Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

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

does not accurately reflect the views and ideas of the men's rights movement

IS this an informative article or a hit piece?

The article as written is nothing more than an attack on the men's rights movement.

The men's rights movement is egalitarian. It desires equal rights for everyone. That means men and women, all races and LGBT people.

However it specifically focuses on areas which feminism ignores such as the lack of male reproductive rights, circumcision, child custody, boys suffering in education, the high rates of male victims of violent crime, the high incarceration rate of men, men facing harsher sentencing than women for the same crime, sexist divorce laws, male victims of false rape accusations, men facing the draft, men who die in the work place and male medical services being under funded compared to female services.

I have tried to correct the tone on the article which describes it as 'a backlash against feminism' and the article was reverted immediately by a mod. Is there any reason why the original article needs to repeat feminist claims about men's rights activists rather than the claims of men's rights activists themselves? could you at least separate the article into two parts? what men's rights activists believe/want and what feminists say men's rights activists believe/want? ^{— Unsigned, by: Lemonperson / talk / contribs 14:38, 16 July 2011}

How about you point us to some websites of major players within this movement that show they're really on the side of equality instead of misogyny and privilege? Because here are some of the top hits for "men's rights movement", and they decidedly do not match your description. Röstigraben (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be issues with this article but they should be discussed on an item by item basis not done as a wholesale rewrite without community input. I've locked the page for a day to discourage edit warring. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If it is going to be categorised as "a backlash against feminism" perhaps a reference to support this and then move the whole page to feminism. Otherwise have the page about men's rights, be about men's rights. Some nicer pages.^{— Unsigned, by: Mr Odonnell / talk / contribs}

Awesome selection. The first one is a front for a divorce law firm and the second one hasn't moved on from its mid-nineties homepage design and has averaged an amazing 60 pageviews per day since then. I'll grant you that the last one seems to be about an established organization and doesn't feature the anti-feminist rhetoric that is so typical for the rest of these guys, though. But their main concern is already prominently placed in the article's intro, and the very first paragraph of the "sexism" section mentions another organization that is described as legitimate, so it's not like this article is a hit piece. It simply points out the fact that "men's rights" has in many cases become a cover for extreme misogyny and anti-feminism. Röstigraben (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that MR movement(s) that try to solve severe legal issues like having the right to continue to be a father and the movement(s) that complain about those gash dern feminazi witches should be distinguished between each other as much as possible, and the former should never be compared to the latter, ever. Onion <talk> 07:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. To do otherwise is a strawman. Someone could easily create a hit piece article on feminism, quoting only the most extreme voices in the feminist movements, and ignoring the more moderate/sensible ones, or trying to paint the moderate ones as being the same as the extremists. But that would be neither honest nor fair. So nor is it honest or fair to do the same thing here. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Most biased article here on RationalWiiki

Really, it's quite offensive reading this.

"Ironically, most of these situations are actually due to sexism towards females, being the "weaker" sex, and therefore requiring more attention."

I like how all of the (pretty valid) points of the Men's Rights movement listed are dismissed with this one sentence.

"While "men's rights" is often used as a cover for sexism, "

Oh, come on. It's somehow acceptable to say that, but not "While 'women's rights' is often used as a cover for sexism."

"his puts them in a dilemma, as they still want to have sex but have vowed off any relationships with women. The result: Sex bot obsession! Liberation will soon be at hand as the sex bot nears perfection!"

Now this is just making fun of it all.

Also, I don't believe that this article should be under "Sexism." For every Men's Rights advocate who's reasonable and respectful, there's the truly woman-hating fan of patriarchy. However, there are also feminists who honestly believe that all men are rapists, and that it's not possible to be sexist against men.

Please, clean this article up or just delete it.

--121.54.2.183 (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You idiot, that's just another claim that MRA are making.

Yes, men are the problem. Go to any MRA channel and they are saying Men are the reason for discrimination against men, witht their chilvary and machismo bullcrap they want other men to follow.

MGTOW is an extremely sexist chat board full of people who think women are idiotic sociopaths full stop. They aren't the true face of the MRA, and this article doesn't state that.

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 22:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a shower, join a charity, and maybe you'll get laid some. In the meanwhile, quit whining, mkay? --User:Brxbrx/sig 07:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So when will we quit the personal attacks and actually discuss the topic at hand? --121.54.2.183 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be the case that the objections aren't so much with what the men's rights article says as what the sister (hurr) article on women's rights doesn't say. But that's completely irrelevant. Context, darling, is everything. Women's rights needs to be discussed in the historical context that they've been viewed as property for the best part of a few millenia and have only had voting privileges for less than a century. By comparison men's rights is discussed in the context that it only ever arose as a response to the existence of feminism and in many cases is just used as a cover for being pigish. The fact that Andrea Dworkin was a bit of a bitch isn't really relevant at all. As Brx said, get laid. ADK^{...I'll toast your rollerblade!} 08:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have as much of a problem with "men's rights" as i do with "white Rights" (in the us, anyhow). As ADK says, "rights" are something someone struggles to get. Human rights, in the 16th century didn't exist, men or women. But once men got their "rights" they had them. Then women had to fight for theirs. "men's rights" today are ridiculous and almost exclusively made from people who have individually been screwed by the system. No one doubts that some good fathers are denied rights just for being male, but it's not a categorical thing; it's not a systematic thing, you don't need a "men's rights group" to fight for your rights, cause you've not lost them. Same with legitimate but isolated instances where a white teacher, cop, or walmart employee didn't get a deserved promotion cause someone needed to fill some quota. no one doubts it happens. but it's not a system wide thing. so you don't need a "right's group" to talk about it.

Every time i've read a site for men's rights - it seems to be men who are bitching that they lost the superiority they had. the women not only got the kids, but i've got to pay for those kids and for her, and i don't even get to see my kids often. that bitch. I've actually never once seen a "men's rights" group that shows and real loss of rights, at the hands of women, cats or the US government.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 14:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

How about the right to live with male-only conscription? And balant discrimination in college classes?

Most of the "men's rights" rhetoric I have seen involved a massive persecution complex, men insisting that a big sinister conspiracy of feminist psychiatrists and lawyers were trying to take their children away from them. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

All right. Men's rights activists do have some good points. But they always go about it in such a crude fashion! Instead, you should petition the feminists (without claiming they're oppressing you, or anything) to address the issue of sexism from both sides of the spectrum.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think many men's rights activists raise some valid points, but many of them then destroy their credibility by going overboard in the other direction. I think we need to get beyond the either/or of feminism is the best thing ever! vs. feminism is satanic!... feminism (or should I say feminisms) and feminists have done a lot of good for the world, but it has not been a purely positive story either. I think a good point to start at with criticism of feminism is actually self-criticism of feminism—i.e. those who have criticised the feminist movement from within—e.g. as often being focussed on the needs of white middle-class heterosexual cisgender women, and actually oppressive of non-white, poor/third-world, non-heterosexual, and/or transgender people in the process. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd add in the promotion of psychological/psychiatric quackery and pseudohistory of European witch hunts as well, but the MRM rarely seem to bring that up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Fact soup

Question. Each of the "major" claims is followed by citation needed. Is this citing MRM groups saying this, or citing them as actual factual fact? If the former then it's less of a requirement to have those tags. Because I spied the homeless shelter one and decided to do a quick look around, couldn't really find anything. If anything it seems the other way as many homeless women were actually turned away from abuse shelters. Either way, though, those tags need sorted. ADK^{...I'll waste your furry!} 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Although Google is only spitting UK council sites at me right now the only "sexist" criteria I can find is that pregnant women get priority. Which I'd say is unarguable. ADK^{...I'll untie your vector field!} 12:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That was me responding to a series of edits that sought to portray those claims as "valid" across the board. I checked the references that had been provided, removed the ones that didn't hold up, and left the fact-tags as placeholders in case somebody wanted to try again and back those claims up. Since that's apparently not going to happen, they could just as well be removed. Röstigraben (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Validity" of those claims at such a point in the article is irrelevant, though. I'm more concerned about building up a straw man to say "hey, these claims aren't valid!!" moments later. ADK^{...I'll reconstruct your alfalfa!} 12:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the ones about child custody, circumcision, rape accusations and denial of the wage gap are standard MRM canards. A few of the others are maybe US-centric, or obscure urban myths like the one about homeless shelters. The one about custody may have some merit, but the article's intro concedes that point, so I think it's fair to deal with the more extreme ones en bloc. Röstigraben (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My girlfriend was being sexually harassed at work by another woman, who kept on grabbing her breasts and calling her "boobies" as a nickname. This woman would do this right in front of the entire office and the managers, and no one said anything. I told my gf that was wrong and she should complain to HR, but she was resigning anyway, and said she was just going to put up with it until she left rather than making a scene over it. But, I think, if it was a man who was doing this to her, in front of everyone, would the managers still ignore it? Or would they step in to do something about it? (Most of the managers at her work were female, if that has any relevance.) I do get the impression, that male-on-female sexual harassment is taken more seriously than other forms of sexual harassment, such as female-on-male or female-on-female or male-on-male. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Major Claims.

Any fact-tagged items in the "Major Claims" section that are not sourced by 1 November 2011 will be removed by me. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 19:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think some people get the point of the cites here - and Matty that means you - since they are being presented as claims, the purpose of cites is to provide evidence that people associated with the "men's rights" movement makes those claims, not evidence that the claims are true. No matter how bigoted the source may be, that is irrelevant, since it still proves the claim is being made. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And BBMaj7, why is a blog not evidence that someone is making some claim? This site would often cite blogs as evidence that e.g. creationists say XYZ. This isn't Wikipedia. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

EC Then the claims need to be clearly stated for the bullshit that most of them are, preferably with obvious withering snark. I don't want any casual reader to read them, see a footnote and think "that seems reasonable." B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 04:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious from the heading "Major CLAIMS"? It's listing what they CLAIM, it's not stating whether the claims are true or not. I'd suggest if you want to analyse their truth, it might make more sense to create a separate section, e.g. "Criticism" or "Debunking" or what have you. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Now we have a load of Spearhead links, hooray! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should create an article for them? I was just Googling for random examples of people making the claims in question — doesn't matter if they are sane or absolutely nutty, point is just to demonstrate people actually make those claims. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I u nderstand you want to debunk the claims, but I think it's critical we point out all the obsurd claims these f'ers make. On the assumption that "MRG" really are an extremist society, this is what the list of extreme claims is about. no one is saying the claims are true (at least on this page)GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 13:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

check out the edits I made this morning and see if they work. I was in an awful mood yesterday. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical edits

BBMaj7, now you've made the article read "The opinions of MRAs typically include some variation of the following... While the "wage gap" in the United States has diminished, the uneven burdens of reproduction and childcare continue to contribute to women earning less than men." That's not an accurate statement of what they claim, that's a statement of what you think. You may well be right and they may well be wrong, but a section that begins with "The opinions of MRAs typically include..." needs to state what MRAs think, not what non-MRAs think or what may be true. At least, state their beliefs first, and then add a rebuttal second. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. Fix it as you see fit. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 04:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)