Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive3

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)

vague claims

unless the BON has something to back up his changes, I will revert them. But ill give the BON a few minutes to give a link to a source with an actual citation of an actual study.--GodotGet over it!. 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is still causing arse hurt for people? ^{...I'll feast your poodle!} 15:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reproductive rights

The reproductive rights is the only thing in this article I subscribe to in my own fashion. In Belgium women can typically force way too high alimony on their husbands, while at the same time not allowing the father to see the child at all. For some reason witholding children from their father is almost never an issue for the court while evading alimony is. IMHO these two go hand in hand.

I am fully prepared to take responsibility when a kid unexpectedly happens, but I will only pay support when I am allowed to be a father. A mother who takes away my kid should have no expectations of me paying for the kid. Likewise if she starts to live with another man who can support her, I will no longer pay alimony. I will not pay for the luxury life of another MAN (which inevitably happens if I pay the regular costs and his income can be used for luxury).

Thirdly, I expect my girlfriends to be honest about the precautions they take, and what has gone wrong. After sickness, she should ask for condoms to be used. If she really wants to get pregnant, she should at least tell me about it and respect my wishes. If her dishonesty results in an unwanted kid, likewise I won't support her, nor the kid. As I said in the second paragraph, I will support accidents but I will not support dishonesty.195.130.159.242 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is it her responsibility to tell you anything? If you have any concern, use a condom. Protect yourself, don't expect that your girlfriend will protect you. GodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 16:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If a person chooses to lie and say they are using contraception when they are not, that is their problem, not their lover's. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is why we need good male contraception. I'm not sure, cause i'm not that up on it, but the idea of "reversible" vasectomies isn't really a reality yet, right? Guys need a reliable way to take this issue off women's shoulders. GodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 17:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about sterilization, but we do have condoms. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Condoms break. truly an important choice for all kinds of reasons, but I figured eventually the great gods of pharm would figure out something like "the pill" or a truly reversible vasectomy. Course, I guess when all you *have* to do is write a check, you probably aren't as pushy about getting new methods out there, as when you have to actually carry around the thing for 9 months. ;-)GodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 17:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose you know what that feels like. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I made a different choice. But I did have to think a lot about it. GodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, in the good old days we used to have luminous watches as male contraceptives. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"...that is their problem, not their lover's." Good luck convincing the judge of that. My take: you stick it in there, you're liable for whatever comes out. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

masculinism

to avoid an edit war, I'll bring this up here, but I could not find one single site that called it "masculinism" or whatever. Can the people who keep readding that, provide a link, or if it's a joke, make it funnier? Thanks! I'm going to revert in 24 hours if you don't have a link or a better joke :-) GodotDear god, fucking grow up 15:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a Wikipedia article on masculism, so I guess it's legitimate, as all things with Wikipedia articles are. At first I thought it was a joke. F_lint^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 15:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then, there you go. it stays. :-) GodotDear god, fucking grow up 15:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Female Circumcision

Looking at the argument that female circumcision is performed in unsterile conditions, and male circumcision is performed in sterile conditions, are we really not going to acknowledge the fact that this is precisely because one is illegal and the other is legal? If female circumcision was legal, and male circumcision was illegal, then hospitals would perform female circumcision. While I'll acknowledge that Types I and II female circumcision are worse than male circumcision (and for the record, I favor a ban on ALL circumcision of minors), they are worse because of the damage they are intended to do, the conditions they are performed in are not relevant to the procedures themselves, this is simply a bullshit argument thrown out in an attempt to appeal to emotion.--Mustex (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the comparison could use some toning down, especially seeing as how some Orthodox Jewish mohelim are not exactly sterile about their work; the legality argument is rather like citing the infamous coat-hanger abortions in aid of denouncing that practice. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and honestly, if the only issue involved were sterility, I'd favor the legalization of both. However, I feel that both cases represent a complete disregard for the bodily autonomy of the child (for the record, I do acknowledge that the same argument could be used for vaccines, but the harm-to-benefit ratio of vaccines vs. circumcision is wildly different).--Mustex (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with any form of circumcision, male or female. But I think if we are honest, the consequences of female circumcision for sexual function are a lot lot worse. I mean, look a clitoridectomy - that is not equivalent to chopping off the foreskin, that is like chopping off the glans while you're at it. So I think a lot of this is just the usual misogynist whinging, who aren't willing to accept the obvious fact that bad shit often happens to women that doesn't happen to men, or certainly not to the same degree. Sarah Parker (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How about not making the point of whom the bad shit happens to more important than the bad shit itself? ListenerX^TalkerX 07:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Men have to put up with shit, women have to put up with shit, but you look at the world today and all the history behind it, I think it'd be hard to argue that women have not been dealt the worse hand. And seeing that, I want to do what I can to change it. Sarah Parker (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Identity politics does more to put blinders on people than anything else. The Reds in Iran, for example, were happy to work with Khomeini because he was not the Shah, right up to the point at which he made a theocracy out of the country. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

COUGH REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! COUGH... but I do agree with the point on identity politics blinding people. It's quite a problematic bias. But Mustex does have a point. We accept that legality and illegality alter the conditions that things occur in frequently; abortions and drug use are two good examples. When you cease to regulate something, you'll drive it into places where they're more than happy to do it in a haphazard way. The problem with saying this out loud, however, is that it can be construed as an argument to legalise something. ^postate 18:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Both of you are dancing around the original issue I raised here: I fully acknowledge that Types I and II FGM ARE WORSE than male circumcision. My issue was with the claim that female circumcision is carried out in unsanitary conditions, while male circumcision is carried out in sanitary conditions. While this claim is, technically, true, it is not an inherent aspect of the procedures themselves, its because one is legal and the other is not. My stance is that all modifications to the genitals of a minor should be illegal, but that issue (the sanitation of the place in which the procedure is performed) is misleading at best.--Mustex (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between drugs, abortion and circumsision. Making abortion and drugs legal means people will be able to make voluntary decisions without having troubles with the law. Making circumsision legal is making legal for parents to chop off parts of their children just because they want to. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 19:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a consent issue. Which is a good, legitimate reason for making one thing legal and regulated while keeping the other illegal. The issue is whether it's a circular fallacy to say "X should be illegal because of Y" when Y is primarily a consequence of X already being illegal. ^moral 20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This Article is Crap

I don't think men's rights is sexist or hates the advances women have made, It just hates all the sexist anti-male hatred and bias by many radical feminists in the media and politicians and they want the same rights as women, and how is fighting one form of sexism, also sexism? They're fighting anti-male sexism, which is anti-male hatred many militant feminists have and they collectively smear people like this as being sexist because they want to silence criticism of their hatred and justify their own hatred of the male species and advance their own radical agenda, which hates female beauty and women looking beautiful and intelligent beauties, known as women as being chauvinist when in fact, they just want to get somewhere. They do not want to at all reverse the progress women have made, that is a bunch of feminist propaganda and bullshit and I think this article promotes the very anti-male hatred against men, which I think is sexist. I am sick of this article. It is absolutely inaccurate and not accurate. They just want the same rights as everyone else and people are sick of anti-male disgusting feminist anti-male hate and being smeared as sexism or sexist, like this article does with liberal victimization of women, rape culture, etc, and how women are always being raped, and all the other anti-male stuff, where men are given few options under the guise of equality and are given little choice in the legal system and always screwed over feminist legal bias and feminist militant male-hating crap. It's not a hatred of women at all. --108.11.158.220 02:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

When there is a pannel on "men's health issues" chaired only by women, we'll talk. (SIWOTI)GodotGrow a vagina 03:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Are you saying that issues of reproduction/contraception are "womens health issues"? Seems to me like they are just health issues; no gender is more involved than the other. Damo^Hi 03:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why yes. I really am. I have to take the pill (or shot, or implant), i have to remember it, and if it goes wrong, i have to deal with it. That some men are amazing about helping, and would be there every step of the way with me, whatever my choice - does not change anything. It is a "women's health issue". Pretty much, period.GodotGrow a vagina 04:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know that you think that. I disagree. When my partner and I have sex, use of contraception is just as important to me as it is to her. Her getting pregnant will have just as big an impact on my life as it will on hers. Or is the impact on my life not as important as on hers? --Damo^Hi 04:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's all and very pc of you, but the chemicals are not in your body. Your risk of cancer does not go up taking the pill (and ironically, go down at the same time), you do not risk the heart damage that *can* come with long term use of hormonal BC. You don't have to have the pap smear to see if you are ok with teh pill; you don't have to have the reactions to going off the pill. You don't have to have to deal with teh repercusions on your body of both the birth control and the failure of it. It is a WOMANS HEALTH ISSUE. it is a men's social issue, but your health is never at risk, no matter what you do or don't do. --GodotGrow a vagina 04:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, so how far does your line of thinking go. Presumably a man wearing a condom is also a womans health issue? --Damo^Hi 04:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not contraception. a man NOT wearning a condom is an issue, but unless she has an allergy or something, it's not a "health issue". the reason birth control is a health issue is because it effects our health. some women use BC to cure medical problems. others, just not to get pregnant, but their body, not yours are effected by the choice to use birth control. again, you have a role in that a child will effect your life. but not your health. GodotGrow a vagina 05:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to define words however you like but its an odd position to take that condoms aren't contraception. --Damo^Hi 05:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I appologize for my misuse of word. the point still stands. what you put on your body, is your health issue. what goes into mine is not your health issue. the Pill, IUDs, and the resulting ablity to control our own reproduction is a woman's health issue. not "men's" or "shared". it is your emotional or social issue. GodotGrow a vagina 05:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I am, of course, not saying that use of chemical contraception by woman does not have health affects on the woman that does not affect the man. I do reject the idea that it is solely an issue for women and that men have no say in the matter at all. The decisions regarding birth control that my partner and I take are issues for both of us, we both have a say and an viewpoint that needs to be considered. In any case, having an all male panel discuss funding for contraception is obviously ridiculous, but it would be no worse than having an all woman panel. --Damo^Hi 05:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

They are working on male contraception pills and injections. A lot of men would likely use them if they were available. Both sexes have the choice of surgical contraception. And some women take contraceptive pills for reasons other than contraception. (e.g. sometimes it helps reduce cramps, PMS, etc.) Sarah Parker (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see male contraceptives being used in stable, long term, relationships. There the man would be sharing the possilbe effects of long term medication. On the other hand, if I were a woman having a casual fling and the guy said "don't worry, darlin', I'm on the pill" I'm not completely convinced I'd take his word for it. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't take his word for it either. But many people, both women and men, have casual flings without taking any contraceptive precautions. So long as someone is doing it, whoever it is, that's good. I reckon many single men would take it, if it was available, out of fear of unwanted parental responsibility (both financial and emotional). People often forget about condoms when they are drunk or high. Good thing about a pill or an injection, is you can take it when you are sober, and then you protect yourself when you are not. Sarah Parker (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is why there is a huge need for reliable long term, reversable male contraception. Right now, there is nothing to protect them from a woman who says "trust me, I'm on the pill". if you were more in control of your own procreation, and choose not to do anything about it, then you really have no say against women who say "deal with it and pay up for child support". Right now, i am quite torn about why a guy has to pay for a baby he doesn't want, if you decide to have it. but in a world where he has really trust worthy bc, it wouldn't be an issue. or at least far less often, cause accidents can always happen. but 99.9 % is soooo much better than generic "oops". How close are we to such bc?--GodotGrow a vagina 19:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering how few feminists are actually anti-male to begin with, the MRA movement doesn't have a leg to stand on in that regard to begin with. Not to mention that you very seldom find an MRA who's public about it who isn't a flaming ignorant asshole. EVDebs (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

On that note, i'd love to see a *media* reporting "anti-male" views. jsut one, just to see it real, live, and up-close as they used to say. I want to be male hating! GodotGrow a vagina 03:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How can you say that when men are getting hit in the balls every night on America's Funniest Home Videos? And laughed at! Misandrist! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotta tell you, i don't know one single woman who finds that funny. Erotic, maybe, but not funny. ;-) GodotGrow a vagina 04:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I only find it hilarious because it's not me. ^theist 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone read our articles?

I find this article to be pretty balanced on this issue, if not sympathetic to this movement. The article only seems to object to the men's rights claims when they are outright false or misleading. And it is undeniable that many of the men's rights sites are rooted in sexism. I consider myself fairly conservative on women's issues (pro women's rights but opposed to radical feminism), and I don't see this article as blatently biased. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• You have to remember that some people (myself included) have cleaned up the more blatant anti-MRA bullshit in this article multiple times. I just deleted some weasel words implying men are more likely to abuse children than women (actually women are more likely to abuse, although the majority of their abuse is neglect), and put in a source to debunk the bullshit link between MRAs and Pick-up Artists (not saying there isn't any crossover, but the two have completely different goals).--Mustex (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. This is why I don't think gender equality is strictly "women's rights". There are aspects of the current gender stereotypes that are biased against men, and aspects that are biased against women. If we are going to remove the gender stereotypes that dictate much of society, it has to work both ways. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, once we clean up, say, 80% of the 95% of them that limit women, we should cut in half the 5% that men must stumble around. ħuman 02:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Since I hacked it out...

I removed the addition of "Note that much of the hatred towards feminism may be a result of confusion of the term; many people confuse feminism with female supremacy." since it seemed no more than apologetic for illiterate chauvinists. But there might be a way to work the concept in (I doubt it). These assholes know what they are doing and they know what they hate. Uppity women who expect and demand equal rights. ħuman 02:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the article seems pretty biased as it is. While some individual sites may appear rooted in sexism, the main goals listed on the page are things anyone should agree with. There are aspects of the gender stereotypes that have dominated Western society which are lopsided against men, just as there are aspects lopsided against women, and I don't think this article does this fact enough justice. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I reread that section and realized it wasn't generalizing the whole concept of a men's rights movement. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wall of text time! If you can believe it, one of the things that was discussed in my Womens' Images and Reality class last semester was that 'men's rights' are actually deeply entwined with the feminist movement, though rarely talked about. A lot of the negative cultural restrictions that men experience (griefing, being called a sissy for showing emotion, being afraid of being considered a rapist, being considered a pedophile by default when interacting with a child, etc.) has to do at least partially with the social constructs that restrict women, too. For example, if women are characterized as weak, and then characterized as emotional, emotions become weak— and inappropriate for males. Because women are considered weaker/nonviolent/less likely to brutality, female-on-male rapes are not taken seriously as well as female-instigated domestic violence, leaving men to bear that stigma even if on average such things are rarer/less reported. Pretty much every aspect of this topic that isn't 'I don't understand why my girlfriends break up with me THEY MUST BE OUT TO GET ME, WOMEN ARE EVIL BAWWW' is connected to feminist issues and should be considered on whole to be fallout of gender inequality in a male-dominated society. KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 02:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That is pretty much what I was talking about. However, there are aspects of this society (which was not just created by men; women participated and reinforced it as well and still do in many parts) that exist today and don't seem to be addressed by many feminists. A clear example is the fact that society does not take female-on-male rape seriously. There is a whole TV Tropes page that demonstrates examples of this (too lazy to link right now). Arguably society is always equally biased against both genders - it's just that we take it to be benefiting one and hurting the other. I see "men's rights movement" as merely being there to highlight this stuff. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with people who actually want to point out areas where men are sexismed against, but I think the best way to fix it is righting the misogyny; two birds with one stone and all. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Death penalty

I suspect that the skewed gender distribution of death row inmates has little to do with stereotypical gender attitudes and much to do with the fact that men commit about 90-95% of violent crimes. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. I'm not talking about the sheer number of cases; anyone would expect men to get the death penalty more than women due to a higher crime rate. We are talking when women and men are convicted for the same crime. The percentage of men convicted of a given crime who get the death penalty is far higher than the percentage of women convicted of the same crime who get capital punishment. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note that such a defense is often used to defend the race disparities in the death penalty. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that courts have more 'sympathy' for female convicts? Generally putting women (and children I guess) to death is traditionally considered a Monstrous thing that usually the evil overlord in a pulp novel does. I have a feeling this is a case where culture is the culprit, rather than some unknown conspiracy to just not sentence women to death.±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 03:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That is what I believe as well, and that is what I wrote in the article. I was addressing ListenerX's proposal that this is due to "higher crime rates", which is a strawman argument since that is not where these claims are from. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that point could be clarified in the article to avoid misreadings like mine. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"However, this is arguably the result of society viewing women as weaker/less prone to violence, which can be fixed by promoting female equality to men"

That seems pretty clear to me. If you have specific concerns, point them out. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision

Why is the response to this mostly a "not as bad as" argument? Are you saying that babies really don't feel anything or scream when you scrape or burn off a chunk of their skin? I accept "nowhere near as harmful" when contrasting lobbing off a piece of foreskin with Type III FGM, but it's still an actual fallacious argument to use as a response. You may as well just say "male circumcision is a western Judeo-Christian practice and is therefore superior to those darkie savages, so stop whining bitch!" for all the good a "not as bad as" argument does as a response. ^narchist 09:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

-- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 13:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and circumcision is an issue that needs to be addressed. However, I don't think it is really caused by feminism, but originates in 19th century phobias of masturbation. Prior to that, it was just considered "the weird thing Jews do". Still, any group advocating for "gender equality" cannot do so without addressing issues where men are given less rights than women. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

But the trope that FGM is much worse than male circumcision therefore male circumcision can be ignored seems to originate with feminist arguments. You might get a token "yes it's wrong" but it'll be accompanied by a ton of "but FGM is so much worse!!" - but by that logic we can ignore all forms of genital mutilation because, hey, at least it's not ritual sacrifice because that's so much worse! The claim in the article is about perspectives on circumcision, not whether feminists cause it, which would be a considerable piece of WTF if someone did claim it. ^moral 14:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Because right now, right or wrong, in the world we live in - circumcision, an accepted medical practice, is done safely. FMG, an illegal practice, is not. It's really that simple. Yes, circumcision is horrible. But that said, the reason it is not given the attention in the Western world that FGC is, is because quite simply, it is mostly safe. It is as much a fallacy to put a crime done to your group on teh same ground as another crime, by saying "not as bad fallacy". As you and i have talked about before, "I thought she said yes, but maybe she didn't" is simply NOT THE SAME as a guy with a knife holding it to you when he rapes you. --Godot 14:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I accept that we're comparing apples and oranges, but only to a degree; because what this argument suggests is that male circumcision is acceptable because it's safe and legal... yet it's only safe and legal because it's acceptable! It's circular. What this argument actually proposes is that if we suddenly though female genital cutting was fine and had doctors do it, it would be perfectly acceptable (consider wp:Labiaplasty for instance, which is, effectively, exactly the same thing but done by a "doctor" rather than "witch doctor"). Simply saying "it's an accepted practice therefore it's fine" is the not-as-bad-as argument and completely beside the point because it produces the circular argument that legal leads to safe, and safe leads to legal. It doesn't actually alter the underlying problem common to both. ^gnostic 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The safety of circumcision is irrelevant. The issue surrounding genital mutilation is whether the child has a choice or not, and obviously the baby does not have a choice. That is the issue, not whether or not circumcision is harmful. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Any feminist worth her salt should be pushing to legalize circumcision, of the lesser kinds, so it too can be done under a doctor's knife, and not a witch doctor's. I get that neither is good, and i get why it's very circular re: male circumcision. But life is what it is, and not what we wished it were. And it is far more dangerous right now to be circumcised as a girl, than a boy. To deny that reality is to remove a very real fight women are trying to make, for the sake of (sorry to say) a bit of "me too, me too" which is the flip side of "not as bad as". I rather find fault with both of them as logical fallacies cause the are both very real points, depending on the given argument.Godot 23:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts: 1. Male circumcision is not nearly the issue that female circumcision is, because as a general rule, it does far less damage. Yes, there are risks, and the benefits are minor. But barring a serious slip, the removal of the foreskin is far less risky or damaging than wholesale excisions of large sections of the vulva. They really don't compare in any meaningful sense. 2. The anti-male-circumcision thing seems to be very closely tied to the men's rights movement and general paranoia about manliness. Overall, we probably don't need circumcision of either gender, but the, er, passion of anti-male-circumcision activists seems to be far out of proportion to the damage done. EVDebs (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that anti-'male circumcision', is some kind of "men's rights" thing. It's a strongly humanist thing, which in no small part was motivated by women saying "why are we cutting up our children". I know almost no american "macho men" such as the men's rights movement who want to be like sissy Europeans and not be snipped. In fact, i've heard fathers tell their wives they just cannot understand not having a penis, and that baby boy should be circumcised. I'm not saying all american men are like this, I'm only saying the request to stop mutilating our boys has more to do with the growth of the rights of children over the rights of adults, than "men's rights". And I do think it's child abuse, by the way. But mostly safe child abuse, since it's a doctor abusing the child.Godot 05:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we make a fun page?

Ok, I'm not the biggest fan of MRAs either, but I really feel the way they're being treated here is ridiculous. I can't count the amount of name calling and uncited assertions I've had to delete, and in some cases even cite sources showing the exact opposite. My personal biggest grievance with the movement is that they seem more interested in assigning blame than fixing problems. But, if everyone else here is so determined to take pot-shots at them, could we please have it on a fun page?--Mustex (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What aspect of this article do you find "fun"? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's just make something clear: I've cleared out a significant amount of the bias originally on here. At one point, the article actually downplayed issues like men's health and female-on-male violence.

But to be honest, I don't think "feminism is the answer" can work in all of these cases. I don't hear mainstream feminists talk about much of these issues (if I'm wrong, please say so, but this is based on observation). Female-on-male rape continues to be justified by the media, and domestic abuse against men has even been mocked by some left-leaning groups given the recent controversy over the VAWA. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Your observations are somewhat justified by theoretical considerations: The ideological basis of radical feminism is a belief that the history of all hitherto existing society can be shoehorned into a history of oppression of women, a framework in which violence by women against men does not fit well. The feminists who are most fixated on violence tend to be of that camp, or at least move in those circles; they see themselves primarily as fighting for women against men, so they cannot be expected to give more than token attention to any issue for which they cannot ultimately blame "the Patriarchy." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

On the non-millitant/radical/strawman side of feminism, feminism not only does, but routinely suggest answers to these problems. Most of them have roots in societal and cultural fixations and stigmas that establish roles (often impossible, contradictory, and degrading ones) for women and men. For example, if you establish, for example, taking care of children as a 'female thing,' it then becomes un-manly for a male to take care of his children, leading to less respect for male single parents, more difficulties for men getting custody of their children, etc. By releasing women from a narrow role and allowing those traits to be the property of anyone who wants them, men no longer are pressured into rejecting them... especially when they're things that would not be oppressive at all if they weren't bundled with the 'women-associated things are weaker or less important' idea that comes bundled with the stigmas, due to a heavily patriarchal society. That's just one example. Nearly every point on the list, at some point in my most recent women's studies course, was covered and then explained in the context of feminism. Almost all, if not all of them, could be solved with a more progressive culture when it came to gender equality. It's not so much that EVERYTHING IS ABOUT HATING WOMEN such that when roles are established and one is valued more than the other, people are not going to want the less valuable role, even when it's needed. It becomes a restriction for the people designated for it (child rearing is beautiful and wonderful for women, so they should be mothers and that's that) and a 'shame' of people not culturally designated for it (child rearing is beautiful for women, but not as effective for men, they should have the distant and controlling role instead). It's complicated and has to do more with value than systematic oppression. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, patriarchy hurts men too. Nihilist 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In a few words, yes exactly.±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 14:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I heard plenty of that kind of chatter from the people who ran the "sexual assault advocacy center" at my alma mater. That these die-hard supporters of gender-neutral language never failed to refer to the rapist as "he" and the victim as "she" in their propaganda literature, and furthermore added a rump-covering footnote explaining that any other sort of rape was so rare as not to be worth acknowledging, cast some doubt in my mind as to their sincerity. Once you start up with shoehorning, it is comparatively simple to change the shape of the proverbial shoe. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to comments like Anon's "demonizing women's rights." As for my view on the subject, I think its naive as a whole to view "feminism" as the problem, but I do feel it can often have a tendency to sweep male issues under the table in the name of claiming that only women are oppressed, particularly second wave feminism (big fan of third-wave). ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.94.70.172 / talk / contribs}

Having found the comment I assume you're talking about, I don't see what's fun about it. It looks like he's making a serious point. The fact that you disagree with it doesn't justify it being in funspace. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What point? There is no point. MRAs are not "demonizing" the rights of women to call for help when they're abused, they're mad that men can't do the same thing. That comment serves only to straw-man then, and take a pot-shot.--Mustex (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Demonizing feminism is a pretty big aspect of the men's rights movements, even if it's not one of its core principals. And you're still not justifying why you think this belongs in funspace. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you're conflating feminism with women's rights. Not the same thing. The goals of feminism are to insure the rights of women, but that does not mean the two can be used synonymously. Thus, if you feel that feminism is not the best way to secure female rights, demonizing it is not the same as demonizing women's rights. As for why it should be a fun page, because its an unojective straw man, and thus has no place in an objective article.--Mustex (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

On RationalWiki fun is the namespace for off mission items which are amusing and therefore deemed worthy of keeping. It's not a dumping ground for straw man. Also, RationalWiki is not objective or NPOV. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC, +1 to what Weasel said) Suffice it to say, this article's getting hard to read. Purged snark, erratic formatting, and overly defensive of a position filled with cranks. Kinda reminds me of the fiasco with our nuclear articles... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 15:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to parts of the article you see as overly defensive? Because so far I see it as mainly saying "these are important issues, but attacking feminism is not helpful". Mr. Anon (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Mostly the introduction, I suppose. Among other things: "some feminists think that masculinists are nuts"; "some feminists" is vague and implies that nobody but feminists believes this, and the paragraph as a whole basically implies that MRAs are a more unified group than I've been lead to believe -- I've found far more "anti-feminist" groups than ones concerned with legitimate issues, and similar imbalances in news/literature on the subject, though my experience could be skewed. Moreover, phrases like "critics of the movement" don't really match the general RW theme, which is to say "this is a problem with [topic]".

The "equal rights vs. sexism" section seems clearer, but it's kind of disorganized. Incidentally, the side-by-side is probably what makes this so hard to read. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Legitimacy?

It seems to me like the "legitimacy" section should have it's name changed to "counter-argument" or something similar to that.^{— Unsigned, by: Sebastian341 / talk / contribs}

Agreed, but I also think the entire thing should be dismantled. Side-by-sides don't work well when they're based on paraphrasing, nor as the bulk of a normal article. (It's also really vague and apologetic, but that's another issue.)

Guess I'll do my job and try to rework this soon, unless anybody wants to have at it. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

SBS is meant for dissecting existing text so that no one can accuse you of straw manning or quote mining. In this case, it's not entirely the case. Anyway, I don't think it should be presented as a "counter argument" type thing - it's about assessing the legitimacy of the complaints and the validity of the reasoning. You don't need SBS to do that, in fact I'd say it's counter productive to use it like that. ^sshole 20:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just lazy writing, in this case. This article badly needs revision and editing, that section in particular. I am going to descend on it at some point.--^talk 04:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wage gap legitimacy

What's the point of the "In the the developing world, however, the gap can be as high as 10 cents to the dollar, a significantly clearer answer." line? The argument is about what the gap is caused by, not whether or not it exists. The MRA argument implicitly concedes that the wage gap exists - it uses that as its starting point.67.142.174.26 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The "significantly clearer answer" is the answer to whether or not the wage gap is legitimate, note whether or not it exists. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I missed that part about the wage gap diminishing on the MRA side. Sorry, don't mind me. 67.142.174.26 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So, tried to edit that part so that's it's more obvious what's being said, but it was reverted. ?? 67.142.174.26 (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Your edit stated the opposite and removed a part that you don't have a good reason for removing.
2. Stop trying to use this wiki to justify your sexist position.

-- Seth Peck (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha, what? If you read my edit, you'll notice I deleted no information - I just swapped the order of the two sentences and changed the wording slightly. I also fixed a typo, ("determine" needs a "to" in front of it) which you proceeded to revert. Do you have anything to say for yourself besides "grrr, sexism"? 67.142.174.26 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

When you make these sort of changes off the cuff it's very difficult to assume your agenda is different. In any case, your edit changed "isn't" to "is", which changes the tone of the whole sentence. Your most recent edit is okay, so far. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You could always just refrain from assuming anything about my agenda, couldn't you? Anyway:

"is" is the more appropriate word. Using "isn't" implies that the wage gap should be assumed to be caused by discrimination until it can be proven otherwise. Surely that's not the case.

But if you still disagree, how about changing it to "is or is not" as a compromise? 67.142.174.26 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Matt the Rose's wall o' text.

So someone just added the following. I got as far as "Neo-Feminist propaganda machine" and figured that maybe someone with more familiarity with the article might want to take a look OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC):

The most extreme critics of the Men's Rights movement are often proponents of Neo-Feminist propaganda machines, whose messages are often promulgated by major media and political outlets lobbied by such Feminist groups. Typically, opposition to male interests groups rely on the potency of "male guilt", which continues to demand endless retribution for the past discrimination of women—despite the fact that such a demand creates a discrimination against men that ironically negates the very quest for equality they mean to champion. This incessant stream of discussion about female oppression and the perceived advantages of men helps maintain male guilt and a national consensus that men, particularly white males, have "no disadvantages". These efforts spit out by nearly every commercial outlet contributes to the obscuring of male issues and has, in recent decades, slowly given rise to discussion about the phenomenon of "Invisible Men" - ref - [1]. This discussion elucidates the slow and certain devaluing of men into such positions of political and social climates that render them irrelevant. One of the most important, yet, least talked about effects of the modern day push for the endless spotlight on female oppression, is the intolerance that has emerged for discussion about men's issues. Over the past few decades, as Neo-Feminists have continued to gain political and financial advantages beyond the merits of equality, it has become absolutely taboo to suggest that men's issues require attention. Especially within American culture, where women have achieved great equality beyond any nation in the world, there continues to be social and political tensions which prevent the discussion of things like: why breast cancer receives double the federal funding that prostate cancer does, despite that fact that both kill an equal number of victims; how depression and homicidal tendencies in men are linked to isolation caused by unwritten social expectations about how men should be "tough" and never express feelings of vulnerability; and finally, how, despite the flexibility in gender roles that women have achieved, men are still held to the standards of "the bread winner" where male value falls to zero without a job or income. An accurate description of Men's Rights activists are those that wish to keep the vision of equality for both men and women in check, by ensuring that men's issues are taken just as seriously as women's issues. True MRA does not denounce feminism or mean to repeal female progress and members aren't "threatened" by the rise of female power, as is often the argument against the movement; members of MRA mean to correct the misguided extremes of Neo Feminism which no longer pursues true equality—where each gender is represented equally—but rather, uses tactics that achieve advantages for women by the systematic degradation of men. Simply put, MRA efforts hope to bring awareness to the elusive devaluation of men propagated under the banners of "feminism" and "equality", and to correct the tactics of disinformation and misinformation used by Neo Feminist groups to prevent male inclusion. This fight has become increasingly difficult as feminist groups and lobby machines have generated fear in the economic and political sectors over the threat of claims of discrimination and sexism. Politicians, CEOs, and business culture alike have drastically shifted funding, hiring, firing, and promotional policies that extinguish programs that help men, and promote programs that help women. This transfer of wealth, investment, and power from men to women in the political and economic realms is solicited under the threat of the voting strength and financial support of feminist groups that are determined to make or break careers if administrations and institutions do not lend more favor to women.

Looks like the usual "feminists control The Media™ and men have no power" stuff. The article's already an apology piece, it really doesn't need any of the above... 99.50.98.145 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the citation is apparently his own blog. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@ MattTheRose - continually adding your text won't make it stick. If you come here and discuss it, maybe you'll persuade us, but hammering away at the article won't get you anywhere. And I'm a politically conservative white male, so don't try the "feminazi" accusation with me. VOX^HUMANA 22:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Butthurt Gish Gallop. Not much content that I can see. ^sshole 23:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)