Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive4

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)

Side by side

To follow our typical style in side-by-sides, i've reframed the left side to more directly reflect actual arguments, instead of "they claim". I've also tried to include only links to MRA sites, rather than jezebel's humorous observations of MRA claims. --Godotrien ne marcherait 19:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

They love us! etc

MRA complains about how biased, though not factually incorrect, this article is ... on Atheism+ forum - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That thread is hard to follow. From m take it looks like only 1 guy has an issue with it and the rest pile on to mock him. I guess the best thing that can be said about it is that we are getting some publicity. I am quite active on a few forums about the place and links to RW are increasing exponentially. --Damo^Hi 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much it. But avatars and usernames on the right instead of the left has totally confused me to the point that I need a cup of tea and a sit down. ^postate 00:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Male circumcision

Though cutting off the foreskin doesn't remotely compare with cutting off of the clitoris and sometimes even the labia [...]

Not a very rational take. FGM legislation strictly forbids even e.g. a token nick in the clitoral hood proposed as a replacement ritual by several religious communities who practice various forms of female genital cutting. Even that token nick is strictly outlawed as "genital mutilation" even though it removes no tissue.

Moreover, even the very worst forms of FGM remove "only" about 50% of all erogenous nerve endings, whereas the typical foreskin amputation removes a commonly estimated 75% of all erogenous nerve endings from the penis.

The only truly rational take is that both FGM and MGM are ethically wrong and must be outlawed. I'm not a libertarian btw, I'm a staunch socialist who deeply regrets that the present incarnation of the Men's Rights Movement has been co-opted in its entirety by libertarians, who incidentally are paying only lip service to intactivism. In reality, most of the problems the Men's Rights Movement purports to address have their root cause in the failed libertarian experiment. However, feminism by and large does not care at all about the human rights of male children. Boys, even male infants, are commonly regarded as future rapists by the vast majority of feminists who adamantly insist that amputating healthy tissue off a girl's body is a major crime while amputating healthy tissue off a boy's body is perfectly fine, nothing wrong with it, nevermind the mounting evidence of the horrific longterm consequences of cutting off half the skin from the penis including all of the most sensitive structures. --213.168.72.67 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that being "rational" means any particular point of view is the "winner" - "obviously" or "necessarily". I think the article expresses the fact that circumcision is harmful to the child. And again, given that the loudest voice for ending male circumcision tends to be MOTHERS, and not teh fathers (who infact statistically want the boys to 'look like them', i kid you not), i would disagree with your post that feminists do little about male circumcision.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• "winner"? Who said anything about "winning"?
• I think the article expresses the fact that circumcision is harmful to the child. -- Eh? The article parrots the same old myth that FGM in all its forms is more devastating than typical male circumcision. And that's a rationally untenable position, plain and simple, no two ways about it.
• given that the loudest voice for ending male circumcision tends to be MOTHERS, and not teh fathers (who infact statistically want the boys to 'look like them', i kid you not), i would disagree with your post that feminists do little about male circumcision. -- Just wow. I wasn't aware that feminism now lays claim to all good mothers (=mothers who protect their children from greedy doctors and perverse religious freaks). All intactivist mothers are feminists? Really? You're basing that on what exactly? Most of them are probably just healthy human beings and not remotely interested in organized feminism in any way, shape or form. Yet since they are women and good people, you automatically count them as feminists. Again: Wow. --87.79.108.207 (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

{http://community.feministing.com/2010/06/04/feminism-and-male-circumcision/ yeah], WOW, shocking I might think feminists care about circumcision. FFS.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool, looking forward to feminists do more than token blog lip service to the issue and helping mutilated males organize some class-action lawsuits against the doctors and mothers who conspired to do it. Until then, just words. Tyciol (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Some advice for MRAs

I'd suggest the next time you meet someone who believes in the men's rights movement to ask if they think men should have more rights than women. If they say no, then you should consider editing this article. ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.19.226.195 / talk / contribs}

Been there, done that. As the article says, there are some who want men and women to have equal rights and focus their efforts on situations where men are disenfranchised, but a lot more want men to have more rights and using the positive sounding name to misogyny.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly that is not my experience in talking to men who you would demean with this label. Sometimes a guy who wants to see more of his kids is just a guy who wants to see more of his kids. Damo^Hi 14:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

MRA's are not guys who want to see their kids. Or guys who want custody of their kids. They are guys who think the system is built for women, and that they have the losing hand in all sorts of things. They are guys who think that women are at their core, selfish bitches who want to take take take, and not give. They are guys who think that they are "obligated" to "pay for brats", because she wants to have his kids. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, there's a massive difference between that sort of thing. My worry is that with an extremely easy label to use - "MRA" - it's more than possible to conflate the two. To both dismiss people with legitimate concerns as being "MRA shills", and to think that MRA critics are ignoring legitimate concerns when they are, in fact, not. ^bomination 19:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This article does not make any clear such distinction. Anyone reading this article will think that you are just referring to people who think that there are some inherent biases against men in some aspects of life. In any case there are very very few of the people you are allegedly talking about and an overwhelming majority of the people who would use the phrase men's rights are the type of people I describe. You are (possibly inadvertantly) tarring everyone with the same brush. Like I said somewhere else, no-one will read this and be at all convinced by it unless they already agreed with you. It comes off as a strident, shrill piece that has almost no basis in reality, aside from a few weirdoes on loveshy.com or somewhere. Perhaps that is what you wanted, but otherwise it is a very poorly written article. Damo^Hi 20:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"a lot more want men to have more rights" Proof? No doubt if anyone said this about feminism and wanting women to have more rights they'd get shouted down with the 'nooo it's about equality' criticism. Tyciol (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh

They just don't get it, do they? Neither sides can understand that, if you want that two sexes be treated equally, you should protest for both sides equally. You know, practice what you preach. This also works for PC and AA nuts. If you want everyone treated equally, treat everyone equally. It is just that simple. Atheoi (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that. In a way, that would be like the balance fallacy. Woman-on-man domenstic violence is far rarer than man-on-woman domestic violence (even taking into account how under-reported it is) so speaking of both equally is a little problematic. It would be like saying that preparing for alien invasion is as high a priority as preparing for a flood - kinda, analogies are weird. The mistake is to assume that this means that "women's rights issues are more important means men's rights issues are completely ignored and irrelevant" - which is not just how many MRA's view the feminist opinion, but how many feminist opinions actually are. I've seen plenty outright dismiss male rape and male circumcision as problems in the manner of "hey, you people just don't matter because, well, just because". And that's quite bad.

This is one of the few places where the MRA have a point - the British Crime Survey says that [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence]40% of domestic violence is female on male[/url] (and 20% of repeat domestic violence is remale on male). 'Far rarer' understates the point - but there are isses round definitions. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Equality is more than just "treating people the same". You can't treat someone bound to a wheelchair "exactly the same" as someone who can walk, you have to do things to help them be brought up to the level of those who don't have that disadvantage. So by the same token, women's rights are prioritised because historically it's that sex that's been the underprivileged, so they're more in need the leg up and so can justify taking a majority share of the effort. But as I said, this is sometimes used as an excuse to not just put male rights on the backburner, but turn the burner off completely because it can be ignored and shunned. ^sshole 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea how common female-on-male domestic violence is because of the massive under-reporting which you yourself admit. It's like trying to get accurate figures for any kind of rape in the 1850s. You're taking the common preconceptions for granted, which is a big part of the problem to begin with.—Chbarts (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

When men say this, i wonder what they mean by violence. throwing something? slapping someone? What we do know is how many men are hospitalized vs. how many women. and the numbers are STAGGERINGLY high on the men side, and virtually no existant on the women's side. there ahve been murders, stabbings, but nothing compared to the same from men. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh course, when you say that you sound massively dismissive of an issue because it's a minority thing. Domestic violence isn't as lethal as, say, genocide, but we don't neglect to look into domestic abuse because of this, do we? Being on the receiving end of unacceptable behaviour isn't a popularity contest. ^pathetic 11:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Love to see how men not being hospitalized (because I'm sure if he was, he'd admit to why he was there) means we should assume that men are attacked less often. Tyciol (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Equality" is largely a zero-sum game. Every dollar and moment spent on one thing is away from the other thing. Therefore it's quite inevitable it becomes polarized. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The trouble, beyond what ADK mentions, is that you cannot treat someone who does not have power, as equal. You can pretend to, but it's not really equal. If you are in the position of giving the equality, then it's not equal. Gays, for example must beg the mainstream to give them their rights - a situation no one should have to be in, but it is the power system never the less. Politicians in the US are debating "definition of rape", "birth control as paid for by taxes" "birth control as paid for by group insurance", "abortion", "equal pay acts", etc. Groups that are 80% or larger, male, are defining for women, how they will live. No amount of treating women equally, will make them equal in that situation. Treating women "equally" when you are an atheist blog, for example, would likely mean no women will be selected to write, because there are not that many women writers on atheism. But actively saying "we will focus on women atheist and women writers each month", draws out the women, helps make them skilled writers, then they can compete equally. --GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 16:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The remaining issue is recognising when we're in a situation to "turn off" that attitude - i.e., where focusing on the underprivileged becomes patronising rather than helpful. E.g., I don't have to take special care of the women I work with in a work-related environment because, seriously, they're capable on their own and there are few barriers remaining to actively break down - just the patience needed for this equality that's been built up over the last 20 years start to age naturally into the older generation. But, take a look outside that into places where politicians are saying "What? Gay rights? Women's rights? Fuck that!" and it's a battle to be had. ^bomination 16:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And largely, that comes from being aware of the situation at your personal work place, in your personal community, and then putting that in context with the greater world. I suspect, if you are a developer at a small 10 person office, where you all know each other and like each other, a woman is less likely to be treated as anything other than (oh, this is bad, but it is what it is) "one of the guys" simply cause she is Jane, not "the female developer". but as you get into larger offices, where you don't see each other as Jane and Bob, but "the guy from IT", "The girl working on the Hart project", you are far more likely to have issues. Being aware that it might be a problem is what keeps work places happy! GodotBe informed. Vote. 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh no it isn't. Equality that breaks down traditional roles and allows people to do what they are best suited to is a win by all sides. There's a reason Solidarity was and is seen as a virtue. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Can we get some things clear here? Unless this is purely a page for an umbrella classification of groups, I am assuming that it refers to Men's rights in general. Now, if that is the case, let me set down some premises. Simple, clear premises which I hope we can all agree on. I doubt we will...

1. Men and Women are equal.

2. Discrimination exists against men due to their gender. Not necessarily common, nor widespread, nor anywhere near as prevalent as the equivalent, but exists nonetheless.

3. Discrimination against men is not justified:

A. In retribution

B. Due to the continued inequality in their favor

C. Because they are more physically or socially robust in any way

4. Fighting for an end to discrimination against men in no way invalidates feminism, nor any valid pursuits thereof.

5. Discrimination of both sexes can occur simultaneously, even if there is a total balance toward one sex.

6. It is possible to defend or pursue men's rights/equality (because unless you are using a preconceived definition, they are the same thing) without being misogynistic in any way, as is true of a gender-flipped version of this statement.

Could you all possibly see if you can form some more neutral and unbiased opinions based on those statements? Personally, I see them all as self-evidently true, and lead with hardly any brain power at all on to a far more pro-male view than the page displayed. I've been very pleased with how much I've agreed with RationalWiki so far, let's not go and spoil it now...

The Articulator (talk)

Cry me a river, Mister. Cry me a river. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried to compromise in the article to include mention that there are people who call themselves MRAs that are not sexists, but that the majority who do are sexists, but that's been struck down.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) It's not very clear where you're going with this. If you've got comments about what this article says or suggestions how to improve it, please point out the specific things you think are inaccurate in it. But NB this an an article about the men's right movement as it is manifested & observed, not as a hypothetical concept. Floating a bunch of premises about how it's possible to pursue rights without impinging on other people's doesn't alter the fact that the MRA movement more often than not goes hand in hand with some very questionable views on men, women & feminism. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"response" vs "backlash"

I appreciate "backlash" may fail to convince people who think of themselves as men's rights activists - but it's absolutely the accurate term for what's going on. I put "reaction", but frankly I'm inclined to change it back. Others? - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends what we mean by "men's rights movement" if we mean extreme, virtually non-existent, almost comicbook villain shadowy figures who believe that women should be second class citizens then 'backlash' is more appropriate. If we are using the term to describe people who think that men sometimes need some advocacy in some areas of society (which is what 99% of people who read this article will think the term means) then perhaps we shouldn't be so shrill and dogmatic in the opening sentence. --Damo^Hi 21:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"extreme, virtually non-existent"? You're talking complete shit. This article wouldn't exist if they weren't a serious current problem - David Gerard (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never met anyone who goes around saying the sorts of things you say, or believing that women should have less rights than men. I have however met many, many people who would probably consider themselves as advocates for men's rights who don't believe in relegating women to second class citizens. I suggest if this is a big issue as you allege then the name of the article be changed to reflect the fact that it is a fringe group you are referring to and not the vast majority of people who think that there are areas where men should have advocacy. The problem is that you have misappropriated a phrase that describes a largely defensible set of beliefs to mean a snarl word. --Damo^Hi 00:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Argument from personal ignorance combined with wanting to redefine the term out of existence. I remain stunningly unconvinced. You may well be too stupid to talk to - David Gerard (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to your "it wouldn't be an article on Rationalwiki if it wasn't a big issue" brilliance. And if you can't make an argument without resorting to insults then that says a lot about you. Besides, it wasn't an argument from personal ignorance at all, it was pointing out that there are people who hold some of these views without being misogynists. Is it your position that anyone who considers that men should have advocacy in some areas of society are by definition misogynists? That no-one holds these views independent of being a sexist pig? Damo^Hi 01:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never met anyone starving in Africa before... ^moral 00:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've met plenty of people who call themselves MRA's. Most are misogynists, or getting there very quickly. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

People seem to like calling others misogynists or misandrists nowadays. Terms that mean you hate an entire gender. To know what someone hates, you gotta read their mind. Perhaps the mis-diagnosers on both ends are misdiagnosing? Critics of feminism see misandry everywhere, critics of MRM see misogyny everywhere. I think more would be found if we stopped assuming universal hatred was present and looked more at localized hatred and beliefs. Tyciol (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

I'm reading through this article and it seems to be a response to both the men's rights movement in both the sense of it being about men seeking equality, and the sense of it being a codeword for misogynist. I'm going to clarify some of this, so everyone keep your pants on and lets see what can be done about this. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt you will get anywhere. I tried that and was told I was too stupid to even talk to. --Damo^Hi 01:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you straight-up deny these people even exist. ^moral 01:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. I said that there are people who could sensibly be described as advocating mens rights that are not misogynistic. Do you deny that? --Damo^Hi 01:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, not perfect by any means, but atleast a good starting point.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it 10 minutes before it gets removed. --Damo^Hi 01:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

To me, having gone to these sites, adn read them, I think this now goes over board with the "but we aren't really putting anyone down". Saying who we are talking about, once in teh opening, should be sufficient. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Damo, the thing is, if you are not a member of these MRA groups, then you shouldn't be insulted. they exist. everything we put on the right, we took DIRECTLY FROM THEIR SITES. Saying "this does not represent all men who are looking for equality" is sufficient.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm a lawyer and in my previous law firm about half of the work I did was family law related. I am of the opinion that despite explicit instructions in the legislation to start at a place of equality between the sexes, there was a definite bias against males when it came to matrimonial property disputes and custody disputes. I would lay the blame for these effects as historical, just as much as feminists would lay the blame for gender inequality the other way on historical effects. It is just a reflection of the fact that society has changed but legal systems take time to reflect this.

I don't work in that area now, but I haven't heard anything that would suggest it has changed in the 18 months since I left. I don't really turn my mind to it all that much, but lets say I did; what could you possibly call me except something like a "mens rights advocate"? Are you saying that I cannot legitimately have that belief without being a sexist pig? There are clearly two separate groups here, one that is misogynistic and want to reduce the status of women, and another that sees some inequity in some aspects of society, exactly analogous to those areas highlighted by feminists. There are some crazies, for sure, but I think they are in the minority, and the article should reflect that. This article suggests that anyone advocating anything like this is misogynistic, and that is bullshit at about the same level of the CP feminism page. Damo^Hi 01:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

But they aren't two separate groups; that's wishful thinking. There's a massive overlap. Even publicity-friendly groups like Fathers 4 Justice have been shown to be dominated by guys with some dubious ideas about women. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like where this is going. The article is now redefining MRA into two distinct groups, one "an extension of feminism" and the other "coded-sexists". This is a straw man, not a compromise. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help that when you read a news aggregator like this there's a confused, frothy admixture of genuine legal concern and "bitches should know their place". ^bomination 01:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WE are seeing this a lot at RW on different topics. Where terms are used many ways, and we try to make a "stand" on them. I think the best answer in all caess is to be open. 1) on a google search of "term X", you will see these many defintions. This article addresses "this" or "That" use, and largely ignores the others.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia for a different way of doing things, they say "The men's rights movement (MRM), a subset of the larger men's movement, is focused on addressing discrimination against men in areas such as reproductive rights, divorce settlements, domestic violence laws, and sexual harassment laws.[1] It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s, differing from that movement in its focus and rejection of pro-feminist principles.[2][3]". EVEN they seem to get that MRA are not just trying to set teh record straight. we lose something of our tone when we bend over too much for people who say "I don't think that's out there, cause i've not seen it. and besides, you're being mean". (and yes, i've said those very words. grins). Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) As in Armondikov's example, the two sentiments (legitimate concerns & sexism) are so closely linked within the MRA movement that it's hard to separate them. So I don't see how an article stating they are two totally different approaches, as we now have, can reflect reality. We should acknowledge that some people may become involved in the movement or support its aims for legitimate reasons (e.g. reaction to a court's custody decision) but unfortunately many of the leaders and spokesmen of MRA groups do tend to have very questionable attitudes to women. As with any advocacy movement, there's a spectrum of views to some extent, but pretending like it's two separate movements (an acceptable one and a really-not-cool one) is disingenuous. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"There are some crazies, for sure, but I think they are in the minority, and the article should reflect that." I dunno about that. Even Glenn Sacks has noted a " not-insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Weaseloid: The article as it stands admits that there are basically two different groups who refer to their movements with something about "Men's Rights". It frankly states that there are legitimate groups who deal with issues of discrimination against men and call themselves "men's rights activists". As the article is right now, it's basically just repeating "MRA = sexism" a thousand times, then goes "Oh by the way, here's a group that's in the umbrella of "MRA", that is not sexist", and then goes right back to repeating "MRA = sexism" while ignoring the non-sexist groups. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy into this crap about there being "basically two different groups". Is there anything to substantiate it? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean other then the group listed in the article as it stands that calls itself part of the MRA movement and are not sexists? No, I cannot think of an example other then the one already in the damn article.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to The Good Men Project/Foundation, then 1. you should be aware that not everybody has the same rosy view of it that you presumably do,[1][2][3] and 2. you haven't validated how it represents a separate movement from the other MRA groups we talk about. Sure, there are variations of attitude, approach and worldview within the MRA movement as a whole, just as there are within feminism, the LGBT rights movement, the Tea Party, animal rights lobby or any other large scale advocacy movement, but to keep insisting that there are two separate movements that don't really have anything to do with each other is an outright false dichotomy. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article takes a pretty fucking rosy view of them.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Although some MRAs have written for The Good Men Project (TGMP), they view TGMP as somewhat suspicious - the majority of that website can be boiled down to "feminism is always right, MRAs are wrong, they're evil". If you want some websites that talk about MRA issues or are from MRAs, here are some: Glenn Sacks/Fathers & Families (perhaps MRA, more fathers' rights activist, especially the first), Genderratic, Toysoldier. Also, the contents at A Voice for Men are divided between misogynist crap (mainly by its founder and lead author) and some good, even excellent articles (by its other authors, and rarely by its lead author). Faunas (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that some more extreme woman-haters can infiltrate groups based upon sound principles (just as some man-haters can infiltrate feminism) but I don't think that makes the core of the movements and their stated principles based on the hateful vitriol of the extremists who try to influence it. Tyciol (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering I'm the closest thing you have to an ally in this thread, I think you should shut the fuck up.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There certainly aren't two different "groups". But there are broadly two classes of issues discussed - ones that raise legit concerns and ones that don't (there happens to be fewer of the former, but that doesn't invalidate them). Hence you need to tackle it on an issue-by-issue basis, not a group-by-group basis or "MRAs" in general. This is what the article presently does, by taking arguments and addressing them. But I think then taking it to say "therefore there are two groups" is wrong. ^pathetic 17:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MRA

We've lost the edit that explains the acronym MRA, and i've forgotten what the A means. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Advocacy / advocate. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also seen activism/activist. Could make a note about it being both. Tyciol (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

On criminal penalties

Where is the source to confirm the following sentence: "Believing that feminists are responsible for this rather ignores a core tenet of feminism: equal treatment, and that would also mean for committing the same crime.", i.e., where is the proof that MRAs say feminists are responsible for this? Faunas (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of disappointed to see this article...

This article seems very one sided and baselessly critical of the men's rights movement. I don't consider myself an MRA, but I have many friends who do and I feel as if this article has completely straw-manned the movement. The article is extremely critical of MRAs, yet many of the male issues listed on the page are identified as legitimate. So essentially MRAs have a legitimate cause, but because a small percentage of them are sexist their movement is irrelevant or illegitimate? A men's rights advocate is simply someone who advocates against male discrimination. There are no other modifiers or criterion. It's like saying the feminist movement is illegitimate because there is a small percentage of sexist feminists. MRAs and feminists cannot prevent people from adopting their labels, nor can they prevent people from making blogs using their label. MRAs (and feminists) have no way of policing who becomes involved in their movement. The majority of MRAs, who are reasonable individuals, should not be represented by a small minority of misogynists that have adopted their label.

Specific things I have issue with:

• "Though cutting off the foreskin doesn't remotely compare with cutting off of the clitoris (and sometimes even the labia) in terms of damage done, the attention being brought to female genital cutting has increased pressure on countries that practice MGM; ironically for MRAs, it's been the most feminist-friendly nations taking action.[4]"

I see a lot more MRAs advocating against circumcision than I do see feminists. The fact that feminist-friendly nations are taking action is correlation, but not necessarily causation. Those nations also tend to be the most liberal and developed. Circumcision is not yet illegal in any country, I believe, so not much progress is really being made (except in public opinion). Even though FGM is worse than circumcision, circumcision still occurs in huge numbers. Thousands of times more men are circumcised where I live (canada) than women. The vast number of victims increases the significance of the human rights violation.

• "All of these arguments included here are taken directly from "Men's Rights" groups, but care should be taken in understanding that some issues are found in both MRA groups and in the legitimate quest to fix problems in the system."

And what exactly is the "legitimate quest to fix problems in the system?" Men who advocate against male discrimination are somehow doing so illegitimately? What is the legitimate way for a man to speak out against his discrimination?

• "The next time you meet a "radical feminist", ask her if women should deserve more rights than men do. If you get a "no" answer, try rethinking your entire approach to the debate. It'll help."

Ask an MRA if men deserve more rights than women. If you get a "no" answer (and you will), maybe you should rethink your perception of MRAs...

• "They're unhappy about the "women and children first" protocol in maritime disasters, for example the Titanic in 1912, where 74% of the women survived but only 20% of the men did."

No, they're unhappy about the concept of male disposability which led to this protocol. The studies linked show that this command was given more than 30% of the time. Women had a lower chance of survival simply because women's bodies are less capable of surviving cold water and injuries which can occur during a shipwreck. Women also generally wear more restrictive, heavier clothing which makes it difficult to swim. The "women and children first" protocol demonstrates the concept that men are expected to sacrifice themselves. The fact that the women were more likely to survive has no bearing on that.

• "Marital rape laws are misandrist because the wife automatically consents to sex whenever the husband desires as part of the marriage contract.[34] A less severe formulation is that marital rape laws are unfairly biased against men because regular rape laws should cover it."

Care to give examples of MRAs saying this, other than fringe bloggers? You are mistaken if you believe any significant percentage of MRAs agree with that statement.

It's also laughable that this article promotes the good men project. It's widely criticized by both feminists and MRAs. Not only that, but it's an ideological blog. Many MRA blogs also promote equal rights, but have differing ideology from the good men project.

It seems the writers of this article have focused on the 5% of MRAs who are sexist instead of the overwhelming majority of MRAs who are looking for a means to eliminate male discrimination. The MRA blogs linked as sources on this page are fringe members with little popularity. It's clear that these fringe blogs were chosen intentionally to falsely represent the movement. ^{— Unsigned, by: Seabass / talk / contribs} 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you give examples of blogs, organisations, etc. which you think better represent the movement? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a youtube vlogger called "girlwriteswhat" that is somewhat prominent. There are fathers groups like "fathers and families" or "dads canada." Other examples include "avoiceformen" and "cotwa.info." I don't claim that those people/sites are free from flaw or are uniformly rational. However, it's a serious stretch to claim that they are motivated by misogyny. Seabass (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That line in the article about "asking a feminist" is about the silliest line in the whole of RationalWiki. Is it supposed to be clever? Damo[[User_Talk:Damo|

And what exactly is silly about it? It demonstrates the flawed logic which could easily be applied against the writers of this article. It shows how that statement simplifies the argument of some MRAs. No one is going to openly admit they are sexist, so even if a radical feminist doesn't admit to being sexist, doesn't mean they aren't. Unless I misunderstood the original intent of that statement. Seabass (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was saying that the line in the article was bad. In other words I was agreeing with you. Damo^Hi 00:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Horse Porn

Feminism is less popular than horse porn aswell. You should add that. https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=mens%20rights%2C%20horse%20porn%2C%20feminism&cmpt=q

Must resist urge to make Homestuck joke... Anyway, the idea that feminism and MRA are somehow two sides of the same coin is fallacious, so the comparison is uncalled for. Blue (pester) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But the main objective of these two movements is to bash the other. Not the exact opposite, but close enough.

The main aim of feminism is not to bash MRA. MRA didn't even exist until very recently, whereas feminism has centuries of history. And that's without getting into the substance of the movement. Blue (is useful) 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, the MRA has existed since the 1970's. And no, it is not an organization existing to bash feminism. It isn't even an organization. IT is many different groups that are often not even associated with each other. MRAs typically are critical of feminism, and those criticisms are not illegitimate. Raudskeggr (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's included in "very recently." Feminism began as a movement in the late 1700s. Blue (pester) 05:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Some Advice?

If RationalWiki wants to actually present itself as legitimately rational, then there are some problems with the way this article is being treated. Not only that, but the locking of this page depsite the utter absence of neutrality and unapologetic PoV does a disservice to the Wiki as a whole.

It seems as if the entire purpose of the article is soley to slander and discredit the Mens Rights Movement, and it doesn't cut any corners to be nasty abut it either.

Number one:

"In the blogosphere, the acronym "MRA" (Men's rights advocates) is used to identify men who appear to hold these positions, though the label is often applied arbitrarily." Should read "used to identify people". Many MRAs are women. Even free-thinking, intelligent, and independent women at that.

"Out in the real world, the men's rights movement is somewhat less popular than horse porn." Way to take the high road. RadFem also ranks lower than various unsavory pornography varieties.

"Various claims" -this entire section of refutations relies on one-sided, cherry-picked, or outdated data; which in academic terms means it is dishonest and full of lies.

"While "men's rights" is often currently used as a cover for sexism" maybe, but [citation needed].

"There are also a massive proliferation of men's rights groups that use "men's rights" as a front for misogyny while claiming to be for gender equality or some that openly support patriarchy." "Since they haven't gained much influence as of yet, their activity seems to be mostly limited to whining about the "feminazis" or "femtards" on the internet." Looking at more representative Men's Rights groups on the internet, I have seen no instances of people using this kind of language; and if they do, so what? Trolling through feminist publications and internet communities, one could find any number of hateful and disparaging remarks. Some even openly advocate matriarchy. Yet feminists will be the first to say that these attitudes are not representative of them or their beliefs. Should the MRM be held to a different (higher) standard?

"Some advice for MRAs" The irrationality of the statement here, presented as a rational rebuke, is almost a joke in and of itself. Except that it isn't.

All in all, the tone and content of this article is anything BUT rational; It is so skewed towards a single PoV, in fact, that I would posit that it is on par with the articles on Conservapedia. Now if that is the intellectual level you're going for, great. But otherwise, you do a disservice to yourselves and to the TRUTH by letting this atrocity of an article stand as it is. Raudskeggr (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What's a Conservapedia? Blue (pester) 05:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the complaints

I propose that somebody find one of these alleged non-strawman, sane MRA groups, and have a look at their stance. Failing that, we should at least include some sort of olive branch section detailing possible legitimate grievances men might have with regards to sexism: child custody, androgyny (I've hardly studied this, but I'm under the impression that it's more acceptable for women to adopt "manly" mannerisms and dress than it is for men to do the converse; correct me if I'm wrong), and employment in certain fields (fields that are predominantly held by woman do tend to exclude men. While things are getting better, male nurses and men in other fields traditionally considered to be women's roles have things just a slight bit harder than their female counterparts in finding employment and with how society might perceive them). No, I'm not siding with the men's rights activists. Far from it. I just think that we should consider the possibility a grain of truth might be hidden in these BoNs' indignant screeds--"Shut up, Brx." 05:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I just read the article very closely. The only possible complaint I can come up with is that the lead section does not distinguish the "males advocating for genuine equality of rights and opportunity" from the "crusaders against Feminazis" contingent as well as it might.

by "as well as you might" i think you mean, in fact, not at all? Except for a few statements of the various "kinds" of MRAs, it in fact lumps all of them together.Raudskeggr (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The section header "Various claims" already deals quite fairly with the (admittedly small) number of genuine cases where men are discriminated against, such as custody. There are a couple of lines of snark (the RW trademark) but apart from that, this looks like a pretty fair and balanced article. If there are specific problems beyond that, they need to be outlined - shouting "you're all a bunch of jerks" doesn't get us very far. (And just for the record, I am a single, heterosexual male). VOX^HUMANA 06:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe highlighting legitimate contentions with their own section might be a good idea?--"Shut up, Brx." 06:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

By all means. Any substantive complaint can and should be dealt with fairly. However that hasn't happened yet. Despite its length, the section above only has only one substantive complaint (the horse porn issue) and I can dismiss that on the grounds of it being legitimate RW snark. A hefty portion of the article's content can be found under the heading "Various claims" and any specific objections to items in this section deserve fair treatment. However apart from claiming it is "a pack of lies", there is nothing substantial in the above complaint to actually respond to. VOX^HUMANA 06:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate what seems to be a genuine attempt to acknowledge legitimate complaints; however I honestly didn't expect them to be taken seriously (i figured that people would say that perhaps I have a point in one or two areas and hand-wave the rest of my critique away). So I didn't go into many specifics. (FYI, It is dishonest to put "a pack of lies" in quotes to imply a direct quotation, when it is not). Please examine my other complaints aside form the horse porn one as well; including as mentioned above the lumping of all MRAs together (intellectually dishonest and only really interpretable as an attempt to slander).

My criticism of the opening, which was fairly mild given the heavy PoV language used in it, was legitimate in that many MRAs are not men.

Also, that last section "Some advice for MRAs" is problematic in that anything that radical feminists (or should I put it in quotes: "radical feminists", how's that?) might claim or deny has little bearing on the legitimacy of the majority of grievances expressed by the MRM. Furthermore,to dismiss them as such ignores (or attempt to dismiss their many concerns by lumping them all together) the bulk of their concerns: such as the proposition that men are, in fact, no longer advantaged in many countries, especially in North America and Europe.

This segues nicely into levying specific concerns aginst specific assertions in the article (a fact which by itself demonstrates the one-sided nature of the article).

1) "Currently, male circumcision is discouraged by the American Medical Association and the American Pediatrics Association.[6]" This is not equivalent to a global effort to outlaw the practice. And while it is most definitely not as bad as female genital mutilation (in that circumcised men can experience sex somewhat normally), it is nonetheless genital mutilation that is usually performed on infants (who cannot consent to the practice!) for religious reasons. Many MRAs concern is not with circumcision itself, but rather that it is done involuntarily to children. That said, it is strange that it is listed first among these concerns, as it is a minor grievance for most MRAs, and many in fact do not care one way or another about the issue.

2) The Pay Gap. The source cited for this section uses outdated information. The younger generation of women do earn more than men the same age: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237196/Women-win-gender-pay-war-20s-earning-men-age.html, http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html). This is only for woman who are not mothers and in their twenties; by age 40 the pay gap still exists. However even then there is a correlation with family and child-care and the lower pay incentives that cannot simply be hand-waved away.

This itself is a complex issue, and leads to one of the number one grievences of the MRM, and one that is difficult to ignore:

3)Under the law of many (most?) countries, a mother's parental rights take precedence over a father's. In some countries like the UK, men have virtually no parental rights at all unless they are married to the mother.

This point was addressed as the last item on the list, but no counter point exists in the article. I would suggest that this is because the grievance is quite difficult to deny.

4) I do not dispute the response to the healthcare concerns; I think they stem from media perceptions more than the pragmatic reality of healthcare priorities, and the statistical data suggest this also.

5) The response to the point about affirmative action programs that benefit women presume that reverse discrimination is justified as a response to inequality; this is in itself a controversial stance and does not suffice as as refutation of the original complaint. Again, however, this complaint is finite compared to other concerns of the MRM.

6) "They're unhappy about the "'Woman and children first'"..." This statement misrepresents the concerns raised about this social ethic. For one, it doesn't matter whether it is a de iure or de facto practice when it is in fact practiced and enforced. MRAs do not complain that this ethic exists/existed (as most will acknowledge that it is no longer practiced widely in Western culture). They merely put it forward as an example of a traditional gender inequality in our culture that continues to favor women: That women's lives are valued more than men's.

7) The response to the statement about prison, while not denying it's veracity, makes an unsupportable claim, and then tacks on a presumption that this inequality is being attributed to feminism uniformly. While there are some MRAs who will attribute almost anything to feminism, the same could be true of feminists and the patriarchy.

It also ignores the main criticism the MRA raises about prison sentence inequality: Feminists rarely (if at all?) take issue with the fact that women are generally given more lenient treatment by the criminal justice system.

8) The statement misrepresents the prevailing view of MRAs; it is not that consent is applied by marriage, but that it is presumed that when people are married, consensual sexual activity will occur. This is one of the central characteristics of marriage in Western culture. Almost nobody (except a few notable bigots) denies that marital rape is absolutely wrong. They do, however, feel it is problematic with regards to the burden of proof. How do the courts distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sex within a marriage? How can it be proven that consent was not given? Nobody wants to see rape go unpunished (except the rapist, of course); but at the same time, you cannot simply attribute a presumption of guilt upon a man accused of rape; and yet this is in fact what often happens--and our legal system prioritizes the minimization of wrongful convictions over the zeal to convict legitimate criminals.

9) I would also point out that this section ignores the other major concerns of the MRA:

That male victims of violence and sexual assault are largely ignored, even though they do exist in significant numbers.

That there is a presumption of guilt applied against any man accused of domestic violence, intimate partner abuse, sexual assault, or rape. When stories are published about such accusations in the media, the public automatically presumes that they are guilty of what they are accused of. While not the fault of feminism, feminism by and large ignores this problem as being minimal and uncommon, when not all data suggests this is so.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_statistics)

Androgyny, as mentioned above; Men are socially punished, by both genders, for not properly meeting expectations of male gender roles; this includes everything from androgyny to homosexuality to being a "house-husband". This is indeed problematic,and is related to a fact that society expects women only to posses a vagina; and even if she dresses like a man and dates other women, she's not considered less of a woman by society's definition...whereas this is not so of men.

Feminism, while claiming to be for equal treatment, repeatedly and regularly hand-waves, ignores, or outright denies concerns about men's issues. This in and of itself is one of the reasons why MRAs exist; there is a need to raise awareness about societal problems that are being ignored. It stands to reason: one cannot effectively promote equality while disregarding significant areas of inequality.

The media tends to ignore men's issues. For example, take the following article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94298&page=1. The title of this article implies that Hispanic girls are the demographic most likely to drop out of school, and 99% of the text reinforces that assumption; while almost ignoring what many would consider important information: Hispanic girls are the most likely FEMALE students to drop out of school. The most likely students overall are Hispanic boys. This skewed presentation of social problems is representative of media coverage in general.

Boys are being left behind in our schools; but more than that, masculinity is in many ways frowned upon in young children. This is a trend that needs to be addressed. If our schools are truly succeeding, children of all demographics would be showing improvement; but men are slipping.

Finally, and this is one of the major ones: Feminist literature, as well as the media and popular culture tends to paint normal, healthy male sexual interests and desires as somehow "wrong" or "bad". This is equivalent to a major complaint of feminism that the sexual characteristics of females has long been taboo in our culture. It is wrong to complain about one injustice while promoting another.

If you've read this far, I thank you for actually taking the time to do so; it means you care at least enough to take what I write seriously, for which I am grateful. I would only conclude by addressing the statements made above, frequently echoed within the feminist community: That men may have a few (but tiny!) number of legitimate complaints about unequal treatment.

this article addresses many concerns MRAs have; data even exists to demonstrate the legitimacy of the concerns! I don't think it's a small number. Feminism also has it's select handful of high-profile issues, but the assertion is not made that those few issues are the ONLY legitimate concerns of feminist advocates. And even if they are few in number, they are serious problems. A man who loses his children because their mother can unilaterally remove him from their lives is grievously hurt. A man who is falsely accused of rape will have his life destroyed by the accusation; and even more so if he goes to prison for it. Why do MRAs exist, and why are so many of them angry? Because people are angry when they've been hurt. Or when someone they care about has been hurt. And it would be disingenuous to say that there aren't any really angry feminist activists, or even blatantly misandric feminist activists either. WE can acknowledge that, so we should also acknowledge that it is unfair to lump either group together or judge it by its crazy extremists.

MRAs are, for the most part, decent human beings, and do not hate women at all. Many may distrust women, but then again how many women distrust men likewise? That is not the same as hate. Lots of people have been hurt by gender inequality in our society, and MRAs primarily are focused on shedding light on a particular such group who are often neglected, ignored, and dismissed. Raudskeggr (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay so you've got quite a wall of text here, but let me just ask you, how do these reconcile?

- Androgyny, as mentioned above; Men are socially punished, by both genders, for not properly meeting expectations of male gender roles; this includes everything from androgyny to homosexuality to being a "house-husband".

- ...masculinity is in many ways frowned upon in young children. This is a trend that needs to be addressed.

Men are punished for not being masculine, and boys are punished for being masculine? Blue (pester) 09:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No wall of text; there is plenty of white space for you to rest your weary eyes with. As I thought was clear in describing the problems, they are rather obviously two separate phenomenon operating in two separate spheres of influence.Raudskeggr (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Are they? Most people would say they're both examples of how society assigns gender roles & reacts to people who conform to or deviate from them. But without any explanation or examples of what you mean by masculinity being frowned upon in children, it's really hard to know what you're talking about here. In my experience, boys are encouraged towards conventionally masculine interests & behaviour, while boys who show signs of femininity, (perceived) homosexuality, or adopt conventionally feminine interests tend to be discouraged from these at least as much as adult men doing the same. Gender norms are instilled from a very early age; just take a look around a toy store at the different products marketed for boys & girls. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's anicdotal, i suppose, but a recent study reconfirmed what other studies 20 years ago showed. Boys and girls in elementary school are treated differently when they do not know the answer. Boys are encouraged to "try again", "being wrong is ok if you can figure it out", or they are given 'hints' to help them reason out the answer. Girls are told "it's ok not to know, you tried, that's what matters". They are not given the cues to try again, or to try a different line of reasoning, or given seeds they can build on. Still today, if a boy falls, he is quieckly told to get up, brush it off, adn get back in the game. Girls are coddled a bit. "oh, does it hurt? I knwo, it stings. poor thing". Granted, when boys cry there is slighly less "you're a sissy" than there was, but not substantially to warrant the kinds of claims you are making. boys do, largely, still play with trucks and girls with dolls, despite the unsupported claim that we are somehow sissifynig our boys.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What recent study is this? Also, the claim is not "unsupported", there is in fact significant support for the attitude that masculine behavior is discouraged in primary education. The best documentation of the problem can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Against-Boys-Misguided/dp/0684849569

And while all of this is fun and interesting, and while I enjoy advocating for the underdog on social issues, the purpose of my "wall of text" here was not to simply to put myself in a position where I have to defend these points of view, but rather to more accurately present the concerns of the MRM in general, so that the article could be changed to in turn give a more accurate presentation of them. I have yet to see a specific objection here to doing just that.

Any disagreement with the points mentioned above is perfectly fair, but one's own /feelings/ about them has no bearing on the fact that they are reflective of the major concerns of the MRM; and even if the purpose of this wiki article is to debunk and refute those claims, it is intellectually dishonest (a la Conservapedia...) to do so unless they are first examining the whole body of those claims, and accurately presenting them for refutation. Raudskeggr (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help that you yourself haven't presented any actual studies. That Reach Advisors analysis that is posted in the Daily Mail and Time isn't linked anywhere, so we can't check out the raw data ourselves. That 8% statistic on false rape was mentioned on this site before and has been, on many occasions, misrepresented as a majority of cases. It's an issue, yes, but that's 92% accuracy.

Also, what do you consider as "healthy" male sexual desires? For someone who wants to eliminate MRA stereotypes, you seem to stereotype feminists as anti-sex. And stop referencing a member of the American Enterprise Institute as someone who has a scientific viewpoint. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)