Talk:Men's rights movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:  
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.

Biased and strange tone[edit]

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 @Let Them Eat Cake, 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". — Unsigned, by: / talk
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. (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. (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. (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. (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:

  • "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..."

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 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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. (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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Men's Rights, Gender, and Social Media[edit]

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. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Circumcision "rational wiki" argument[edit]

"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. ( 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. 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?[edit]

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? þe olꝺe Ꞅƿɽyᵹᵹyna (ꞇalc) (conċꞃybs) @ 18:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spriggina Agreed. Iwillprobablygetbanned (Talk to me!)

Rational Humour?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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! 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! 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! 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)