is only a pinprick". However, the pin prick approach is generally only done where FGM is illegal as a symbolic replacement for a more extreme type. The overwhelming majority of FGM currently practiced involves *at least* the total removal of the clitoris; pin prick falls under type IV which is the WHO's catch-all category which don't match the most common types (I, II, & III, all of which involve at least the total removal of the clitoris).

It's a *good thing* that pin prick FGM is rising, particularly if it means it's replacing the more extreme forms. But the reality is that there are literally hundreds of millions of women still experiencing the most extreme forms. In Egypt alone, there are ~30 million women living with infibulation. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111057041300060X has images of healed infibulation if you can stomach it)

The fact that FGM is an umbrella term that includes some rare forms of FGM which are more mild than MGM is completely irrelevant. When people are talking about stopping FGM, they are talking about stopping types I, II, and II, all of which have a *a vastly higher mortality risk* than MGM (which only has one form) and have a greater impact on sexual pleasure as well. No on cares about the pin pricks, in fact, plenty of local activists actively promote it as a replacement.

The problem with the MRA argument is that it deliberately downplays the significance of FGM in order to elevate MGM by comparison. This is horrible because the reality is that FGM is just incredibly horrific and downplaying it just to win an argument is morally bankrupt. ParentingWoo (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The argument that FGM completely removes sexual pleasure is usually wrong. At least from the sources that I have found. One study found that 90% of women who have had the clitoral hood removed still experience pleasure from sex, 86% can still orgasm. See "Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse?" Brian D. Earp. page 12. https://www.academia.edu/8817976/Female_genital_mutilation_FGM_and_male_circumcision_Should_there_be_a_separate_ethical_discourse. Sewblon (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Circumcision (male genital mutilation or MGM) is a violation of the rights of male children." This seems indisputable and should be credited as such in the same manner as the article admits the validity of MRA arguments on criminal sentencing. There's still plenty of nutjob MRA MGM arguments that the counterargument properly rebuts yet the core proposition--that amputating healthy genital tissue from infants of any gender is a barbaric and unethical societal practice--is logically unassailable and should be treated as such.

"If one thinks that there are limited resources to fight genital mutilation, then it's worth focusing more on FGM than MGM." In this context, this statement looks like a classic false dilemma; whether an act is wrong does not hinge on its place in a theoretical hierarchy of concerns, e.g., that sexual assault is a more pressing and immediate evil than mansplaining does not negate the latter issue's validity.

Ebonytoothpick (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * TBH it feels like this is just reverse whataboutism, you cant use "but think of the other party" as a rebuttal, not as a mens rights activist trying to ban male genital mutulation saying "its just as bad as female", and not as this article, claiming "fgm is far worse, its a non issue" Both parties are using whataboutism, mra's are in this instance trying to get something that is bad (you agree) banned. SO LET THEM, they have a point.

Does this really deserve silver?
I'm no MRA, but this article has a lot of unsourced statements and generalizations (the latter of which I cleaned up a bit), and in general isn't that great, with some unreliable references. I think we should downgrade this to bronze until the citations can be fixed. Thoughts? 18:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Iwillprobablygetbanned (Talk to me!)

Rational Humour?
I see in the RW talk pages rather earnest and serious comments...kind of like at Wikipedia. Here's the thing...I kind of have a humour first approach to RW because many of the articles subtly lampoon (lampoon lampoon...what an odd sounding word!) or ridicule the various bigots, hate freaks, busybodies, psychopaths, sociopaths and generally unpleasant and destructive people and groups being discussed. I love it, I think it's great. Nothing like having a good point and giggle session with a loved, or at least intimate, one at the expense of a pseudo-intellectual hate mythologizing trustafarian like Dick Spencer or the creepy Jared Taylor or that batsh*t insane MRA guy Paul something-or-other...the bitter bitter pseudoman who constantly displays his twisted hateon for femalekind. All the divisive bad vibers need to be laughed at is what I'm saying. We take the ones with influence and power seriously because they are dangerous and that's cool (taking them seriously I mean) so long as we don't actually GIVE them any undue influence or power over us. Makes sense, right? Of course it does...I wrote it! jk Peace out 1999.SpookMaster (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Double standard regarding reproductive rights
This is what I wanna talk about. RW's rebuttal is a bit flawed.

"If a woman feels compelled to have the child for religious or social reasons, that child was still the product of two persons, and the simple fact that she can "opt-out" (whether she chooses to or not) does not abdicate a man's responsibility. While a truly reliable, temporary male birth control is not yet available, men do have options, including using condoms and getting vasectomies"

According to RW, women should be able to legally get a physical abortion, but men shouldn't be able to legally get a financial abortion. Yes, men are responsible for their kids, but it's still a double standard. I'd love for someone to explain why it isn't. The "male birth control" part is especially jarring since it applies to women as much as men. Rational Skull (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidently you're new here. RW is not likely to be sympathetic to your views, and does not give (despite its name) the other side a fair hearing - it was established to oppose Christian fundamentalism (more or less) and of course that attracts mainly people with other left-wing views. It is also not entirely serious in parts. This article has lots of problems from the logical perspective, in addition to containing lots of unnecessary biased language.
 * There is no real argument for the double standard (actually, I can think of one, but I haven't seen anyone make it). The best thin is that RW ends their 'rebuttal' by mention 'what about adoption ...' - which makes the men's case even stronger. If women can give up the child even after birth (as they can), then so should men, end of story. Fall down (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My. Brain. Hurts. What the fuck is a financial abortion? I'm so fucking confused. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * its mra speak for not paying child support which is used to conflate it with reproductive rights Vorarchivist (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)