Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Men's rights movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon sex.svg

This sexism related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • This article tends to cause masses of butt-hurt whenever it is brought up. Bear this in mind when editing; specific gripes are unlikely to be new.

Education and sports[edit]

Lordy Lord, who was the Dumb Dumb that wrote the "Education and sports" subsection on the main page? Whoever they are, they must make Andrew Schlafly seem like a genius in comparison. MRAs argue that schools overrestrict rough playing in general, not just American football. Saying, "Football bad! Durr durr!" in response to the MRA argument is a red herring. Tigerlord (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, let our kids get concussions! Oxyaena Harass 10:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
American football is the most violent and dangerous sport in American schools, so obviously it's the focus of arguments. Unless the OP is more concerned about the violence in long-distance running, or high school chess players not being allowed to drop-kick each other? --Annanoon (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Ox, Anna: I'm not here to debate the safety of certain sports. I'm only here to point out the logical fallacy in RW's counterargument to the MRAs. Association football, hockey, wrestling, tug-of-war, tree climbing, and tetherball can also be considered roughhousing. But RW glosses over them to focus on American football. Imagine if people spoke out against the War On Drugs, and Donald Trump responded by citing the danger of krocodil, which is only 1 type of drug. That's what RW is doing here. Both your responses to me were pulled out of a donkey's rear end. Try again. Tigerlord (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tigerlord Yes, when you overgeneralize severe physical trauma and ignore a pattern of injury, then yes, you can get away with handwaving all concern away with the severe over-generalization of "roughhousing". Try again. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Comrade: Actually, I wasn't handwaving anything. "Roughhousing" is the term used by RW in the main article. I'm just conforming to standard terminology. See the left column here. Tigerlord (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I always feel football gets brought up because it's the quintessential American roughhouse sport, albeit stereotypical like sitcom families saying their kids should be involved in football all the time or dads being obsessed with football, but we should probably back up why we use the football example. I just know the idea that lamenting the discouragement from roughplay being detrimental to men is ridiculous in several ways (machismo isn't that amazing as guys say it is). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
What about drunks being obsessed with football....? Oxyaena Harass 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, and which gender comes to mind? Men. And drinking beer is considered manly too, isn't it? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 19:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
lots of drunks watch baseball too. This little section is getting off of the point with football. It is supposed to be about the complaint that schools try to restrict so-called normal rough behavior of boys. I don't know if they do. I do know that very few school boys play tackle football, which is the really dangerous form. There is no violent contact in touch-football, which is the only form of football that is allowed in physical ed courses. When I went to public school I didn't know anyone who was on the school football team, whose members numbered 20-30.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Especially when it causes problems. Oxyaena Harass 20:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Mario: Banning rough sports on campus would backfire, but in a different way than you might expect. If kids play rough on campus, they have access to 2 very important things: protective gear and school nurses. If certain sports are banned from campus, kids will just play them on their own time without those 2 things. Tigerlord (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the banning of rough sports is an actual problem, though? It's not implicated in the article, depending how you interpret "discourage". But, having another read, I do agree the "response" section isn't good either. I actually had qualms with how we resort to bashing on football randomly, so, going back to my original comment on suggesting we provide an explanation for the football example rather than using it as a crutch for rebuttal. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 02:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Mario: It wasn't the word "discourage" that I focused on. It was "restricting" from the right column. Tigerlord (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I would just like to weigh in on this criticism, but for different reasons. I am not familiar with the source of this MRM argument, but if the MRM argument is truly just about "roughhousing," then focusing on football may actually be lending it more credence than it deserves. That is, if the real argument is that it's sissifying men if schools no longer allow boys to beat the shit out of other boys on the playground, then it's actually an even more horrifying argument than a defense of football. And it's more illuminating of the fact that the MRM is a defense of a specific kind of masculinity as opposed to a movement that is concerned about all boys and men. I mean, what kind of movement truly concerned about the rights and wellbeing of all men and boys would argue that it's really horrible that boys can't get beaten up, anymore? In general, I really liked this page, though.— Unsigned, by: Joiedevivre / talk / contribs

MRM or MRA?[edit]

ive been saying MRA but is that even a thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

MRM is the movement, MRAs are the people in the movement. — Dysk (contribs) 01:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
good to know that I have been using a suitable term when i have. I assume people would tell if I spout obvious bullshit, but I fear there might instances of 'just humour the crazy man. he smells of wee' AMassiveGay (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Gold Level?[edit]

Why isn't this a gold-level article? Gunther1987 (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You can nominate it. See Help:Cover stories for procedural details. Generally, a page should go through an additional round of rereads and edits by multiple people before a consensus builds up. Bongolian (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Too much generalizations. This article should be rather downgraded to bronze. Iwillprobablygetbanned (Talk to me!) 17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


I was just wondering should there possibly be a section about r/menslib and how it isn't filled with misogynists like r/mensrights is. Just a thought. Vwert (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma regarding media attention towards FGM and MGM[edit]

I wonder which unintentional comedian(s) wrote this little section on the main page. The left column states, "In media, it (MGM) isn't given the same treatment as female genital mutilation (FGM)." The author then tries to "rebut" the left column by stating, "If one thinks that there are limited resources to fight genital mutilation, then it's worth focusing more on FGM than MGM." However, media attention is not a zero-sum game. A TV commercial could easily draw attention to FGM and MGM without taking away from the former. It's as easy as saying, "Many children worldwide suffer from non-consensual genital mutilation." Oh well, basic reasoning skills are too much to expect from certain people. Tigerlord (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes Tigerlord. I completely agree. I have edited that section. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. ShabiDOO 21:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Conscription is herring twice over[edit]

The rationale provided gives too much weight to arguments for/against men being conscripted while ignoring that conscription laws were written in men dominated government by men for men. Men as big tough fighters vs fragile women is patriarchy 101 so feminism typically doesn't do this whole jingoistic thing — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs