Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive11

This is an archive page, last updated 1 July 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Probably valid counterpoints

https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/453bes/the_intersectionality_of_black_issues_feminism/czuvy67 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I must be missing something, because I don't see any counterpoints besides VeganMRA pulling a "Not All Men" tactic.

Perhaps you could point them out? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. Fuzzy's "HEY HERE'S SOME STUPID SHIT ON REDDIT" links are mostly annoying - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Poor standards of evidence in the response to claims section

Many sources in the responses to the various claims are little more than random articles on the internet or completely fail to support the actual response. E.g. the link behind [36] does not mention 10 cents to the dollar anywhere, and it does not account for different professions either. The link [38] that is supposed to show a gender pay gap among lawyers *without* children only talks about lawyers *with* children. The professions and working hours NOT being considered in the wage gap claims is a key point of MRAs, so the response is woefully inadequate as it fails to address exactly this key point.^{— Unsigned, by: 80.187.101.88 / talk / contribs}

Another example would be the quote from [21]. It is not addressed by neither the response nor the cited sources. The tactic used here is to imply that it is false by juxtaposing it with things that do have counterpoints.^{— Unsigned, by: 141.39.226.239 / talk / contribs} 21:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, what?

"This is one of the only areas where some individual elements of the feminist movement are partially responsible; when mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence first came about there was a small but rather vocal group of women complaining that police were arresting a higher percentage of women than before (the national average before such laws was 5%, and the complaints began when the percentage in Florida rose to 11% after implementation of mandatory arrest laws), and there have been occasional protests against acknowledging male domestic violence victims." So when feminists do it, it's a small and vocal group of women. Okay. W"here the MRAs lose traction is when they neglect the fact that these attitudes, while certainly problematic, are only those of said individuals and not representative of feminism as a whole." Does this also apply to people who try to advance this "Men's rights movement"? Do many of their more extreme actions represent them as individuals? "Many other feminists have pointed out that the movement seeks equality between men and women on all matters, which would absolutely include equal treatment for male and female domestic abusers and victims." Hilarious. So the feminists have stated they want to be equal (despite some of their actions being against it, as already stated in the article) and that is why they are actually doing something about male victims of domestic violence, not like there goal is to advance women's issues or anything. Greatly written article. Thanks for the laugh. 67.245.231.88 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

More dangerous jobs section

I've removed it for now -- since there's no real response.

====More dangerous jobs==== {{sbs|1=Some MRAs claim that there is a societal acceptance concerning high rates of workplace [[death]] for (typically [[working class]]) men in the more dangerous positions that they tend to pursue, and that this is sexism because, in some instances, when women die or are hurt on the job, there tends to be more of an uproar. |2=Right.}}

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, that's about all the answer it deserves as stated. What it needs is sources making the claim - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Can the Triskelioners be appropriately brought into the discussion - eg [1]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see how this relates to the MRA movement. The link you sent did not really get into detail about any claim regarding to men being the wronged party which is the base theses of the MRA movement. Besides this page is more centered around the modern MRA movement. Mentioning the Isle of Man being the first lace to give women the right to vote might be more fitting on the women's rights page. TheGrandmother (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

One man's mission

On the other hand, a more charitable understanding of MRAs' complaints about the education system, would be that no-tolerance policies often lead to boys being suspended for weeks on end for what is generally considered typical boy behavior. In addition to this, there are also complaints that the schools do not provide enough exercise, which seems to be particularly disadvantageous to boys, in the sense that the lack of exercise has been linked to boys' apparent slower brain development compared to girls. It's as though males have evolved to be on the move, and that nature's showing in boys behavior, while, at the same time, it's being pathologized and penalized in schools. This often leads to diagnosis of ADHD (which are often questionable), and treatment with powerful drugs, such as amphetamines, which can cause severe side effects.

Furthermore, while there were curriculum changes that aimed to help girls in areas they were struggling in, there are no such changes to help boys with things as simple as writing properly. Studies have shown that boys develop fine motor control a few years later than girls, and as such, they struggle when cursive is taught. If not amended, writing difficulties can result in frustration with doing all kinds of school work throughout boys' schooling. In addition to this, some studies note positive correlations between kids' hand-writing speed, and reading speed. These facts maybe somewhat related to the fact that boys don't read as much as girls, as shown here and here.

Overall, it seems that boys' education crisis might be too real. Kamark488--Kamark488 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Also, I'd not use refs and use direct links instead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Edited the refrences to links --Kamark488 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps with readability — though, not with the truthfulness of your claims. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What parts are you saying are not true? I'll grant that there's some conjecture in my writing, but it's pretty well supported by the sources. Whatever the case, my edit was certainly more truthful, rational, and is better supported than the summary of MRA claims written by somebody else, which dismissed all concerns. --Kamark488 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, for starters:

• Both boys and girls need more exercise, and research shows that boys and girls benefit just as much from more exercise in school. While I don't know (since you don't cite any source for your brain development claim), I suspect you may be thinking of one small study which showed that young boys need more exercise than young girls. It found that young boys need longer and more intense exercise than young girls. The reason for this, however, is that the study was prescriptive in looking at how to curb obesity. So it's not actually that young boys need to work out more than young girls; it's just pointing out that more excess calories take more work to get rid of. That's all. All kids need more exercise.
• You also claim that "boys evolved to be on the move", again with no source — a bogus claim (and not just because that which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence). In terms of "being on the move", identical evolutionary pressure and identical environments faced both sexes even of the ancestors of homo sapiens.
• ADHD diagnosis is neither questionable nor controversial, outside of a crank/Scientologist setting. In fact, it's being underdiagnosed to a large extent — especially among girls, who suffer compared to boys as a result.
• Amphetamine in the form of ADHD medication is proven not to be neurotoxic in humans, though it is in certain animal species. Human studies trump animal studies, not the other way around. Furthermore — since you're apparently so concerned about brain development — medicating ADHD with amphetamine has been conclusively shown to improve brain development, structure and functionality in children and adults with ADHD. You read that correctly — therapeutic doses of amphetamine has been shown to make brains healthier and develop more normally in children with ADHD (and don't you forget it!). This is of vital importance in helping these people to their fullest potential — especially the relatively young — considering the fact that ADHD has been conclusively shown to be a clearly observable structural brain disorder. This also ties into why ADHD diagnosis is not controversial in the reality-based community — we know ADHD is real.
• Regarding the handwriting — sure, that may well be the case. I don't know that it is, but my reason for refuting your earlier points certainly isn't any kind of "categorial opposition" on my end. Regardless — if so, then as a feminist (male, no less!) I find it to be of vital importance that we adress such shortcomings in the educational system. I'll add that my own handwriting looks like shit, and that I should likely have gotten better help with it in school.

Please note clearly that my "counter-argument" to all you wrote above is not that "Oh, everything's fine in public school!". It certainly is not, and that needs to be talked about (see opening quote of the MRA article). Nay, my general point here is more akin to "Please don't water down your legitimate concerns with fringe ADHD denialism, chemophobia/"Big Pharma"-type fears, and uncited evolutionary claims."

I hope this all finds you well. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I know this idea will be far away from the normal but, its just an idea. I think boys and girls should be in different schools or not share classes. Or give it a test run to see how it works out. 2d4chanfag (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kamark488 Yup, I disagree with your ADHD points. ADHD diagnosis is actually more complicated than it seems, but it is a legit disorder and we have observed physical evidence of it by comparing how the brain works and then prescribing stimulants to aid with brain executive functions. I think it's pretty well-studied and ADHD has been discussed for decades, so it isn't a peculiar recent phenomenon. Finally, I make an anecdote, but Reverend Percy is correct about girls being under-diagnosed. I, a girl myself, went undiagnosed until middle school, which is well late into my K-12 torture session.

That being said, I do think there is some favoritism toward girls in settings because girls may be more attentive and more suited to a school environment, or so the stereotype goes. And there are professions which are slowly being dominated by women, including psychology. Though don't boys earn higher GPAs (or test scores?) than girls? I mean, hand-writing might be a problem, but maybe school isn't one-sided favoring girls or boys...

As for separating girls and boys, well, colleges do this already, but I don't think segregation is a great solution. Anyhow, check how the women-only colleges go. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll just note regarding "decades" — make that centuries instead. Here's a beautifully illustrated historical overview. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My memory sucks. Well, I know how tired I am of people saying that ADHD is a "strange recent phenomena" and therefore, it is just an invention so I do know people are aware of it for quite a while and I thought it was discovered in the very early 1900's, but I guess I was very off even then. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Education

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 cara  (talk • stalk) 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

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)

Health-Life expectancy

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: 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. Koi "dammit Koi stop making such long sigs!" development 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. KoiDevelopment™ (thanks, Love!) 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)

In a hypothetical gender-inverted RationalWiki on a "women's rights movement", you'd be saying that women are moaning '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 men commit towards women why can't we get some money towards that'. Do you think that is a bad thing, even if in this hypothetical gender-inverted world, most violence appears to have been committed by women? I highlight the hypothetically because I'm worried you'll take my hypothetical situation directly out of its actual, very real context, and assert that I'm claiming stuff which is clearly not true. Rdococ (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2018 (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. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (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 cara  (talk • stalk) 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 cara  (talk • stalk) 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)

Isla Vista killings Section

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)