Talk:Men's rights movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
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.

Silverbrain.png
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)
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:

  • "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 84.18.145.145 (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)

Health-Life expectancy[edit]

My edits to this section keep getting undone. Are my sources insufficient? Am I just writing this in the wrong section? Did I say something factually inaccurate? I am not trying to be intransigent. Its just that when you put in the effort to find documentation for something, you tend to get invested in it.Sewblon (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah it's probably something to do with your sources. I approved your edits half-asleep. Note to self: get some sleep before editing Rationalwiki. I have a list of good sources here.ClickerClock (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that I removed the instructions telling me to sign my comments. This user, Koidevelopment, keeps removing my edits to the health and life expectancy section. Please, tell me whats wrong with my edits. I am new at editing wikis. So, I am sure that I am going to make mistakes. But, I cannot fix those mistakes if I don't know what they are. So, just tell me what your objections are to my edits and I will act in good faith to address them. Sewblon (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look at your sources properly but they look fairly reliable (whether they support your assertions is another matter). Due to the amount of people we get saying "how can you be rational if you don't see that men are obviously way more intelligent than women", we have a tendency to revert most edits to this page by new users that are more than just typo corrections. Christopher (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Mate I rolled it back once. Now, the reason is that your writing, in my opinion at least, comes off as pro-MRM. That's the problem. I quote:
"In 2016, the U.S. National Institutes of Health spent $4.5 billion on women's health and $30 million on violence against women. It spent no money on men's health or violence against men. In the U.S., life expectancy for males born in 2014 is 76.4 years. Life expectancy for females born in 2014 is 81.2 years. Giving women a 4.8 year longer average life expectancy than men. In Austraila[sic], the government spends 4 times as much money on research on women's health as it does on research on men's health, despite women living 4.5 years longer than men."
The portion about life expectancy is irrelevant, or should be reworded in a different section. I bolded the part that really struck me as pro-MRM. As for the rest of it, it was just badly written and kind of hard to read. But that's just formatting issues and wording issues and those can be easily fixed. Koidevelopment (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The reason that my writing sounds pro-MRM is that I actually do think that their complaints about health and life-expectancy are valid. I just don't think that its feminism's fault. If you disagree, then tell me why. If not, then what if I just add something like, "There is no evidence that this is Feminism's fault." Sewblon (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please indent your comments with a colon (:). Thanks. Men complaining that 'oh man why can't we get some decent health care and money spent on research for us and oh what about all the violence that women commit towards men why can't we get some money towards that' doesn't strike me as worthy to be included in the article. A) advances in women's health are still advances in medicine and help men, B) biologically men just really aren't that special and we don't carry baby humans in our non-existent wombs, C) while there technically aren't advances made in men's health, there are advances in general medicine, which helps everyone, and D) I think most anyone would be hard pressed to find an instance of woman-on-man domestic abuse. #Can'tComeUpWithACleverSignature 20:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I will address each of your points as best as I can. A) Its true that advances in women's health do help men. Women are the ones who carry the male babies. So, making them healthier makes the male babies healthier. However,
this point is not really relevant. Research into women's health being beneficial doesn't mean that research into men's health would not also be beneficial. B) Men are biologically special in certain ways: 1. Obviously, what is
true of women's reproductive system is not necessarily true of ours. So, research on women's health isn't necessarily going to be applicable to things like testicular or prostate cancer. 2. Men are more vulnerable to genetic
disorders than women are. Women have two X chromosomes. So, if something is wrong with one X chromosome, women have the other one to fall back on. Men only have the one X chromosome. So, if something is wrong with it, then we
are screwed. 3. Testosterone damages the body over time. So, men's bodies are working against themselves in a way that women's bodies are not. C) True, but irrelevant. That argument goes both ways. Even if there weren't any
advances made in women's health, there would still be advances made in general medicine which would still help everyone. D) There are some studies that find that domestic violence by men against women and domestic violence by
women against men actually happen at about the same rate. But that doesn't matter because the domestic violence that actually results in physical harm and death is overwhelmingly male on female. So I agree that domestic
violence against men really doesn't warrant much attention. However, violence against men in general warrants more attention than does any other form of violence. The vast majority of violence that results in death is adult men
killing other adult men, or killing themselves. No matter who does the killing, dead is still dead. Sewblon (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@everyone except Sewblon:

Remember, biased tone doesn't mean wrong sources. We acknowledge in this article that MRM has valid complaints -- in this instance, some comparative disadvantages to men in terms of health -- even though they usually do nothing to actually address the situation.

The feminist hypothesis that women are less advantaged than men is not universally true, and if Sewblon's sources hold up, then it's not true here. Don't defend what's not true just because it's counter our ideology -- that's kinda the problem with creationism, racism, etc. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"if Sewblon's sources hold up, then it's not true here." Speaking of which, where did we land on that? Do my sources hold up? Do they support what I wrote? If they do, then can my edits be restored? Sewblon (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the chromosome differences and life expectancy does hold up, so I added it to the article. Enjoy raw biology.—Hamburguesa con queso con un caraSpinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The female equivalent to viagra was approved in 2015. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/298349.php So, that part about lack of female viagra as an example of women's health issues being given less attention should be removed, or updated to reflect that there is now a female viagra, but it took longer to make it happen. Also, that source about the life expectancy gap narrowing is from 2005. There is an article from the BBC from 2015 that says that the gap is no longer closing. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151001-why-women-live-longer-than-men. I think that this section should be changed to reflect this information. Sewblon (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Where does it say it in the article?—Hamburguesa con queso con un caraSpinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 16:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The caption for the first image in the article reads: "Women live longer, and the gap isn't closing either." Then underneath that image, it talks about the gap remaining consistent in Sweden: "In fact, the difference in lifespan has remained stable even throughout monumental shifts in society. Consider Sweden, which offers the most reliable historic records. In 1800, life expectancy at birth was 33 years for women and 31 years for men; today it is 83.5 years and 79.5 years, respectively. In both cases, women live about 5% longer than men." Sewblon (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
"Indeed, that would be like a white person saying that the existence of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Discrepancy somehow means the entire system is rigged in against white people, even though the point of such an institute is to alleviate already existing healthcare inequalities." This part strikes me as special pleading. Minorities do not outlive white people. Women do outlive men. The inequalities that we see, just in terms of quantifiable outcomes, are in womens' favor, not mens' favor. If this is referencing inequalities besides life-expectancy, then that should be more explicit. Sewblon (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Reverend Black Percy: " Indeed, that would be like a white person saying that the existence of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Discrepancy somehow means the entire system is rigged in against white people, even though the point of such an institute is to alleviate already existing healthcare inequalities. As it stands, the healthcare system was designed with men in mind while organizations have had to spring up in order for women's specific health concerns to keep pace" This is a false equivalence. In the case of minorities, the inequalities of outcome that we see are in white people's favor. In the case of women, the inequalities of outcome that we see are in women's favor. So, that actually should be an argument for an institute of men's health because women outlive men. Also, where is the source for the claim that the healthcare system was designed with men in mind? The sources that I saw spoke to intimate partner violence specifically and not the healthcare system in general. Sewblon (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Education[edit]

In my experience male students getting worse grades than females in all subjects and getting less education than women do is a more common complaint that MRAs have about the education system than sports being phased out or boys being feminized. women have been getting more education than men since the 1950s. (The serious reason boys do worse than girls By Jeff Guo January 28, 2016). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/28/the-serious-reason-boys-do-worse-than-girls/?utm_term=.f01c927a27ae. I think that the education section should be edited to address that claim. Sewblon (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

At first I put this under "One Man's Mission" But then I thought that it wasn't really relevant to that conversation directly and made more sense to have its own section. Sewblon (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Considering you tried removing this comment before you got reverted, I assume you regret creating it?—Hamburguesa con queso con un caraSpinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 15:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't regret creating it. I just regret putting it in the wrong section of the page. Sewblon (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Three Hundred[edit]

What is style-wise wrong with this article? That is to say, assuming it contains a correct overall perspective towards the subject at hand, what are the objections engendered by the literal presentation? There could not be many because it has been awarded Silver Status, for quality. And yet it is vague, contradictory in places, the syntax occasionally horrifying, the text littered with links to the definitions of common English nouns for no apparent reason, and evidently no form of sarcasm is too awkward for inclusion. If ridicule were the main object I suppose that overall attitude has been satisfactorily expressed. There is no culprit to blame for these aforementioned problems because the article has, so far, had over 300 authors. As a useful wiki article, the main criticism that I have is its vagueness: there are almost no concrete examples of these critters. Even Nazis have names.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Isla Vista killings Section[edit]

This section does not bother or is unable to establish a connection between the MRM and the killer:"Parts of the media and various feminists pointed out the sexist angle, some referring to Rodger as an MRA." It is not sufficient that some columnists or feminists made such a connection without showing why they did and that they were justified in doing so. Many serial killers kill only women. Very misogynistic, but not MRM related. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

He hung out on their forums and used their jargon. Don't be a twat - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I have asked for citations for several claims. You evidently believe citations are unnecessary where the presumption of complicity is already in effect. It's not personal. This is a chicken-shit article, because it is vague and cowardly. It names no living MRAs except for this guy who is clearly insane. This convinces nobody with an intent to be honest. I would say the article was libelous if it actually named people. I am done with it. Clearly it is your mess.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2017 (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. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)