Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Men's rights movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

User:MilesMoney

Has undone every single edit (or close to) I made last night, in one edit by User:MilesMoney here:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&diff=578851596&oldid=578851478

without any Edit Summary explanation. They have undone many very different edits or mine, from a small grammar improvement, to adding a link, to my adding { { fact } } without explaining why they oppose each of them. If you're too busy to respond point by point, at least give explanations for each general type of edit you Undo, be it added link, grammar, { { fact } } etc before undoing them all en masse. (The wikipedia system said while I was editing to be careful etc, it did not say "discuss on talk page before you many any edit of any kind at all" I note. So if I make good faith edits, there should be good faith explanations for any Undos at least in the Edit Summary) Maleliberation (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of tags is to open a discussion, not to make an article look bad. You added many tags but did not discuss them here. You also made some other changes which I believe harmed the article. Please take a look at WP:BRD. MilesMoney (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Maleliberation, I agree with MilesMoney's revert. It seems like you would like to put forward a different kind of men's rights movement: one that is actually pro women's rights as well as pro men's rights, and that you are developing a website for this. The problem here are that:

You cannot use WP to promote your website, logos etc see WP:COI, WP:ADVOCACY
You cannot add your own original research and opinion to articles - see WP:OR

Your edits were for the most part unsourced and unverifiable, and to some extent repeated information already included in the article. Warren Farrell, for example, was a part of the men's liberation movement which is already described in the article. He subsequently rejected the approach. Contrary to your claims he is not profeminist at all, including going as far as recently publishing a book about about how feminism discriminates against men.Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I'm certainly not here to do original research or do opinions. I'm not as new to wikipedia as you may think, many years back with an account I've long lost, or anon edits, I was on here, but wikipedia has expanded and grown and i'm back, but I'm certainly familiar with basics like that. Given that I was jumping in, I should have been more careful to avoid the false impression that the tags were an attack on the article (I though some were obviously neurtal and others clearly pro-MRM qualifiers when I added qualifiers rather than tags, but given the turbulent history I undertand the article has, I should have been more careful) Mind you, as I noted on the Noticeboard, I did work hard to make good faith clear in one way: I put more separate edits than I needed to making it therefore easier for anyone to undo any part instead of mixing them all together. Oh well. Now, let me address first about the "website" and "images" (which are a separate issue, namely about this User account and my plans for a future upload, a separate issue from the edits) and then address the edits:

To be clear that I am not "promoting a website" one comment and example. First, one should not confuse the website with specific images. I mean you might have your User page mention that you're a cyclist and you plan to upload images from your cycling trip, does that mean you're here to promote your website, or cycling club, or logos? Of course not... But maybe you feel there are not enough photos in the public domain of, I don't know, of some national park, fine, you upload those and put them in the public domain. Are you here to promote your bike club or its website just because you want to put some images in the public domain? Of course not...Even if you also edit articles on cycling. Now, in this cade..I was referring to specific images. As I pointed out, people upload images, for example, a picture of the White House, and they then put it in the Public Domain. They are not promoting their tourist group, theya re uploading an image of the white house or of something else. If no one wants to use it (this often happens) that's fine, if someone wants to use it in a wikipedia article, that's great. That is all I said or mean about my intention to upload a few images. And this has nothing to do with the edit of the aritcle, so having this out of the way, we can return to addressing the article

As far as { { fact } } tags, they were 3 of them I think, out of 16 (I counted) edits, so they were certainly not the majority. I have copied of the edits I made so it's not the end of the world, but clarification on the other 13 or so while undoing would be helpful.

The one { { fact } } I think the strongest one was "early 1970s" since that is very very specific, and is claimed without citation, so, it should have some kind of reference, don't you think? Some historical book, quotes from movement leaders, something, anything, to corroborate such a very precise time frame given, as opposte to 1970s in general, or mid 1970s and so forth. That's all I'm suggesting. (the other citation needed, I'll re read my notes and brign up again if upon rereading, they still seem important)

Another tag was "by whom?" which I used about "is considered to be a backlash against" and which I'm a bit surprised is controversial because, as you can see, someone else(s) before me, had already put "weasel" tag on it...and no one deleted that...so.....mine is far weaker, not callign it "weasel" but just asking for attribution...I'm puzzled by the idea that the much stronger tag of "weasel term" is considered just fine, yet my suggesting that we merely, just be specific about "by whom?" as far as which person(s) consider it a backlash, is somehow objectionable? (or course maybe people do find the "weasel" tag objectinable...but haven't for some reason deleted it?) I still think that no matter WHAT your beliefs, and values are, it's not evil, not subversive, not anti anything, to add, just some note about who see it as a backlash movement. I know some MRAs think it's stronger with that word, some think it's weaker, etc...certainly citing who sees it that way can't cause harm, right? I do hope you see how that term can, from one point of view, be seen as pro-MRA (since one is "Backlashing" against "excesses" of or oppressive dimensions of feminism etc) and from another, it's anti or weaking of MRA ("we're not some knee jerk "anti" reaction like a rebelious child" and so on) so that term is not one sided. Therefore, opposing that term, is not biased to one side either. And I'm not even opposing it, but that characterization, should be clarified...It's certainly not universally seen by MRAs as the only way to look at the movement as backlash and nothing else, don't you agree?

About "Many of the men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist. {{weasel inline|date=October 2013}" To be clear the "weasel" is again by someone else, not by me (my memory is not perfect but I base that on what is highlighted versus not highlighted at http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&diff=578851596&oldid=578851478 ) I did add "Many of" at the beginning. This is certainly not controversial, to say, that not ALL of the mens' rights movement claims and activities have been critiqued...as misogynist, right? I mean the claim that boys should not be genitally mutilated, even if the "scholars and others" do not agree with that claim (do not agree one should stop doing it), they don't say that merely claiming "we shoudl end MGM" is "misogynist"..that is one example, and one can find others, that is not generally critiqued as a "misoginist" claim. Surely you agree not EVERY claim, not 100% of the "claimed and activities" of the MRM is seen as or critiqued as, "misoginist", right? Taht's all I meant by adding "Many of". Does that make sense? (and if you're an advocate of Men's Rights you surely can't see that as unfair to the MRM, to say that many have been critiqued, instead of saying ALL the activities have been critiqued...)

The "unsourced" shoe I think is on the other foot, on our current version in other words. I do not think this applies to you, but hypothetically if there was someone, if anyone wanted to claim that absolutely ALL of the MRM "claims and activities" have been critiqued as misogynist (which I don't think is you or anyone else, right?) would need to give a source, if anyone made such a claim and again I doubt anyone would claim tis' 100% of MRM activities and claims that have been critiqued as such...We do not need need to give a source on the other hand, to add two words and for us to say "many of" the MRM activities/claims have been critiqued as...given with our references that already exist, but with the current references (and with reality itself) one cannot claim ALL have been critiqued...the wording without any qualifier, is saying that: THE claims of the MRM have been called something...but surely ou agree that no, not ALL of them, there are some MRM claims that have not been called misoginist or even critiqued at all as misogynist or even as malevolent more generally..

One goal I hope we share is that of hearing one another better, everyone. It's a very polarized and (I think, or hope, most agree) often counterproductive atmosphere. Sometimes, we have a hard time hearing one another. I still am not totally sure if the Admin Bbb23 is "MRA" or "feminism" but since they clarified that they were "sarcastic" about not just the goal of cooperation (not merging, just cooperation) between the movement, but instead bout the term "male liberation", then perhaps they are a "feministm" who is highly suspicious while you seem to be an MRA who is highly suspicious...I just ask eveyrone to try to hear what the other person is saying. For example you misheard me, because things are so "black or white" polarized that you did not notice that I deliberately, conciously, made a decision to NOT say that Warren Farrell is "profeminism" I deliberatley avoided using that term to describe him. Because I agree with you that is not the most accurate term. There were two placed I referred to his website. In one I used an either or where one of the terms was feminist, but merely referred broadly to be inclusive of others (of people other than Warren Farrell) when I referred to people who are "EITHER feminist OR for women's rights" That does not claim Farrell is feminist, merely that he is one of those two; since he is for rights for women (see next note) that phrase with the either-or describes a larger group of people, but includes him. In the previous item, I did not even put the word "feminist" (let alone "profeminist" which is the term you used) I wrote:

Some contemporary advocates for men's rights supported or were leaders in the 1970s of feminist activism for women's rights^[1] and still support empowerment of women as well as of men.

Ok, if you don't like "empowerment of" I am open to other phrases but if you looked at the wikipedia entry (written by others, not by me) on Warren Farrell, it says (and I have seen his website and some of his writings and I agree this wikipedia characterization by someone else, is accurate) where it writes in the entry about Warren Farrell, that: "He came to prominence in the 1970s as one of the leading male thinkers[2] championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization of Women (NOW). However, when NOW took policy positions that Farrell regarded as anti-male and anti-father, he continued supporting the expansion of women’s options[3] while adding what he felt was missing about boys, men and fathers. He is now recognized as one of the most important figures in the modern men's movement"

so that is the phrase used there, we can use it instead if you prefer...the phrase "continues to support the expansion of women's options" From his web page, he advises companies among other things, about how to avoid not just "pay discrimination" but also sexual harrassment lawsuits, and yes, part of that is about keeping lines of communication open and so forth, but also, he IS opposed to a workplace that has actual sexual harrassment of women (that does not contradict his being also opposed to workplaces that discriminate against men, or which allow harrassment of men, sexual or otherwise)

Let me know what you think about this and I appreciate your listening. But to be clear, I am not trying to convince you or others, here, that we should cooperate etc (what an essay on a website off wikipedia might or might not suggest in the future, is completely separate) but I'm not here to convince you about cooperation or even, if you don't want to hear about the possibility of non-angatonism, I wont' try to convince you or that either....However, what is NOT ok, is to erase history or reality, so I merely am asking that the article be truthful and accurate, in representing the historical (1970s) and the present overlaps, in views, and in individuals. I will admit I have provided less documentation about current overlap, I may have additional references, or additional individuals, as examples in the presence.

On the other hand, as far as in the past, as far as history, one could read the present article and not know that there is any MRA/MRM person today that used to be a leader in the 1970s...maybe I missed a passing reference...but surely, to mention Warren Farrell (and I agree with you: we DO mention him!) and to not let readers know this person's activities, role, beliefs, and even leadership in the 1970s and later, in women's right, not only does a disservice to the MRA (falsely suggesting that no MRA has EVER in the past been for womene's rights) but is on a basic level (putting aside one's politics) simply missing a big part of history, that readers of this article deserve to know...Something needs to be put, prominently, into this article, and especially into the "relation to feminism" section..this historical fact.

In other words, it's kinda crazy to have a section about "relation to feminism" and say nothing in that section that, oh by the way, some leading MRA/MRM folks today were part of what was then the feminist movement (yes I do use "feminist" about his past views..and much more importantly, his past actions...about his present views, I did not and do not use "feminist") I hope we can use this as the basis to find wording we can agree upon... Maleliberation (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Divorce section -- recent addition on Legal Framing

I have expanded the recent addition to the section on divorce. The cited work (which I thought was excellent) is offering a "model for empirical research on legal framing" (per the abstract) and describes three types of legal framing: 1) "Collective Rights Framing" which has been historically used to "justify specific legal protections for women", 2) "Individual Rights Framing", which is where the citation talks about the men's rights movement claiming that divorce laws violate "individual rights to equal protection" and 3) "Nationalistic Legal Framing", which is not particularly relevant here. The incorporation of this citation as it originally stood, did not include a key portion of the work which seems very relevant, namely the distinction between "Individual Rights Framing" (favored by the Men's movement) and "Collective Rights Framing" (favored by "Women's movements" to "justify specific legal protections for women", pg 34 of the cited work). I've added this, and changed the text describing the counter point about systemic bias against women to be an actual quote from the cited work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InTheTrees (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello InTheTrees (talk · contribs), fancy meeting you here. The key portion of the work is the portion where the source actually says something about the men's rights movement. That would be

"For example, the 'men's rights' movement has used individual rights framing in arguments that laws designed to protect women (e.g., in divorce and custody proceedings) violate men's individual rights to equal protection of the laws (Williams, 1995, p. 134). This framing downplays the systematic biases that women face that justify protective divorce and custody laws, such as employment discrimination and societal expectations around child rearing (see Albiston, 2005, pp. 12-16, 30-35). Instead it emphasizes the values of universal protection of the law to each individual regardless of social status (whether disadvantaged or privileged)..."
"The Section 'An Ideal Typology of Legal Framing' discussed examples of individual rights framing in the men's rights and anti-afirmative action movements, and argued that individual rights framing appealed to these right-wing movements because it minimizes the claimant's social status."
"Rather, the men's rights and anti-affirmative action movements have a similar position as 'backlash' movements... These movements face a common rhetorical hurdle in portraying their constituency as victimized by progressive reforms designed to advance social equality. Their use of the individual rights frames appeal to backlash right-wing movements because they draw attention away from the movement's position of relative privilege vis-a-vis their opponents."

My summary of the points concerning the MRM was perfectly appropriate, yours isn't. You are free to add the stuff about the MRM and its connection to backlash right-wing movements. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think your first quoted section above is good, since it's not very different from what I added to the article, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to revert my edit and then suggest something substantially similar. The parts about backlash and right-wing movements don't seem particularly relevant to the section on Divorce and I think are covered elsewhere, but I agree with your idea, in that feel free to add them to appropriate sections.

More generally, I think the point of article that you cited is to show that there are different styles of legal framing and there seems to be a conflict between the framing of men's movements and women's movements particularly in the realm of divoce law. So, as I noted earlier I think you found a good source there. Also, re your summary being more appropriate... curious since yours *was* a summary, where I included actual text from YOUR source, and not a summary. InTheTrees (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You were the editor who reverted (twice, thereby violation the 1RR restriction) and I have no idea why you reverted and added cherry-picked quotes from one page and ignored quotes from other pages. Yes, I provided a summary. That is exactly what editors are supposed to do. If you insist on using direct quotes rather than summarizing reliable sources, let's quote everything the source says about the men's rights movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to Binksternet's edit: Leachman argues that "with individual right framing, the claimant's identity as part of a social group becomes secondary" (p. 35) and that that's exactly what appeals to the men's rights (and anti-affirmative action) movement because the framing "minimizes the claimant's social status" (p. 43-44) and allows men's rights (and anti-affirmative action) activists to "draw attention away from the movement's position of relative privilege vis-a-vis their opponents". This is the crucial point (that the framing disregards the difference in social status between women and men and blacks and whites) and it is missing from the most recent attempt at describing the source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In this change of mine, I was trying to get away from the seemingly buried concept of "downplays" which was linked with "and". I think it should be separate, which is what I wrote. Otherwise it could be contrasted with the previous framing, but not presented as one of a piece, tied together with "and". Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I get it and consider it an improvement to InTheTrees' version. But do you find fault with the original summary? It explains why the individual rights framing appeals to men's rights activists (disregards the relatively high social status of the claimant, i.e., men, and the relatively low social status of their "opponents", i.e., women), which is the main point. I quoted the three passages from the source where the men's rights movement is mentioned, perhaps you can propose a better phrasing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Your original summary is accurate but it is somewhat opaque for unsophisticated readers. I prefer a simpler wording that lets the reader know the MRM people don't want to continue counteracting the ages-old societal biases against women. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Allegations

I am not drive by tagging, there was a clear an coherent discussion previously about weasel words. If you could stop reverting an discuss it would make it easier, as everyone is at 1RR now. KonveyorBelt 15:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that discussion (and previous discussions on the same subject) has run its course. As a result of that discussion, I added an additional source satisfying RS-AC for the use of the word "scholars". Consensus for use of the word backlash was discussed in archive 21 under Backlash section and consensus for the use of the phrasing 'have been described as misogynist' was discussed under archive 20 under 'Has there been an RfC on the use of "Misogyny" in the lede?' section. I don't believe consensus has changed for these issues, there was previous discussion for RFC but this was closed as abusive. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not here for earlier discussions and I do not question that there was consensus, if you say there was, about the term "Backlash" itself, or that is has been used, by some, about key parts the MRM or of MRA activism, but you might both want to see my comments in the preceding section http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement#User:MilesMoney where I do not question the term Backlash, and did not put "weasel" but whether it's "Backlash" or "misogynist" it needs to be clarified who. And for "misogynist" it needs to say "many claims by MRM" and not suggest to readers that ALL of the claims of the MRM have been criticized as misogynist. I doubt you will find a significadnt portion of scholars who say that some MRM claims, like the claim that MGM should be stopped, is misogynist, even if the scholars disagree with the recommendation (that is, even if they think sexually mutilating babies is ok if they are xy rather than xx) they do not criticize the claim that MGM should not be practiced as misogynist. Well you can find one person who claims anything, like the moon landing was faked, but real substantial scholarly critiques. In any case, the burden of proof (and the issue of unverifiability comes up here) would be on those who claim that ALL the claims (statements) of the MRM have been critiqued as misogynist (the current wording by not saying "many of" does read as saying all statements by MRM...) See details in previous section.

As for being called "backlash" the current wording I do not find as problemmatic, but again, the burden of proof is on those who claim that the entire movement, that ALL parts and types of MRA, all threads, all streams of thoughts in the heterogeneous social movement, are seen as a backlash. It's not just that it's false, but that the "Are seen as" part, which is the part we care about as editors, is also not true. Of course the former is not true (that's easy to prove, again those coming from an anti-MGM, anti male genital mutilation background, to then critique other aspects of culture like "boys are not allowed to cry" and such MRM people might even call themselves "also feminist" and at least, not anti-feminism, while being anti-MGM and against the brutalities of how boys are culturally raised, and joint visitation rights and other issues) The issue is not that it's not true, of course, since we are not here to say what is true but what people say...I doubt many out there say that anti-MGM (people including many many women, and you can bet some of those women consider themselves feminist and almost all of them will be for women's rights too.. if you're not aware) arose as a "backlash" against feminism. Some parts, I completely agree, arose as a backlash against either feminism or feminism-influenced parts of the society as a whole, no argument there. But not all parts, and you will hard a hard time finding scholars and others who say that the anti-MGM and boys rights parts, which include many (some might even be dominated by) women, arose as a "backlash" against feminism. In an event, the burden of proof is on editors who claim that. It's on those who assert that not just part of, or many parts of the MRM but that ALL parts of it (it is heterogeneous, just as feminism is) have been called, viewed as a backlash.. specifically the anti-MGM/boys-rights portions of the movement. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement#User:MilesMoney for the rest Maleliberation (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you locate some scholarly source saying that the MRM is not a backlash then perhaps we can revisit the consensus question. Your heartfelt arguments, unsupported by sources, will not do anything against the big list I provided of sources which discuss the MRM as a backlash. See Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 21#"Backlash". At that discussion, nobody came up with a single scholarly source to support the removal of the word "backlash". Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet: As I noted it's sometimes hard to hear other people in a polarized discussion despite best good faith intentions, so let me try more briefly to address two main misunderstandings. 1. You write that "nobody came up with a single scholarly source to support the removal of the word "backlash") This statement on your part suggests to me that you are under the impression that I am suggesting we remove the word backlash. I am not. Please note my earlier statements, " I do not question that there was consensus, if you say there was, about the term "Backlash"" and I support INCLUDING the word "backlash" in this article. I not only support including it, I also personally BELIEVE that it applies to parts of the MRM, as I noted in another earlier statement I made above, where I said I complately agree, writing, "Some parts, I completely agree, arose as a backlash against either feminism or feminism-influenced" 2. Now is the entire MRM and all parts of it, a backlash? As a question of basic logic, upon whom is the burden of proof to back the extreme claim (which I doubt you believe or hardly anyone) that all parts, all components, all strands of the MRM, are a backlash, or arose as a backlash? Clearly the burden of proof is on those who claim that. A hundred references to articles showing parts of the MRM are a backlash, don't meet this, unless the references clearly cover all, or at the very minimal least, most of the parts of the MRM. As a simple question, I ask: what about the anti-MGM (anti Male Genital Mutilation) part of the MRM? With leaders including, perhaps mostly, certainly many, female nurses and mothers, by the way. I ask has anyone come up with "a single scholarly source to support" the notion that the anti-MGM part of the movement, was, or arose, as a "backlash" against feminism? So you see my point, I hope. We should say, with the given reference that "many parts" or many components, or even perhaps, say "much of" the MRM arose as a backlash against feminism, but not the entire movement in toto. To repeat yet one more time, I agree that the word backlash belongs in the article, but it needs to modify what is documents, namely parts, or many parts, of the movement, not the movement in its entirety or all its components and submovements.

In case you haven't noticed certain hardcore pro-MRM find the notion as unpleasant as some anti-MRM (you?) folks do, that there is overlap, but our job is to report the facts and the history, and one obvious part of MRM, the anti-MGM arose as part of infants-rights, with women (many no doubt are feminist women, being "moderate" or "liberal" minded, these nurses were and are not mostly "phyllis schlafly" type women nurses..) I am staying out of the debates over how valid the various studies currently cited are, and to repeat once more, I agree that the word backlash is accurate in describing some of the reasons for some (or even many) of the portions of the MRM, but certainly not all parts (most obviously anti-MGM) arose primarily or even to any substantial extent, as a "Backlash" So, unless and until someone can document that all or at least most of the components, including anti-MGM, came about as a "backlash against feminism" and have a scholarly piece documenting how these largely female liberal nurses and mothers (along with men of course) against the genital mutilation of male infants were somehow mostly a "backlack against feminism" (something I highly doubt one can find, serious, real scholarlyship with documentation, making such an inaccurate claim) then we can't and should not claim that the entire MRM is a "backlash" It would not harm anything, and would increase and improve the accuracy of the article to say "many parts of the MRM....as a backlash against feminism" Maleliberation (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't normally conduct calm discussions with people who use the value-laden term "male genital mutilation" for the usual word "circumcision", but I'll make a brief exception in your case. I do indeed believe that the MRM as a whole arose as a reactionary "backlash" response to feminism. This is what I have read in the scholarly books, and I have not seen any evidence to the contrary. Fast forward to today: Are there currently parts of the MRM which are not a response against feminism? If so are they minor elements or a main theme? Are they short-lived or did they arise soon after the main force? I guess you will have to prove your case with reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think we should conduct calm discussions. While I thank you for making an exception, such are common ("pro-life" and "pro-choice"). MGM is the term used by that part of the movement, so for that reason alone (putting aside that many women, and feminists or those in favor of womens rights, or both, or people like myself in favor of rights and liberation for both genders, use the term) it's a reasonable term to use. We even give that courtesy to the most horrible movements, using the terms they use to self describe. Is any woman on earth harmed in any way by being against cutting off key parts of male anatomy of babies? Or those who oppose the practice using the (pretty medically accurate) term genital mutilation? Now your question is two fold, as I have noticed earlier, namely the origins and history of the movement and the current movement. Both are important. You do realize that it's important to guard against your own biases, namely, if you see MRM as 100% evil then you will refuse to see something non-evil like opposing MGM, as anything other than "minor elements" or "short-lived" because that would contradict the view that MRM is mostly or entirely evil, right? If you've seen my earlier posts or my user page you know that I am strongly pro-WL (women's liberation) and pro-WR (women's rights) as well as strongly pro ML (male liberation) and men's rights (MR). Are you aware I'm strongly critical of the antagonism of each/both sides to the other? That means many self described "MRAs" and "feminists" both see me as enemy for merely suggesting both-and instead of either-or and instead of antagonism.

To your questions. Is anti-MGM minor? Hardly, it's a major and growing movement, about which one hears more and more, so it's not minor in the present. Was it minor in the history of MRM? Well we can "define" it out of the MRM or define it into it, but neither is quite fair, right? I do know that I personally heard about anti-MGM before hearing about any other MRM/MRA, so it was obviously prominent. Are there currently parts of the MRM which arenot a reposne against feminism? Yes, and the easiest example is anti-MGM. You realize this may upset some (not all) hardcore MRA who might object to anything being allowed under their umbrella that is not explicitly and directly anti-feminist, and it might be unsettling to feminists or profeminists or however you or others identify, to put it under MRM. But you know what? Anti-FGM (female genital mutilation) easily and obviously falls under multiple headings, including "human rights" and under "rights of children and infants" and also under "women's rights". The same logic evidently applies to the other gender, so anti-MGM (whether one agrees with it or not, ethically, medically, or otherwise) similarly falls under something that is "human rights" as well as part of the "children's and infant's rights" and also, yes, men's rights. It is also something that self-identified MRM/MRA websites and organizations mention? Yes, many do, including MRA/MRM organizations, individuals, that I disagree with one other things. So not only on logic and facts but on self-idenficadtion, anti-MGM is part of MRA/MRM. I'm tempted to restate that the burden of proof is on those who make the very strong claims that anti-MGM too is a "backlash" but I think and hope you agree it isn't, so the question is, how do we frame and phrase this component? Well, I think it's reasonable to suggest that we can say something like "many parts" or even "much of the MRM" grew as a backlash against and exists in cointerpoint to, feminism and WR. Our readers deserve some coverage of overlaps and feminists or pro-WR who are pro-MRM are MRAs, but that's a separate matter. For now, just some acknowledgment of the fact that not all of MRM/MRA is anti-WR or anti feminist, in particular the anti-MGM part. Hey, I said counterpoint..a musical reference, just for you..kidding aside, it's sadly mutual antagonism but could become "complementary" with an "e" but far too little of MRA and Feminism is open to even cooperation on the few things they might agree on, very say.. I put both under "counterpoint to") Gotta laught so I don't cry, since the antagonistic parts of each, are not only unfair and cruel, but even on pure selfish reasons, harm their own movement in the long term, so musical puns, why not? Keeps one from losing all hope for the human race.. Maleliberation (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I see lots of passionate argument here but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Point out the reliable sources which describe this cause of yours as an important or major part of the MRM, then find the reliable sources which say that the anti-circumcision band of MRMers is not a backlash to feminism, even if it seems obvious to you. Okay, my brief period of calm discussion has concluded. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you fail to differentiate between sympathetic olive branch comments directed towards you, with "passionate argument", something rather different, but much more sadly, you seem to suggest you can't see the difference between a logical issue, which is the opposite of "passionate argument". As a matter of simple logic, the burden of proof is on you who make the strongest claims about universal applicability of "backlash". It's up to you to prove that "anti-feminist backlash" applies to the anti-MGM, not matter how "obvious" that false claim might seem to you. You have failed to produce one single reference in this entire conversation that is a scholarly source for the claim, for your claim, that anti-MGM is an anti-feminist backlash". It's your homework, if you assert that. There is no homework for someone who says, "you can't claim what you don't have a reference for, that anti-MGM is part of the anti-fenimist backlash". When this is acknowledged, we can discuss whether it's necessary to prove that movements for the protection of the rights of male infants, are or are not significant parts of men's rights (like asking, is anti-FMG part of Women's Rights? I will even and try to accommodate that request, which some might find no less offensive than "prove that girls rights is part of women's rights" but I'll work with you on that if you an acknowledge the former point. I'm trying to work with you. Ok? Either produce solid references that say anti-MGM is part of anti-feminist backlash, or let go for that claim (your claim, and so far, only yours) and then I will take the time to look into your question about, is anti-MGM a part of men's rights.

I want to work with you. I've tried very hard to reach out to you, I emphasized my support for WR about which you are so passionate, and have expressed sympathy, and made a little joke, and your reaction is you find it hard to have "calm discussion"? If you have a hard time having a "calm discussion" with someone who is sympathetic, reaching out to you for common ground, and also also agrees with you both on many values you hold and more relvantly agrees with you on the inclusion of the word "backlash", then just who do you not have a hard time having a "calm discussion" with? Yet you say you have reached your limit of your abilito to have "calm discussion" That's how outrageous you apparently find the sentiments of cooperation and sympathy with your (clearly storngly felt) sentiment, which you indicate you can't differentiate those from, or even acknowledge, the separate issue of burden of proof to substantiate a claim not a single reference for which you have given, the claim that anti-MGM itself was historically created as, or emerged, as an anti-feminist backlash. Maleliberation (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This same gambit is played out here repeatedly: "come up with a scholarly source that says such-and-such about the MRM."

Here's the rub.

Much of what passes for academic scholarship in the area of gender studies / women's studies is actually feminist political advocacy, not neutral scholarship (e.g., labeling the MRM with the derogatory, value-laden word backlash.) This has been noted by several scholars (irony intended), such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Daphne Patai. Most of the "scholarly" sources here are not neutral, they are feminist political advocates and are inherently biased against many of the perspectives of the MRM.

The upshot of using "scholarly sources" is that the MRM is largely defined and analyzed here by those who oppose it -- without acknowledgement of this bias. This is an example of systemic bias in coverage. This systemic bias is arguably perpetuated by a group of strongly anti-MRM edtiors here who engage in commandeering and multiple-editor ownership, resulting in an article that supports advocacy (or, in this case, opposition) rather than neutrality.

IMO, WP currently does not have sufficient policy guidelines to effectively address this problem. However, there is an easy solution. In the interests of neutrality and NPOV simply refer to scholarly sources -- when they are feminist sources -- as "feminist scholarly sources" -- just as MRM sources are identified by their political leanings (e.g., "according to MRM activists," "men's rights activist John Doe argued that,"... etc.). Memills (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dang, you get so worked up about how the scholarship on the topic is primarily performed by feminists. Why do you think that MRM advocates are not creating scholarly studies of the MRM? I don't have an answer, but until there are competing scholarly views, we present the scholarship as scholarship alone, not as biased scholarship. If there is only one side presented by scholars then that is the central position.

The Wikipedia WP:Neutral point of view policy says to avoid bias in the composition of our encyclopedia-style writing, so the best course is to describe the mainstream scholarly conclusions as neutrally as possible, and then give a nod to the MRM position which is probably not so solidly sourced. The WP:RS guideline says that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective," so both feminist and antifeminist authors can be used. Restrictions such as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are placed on wildly biased sources. At RS the examples of biased sources do not include scholars writing professional books, papers and journal articles, which means our feminist scholars are not normally considered biased. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Why do you think that MRM advocates are not creating scholarly studies of the MRM?"

Easy.

Because, as I noted above, virtually all academic gender studies / women's studies departments are not scholarly in the traditional sense -- they are political advocacy organizations. See especially Daphne Patai's book re this: Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies. (One reviewer of the book, Mary Lefkowitz, of Wellesley College, wrote: "... in many universities Women's Studies programs have been transformed into political pressure groups or religious cults.")

Is is not surprising then that there is little academic "scholarly" work from pro-MRM authors given that there are virtually none in academia due to biased, politically inbred hiring standards in gender studies / women's studies departments. Their new faculty advertisements virtually always indicate they are seeking someone with a feminist perspective; never are they seeking someone with a masculinist / MRM background.

Given the above, unless scholars who advocate feminism / self-identify as feminists are identified here as feminist scholars, rather than simply as "scholars" (which erroneously implies some degree of academic/political neutrality), the systemic bias in coverage here will continue.

This is an obvious and easy fix. Memills (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

... when did the Merriam Webster Dictionary become a "feminist source" [1]? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Aside from some of the tendentious synth/OR that creeps in to the article (and talk pages) from time to time, I don't see much of a problem with NPOV language in the article's body as it currently reads. Is this tag necessary on the article?PearlSt82 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV-tag. WHeimbigner (talk · contribs) is welcome to explain his reasoning here, drive-by tagging is discouraged. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I see the tag is back, and I've got to say large parts feel like a NPOV nightmare. I see a lot of generalization and very negative views presented. Well sourced, but it still feels like an attack on the movement rather than an article. It may well be that the men's rights movement is made up of women-hating folks that are fine with marital rape and believe that women hold the power in all aspects of life. In fact this article would certainly lead me to believe that. But I've got to believe that is not a valid characterization of the movement as a whole. Are folks who advocate for a greater male child custody rights a part of this movement? If so, are we claiming they favor marital rape and think the deck is in all ways stacked against men? Are the educational researchers worried that elementary schools are leaving boys behind part of this movement? If so, are we making similar claims? It certainly reads that way.

I'm unclear why this article suffers from these problems given the huge number of eyes that are apparently on it, but suffer it does. Given the eyes on it and the editing restrictions I've no idea how this could be fixed, but it really is a significant problem. Not sure NPOV is the problem, but it's certainly troubling. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Opps, was a weasel tag, not NPOV. I'm going to throw the NPOV tag too. This thing is a huge mess of generalizations, nearly all of them negative. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources present the MRM in a negative light. Wikipedia is to be a reflection of the reliable sources. We aren't claiming anything that isn't present in the (many) sources cited on the material. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oddly I found a lot of sources last night that don't including Newsweek etc. But in any case, the main issue I have is that a wide variety of groups/issues are identified and then it is made to sound like all these groups hold all these opinions. We are generalizing to the point of absurdity. Looking at the feminism article (which is somewhat unfair for any number of reasons) I see language like "Feminist attitudes to female sexuality have taken a few different directions." and "Feminist views of pornography range...", "Since the late nineteenth century some feminists have allied with socialism, whereas others have criticized socialist ideology for being insufficiently concerned about women's rights" etc. In other words, the acknowledgement that it is a wide movement with often very divergent views. We're missing that here as we implicitly ascribe all the views listed here to all the groups. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That I believe is a problem with what the sources say, differentiation between parts of the MRM isn't heavily covered. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There are indeed sectors of the overarching Men's movement (which is not to be confused with the more specific Men's Rights Movement, the subject of this article) which do have separate articles such as Fathers' rights movement, Men's liberation, and Mythopoetic men's movement. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If we are claiming these are independent things, why do we use "men's rights groups" and have a picture of folks that are a part of a "fathers' rights group" in this article? Further, why don't we discuss how these things are related to the MRM? Do we have no reliable sources? I don't see how your view of the article with respect to these other topics is actually reflected in the article. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We aren't claiming these things. The first sentence of the article reads: The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement.. For this reason, comparisons between this article and Feminism are largely unwarranted - a more appropriate comparison (though still not accurate, for a number of reasons) would between the broader Men's movement and Feminism - or alternately, the more specific Men's rights movement and the more specific Radical feminism. To talk turkey, what specific text are you referring in this article to that you feel is too broad, generalizing, and not a reflection of the RS? PearlSt82 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of it? If you look at the individual topics I see things like "Men's rights organizations..." If this article isn't covering Men's rights, why does that matter? If we aren't covering the father's rights issue, why do we have a topic here? I'd prefer to see a clearer explanation of how the MRM relates to the Men's movement, Father's movement etc. I see "Fathers' rights activists..." with no mention of the MRM under adoption. How do those activists and the MRM relate to each other? The article implies that all "Fathers' rights activists" are part of the MRM (otherwise why would they be listed here?) The relationship, if any, should be clarified rather than being left for the reader to assume. Sorry for the ramble, crazy day today and no time to spend on this. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the sentences regarding the father's rights movement, specifically The men's rights movement is concerned with a wide variety of issues, some of which have spawned their own groups or movements, such as the fathers' rights movement, concerned specifically with divorce and child custody issues. and Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups., the article notes that the Fathers' rights movement is both a subset of the Men's Rights Movement, and thus has its own article where its positions are explained in more depth, and that the interest in Father's rights is of key interest to many in the MRM. Perhaps it would be better to merge some of the Father's rights topics under one section rather than have separate sections for Adoption, Child Custody, Divorce, etc, but summarize in a way that doesn't duplicate the Fathers rights article, and thus remove some of the verbiage that is unique to the father's rights movement and not the MRM? Either way you look at it, there is a pretty big overlap between the two groups, and I think their relationship is sufficiently explained both here and that article. For the rest of the MRM platforms, these are commonly held beliefs by the Men's Rights Movement as a whole and there is little divergence between the issues (ie - group X is solely in favor of education but disagrees about marital rape, group Y is concerned with marital rape but not education) like their is with an overarching Feminism, or even an overarching Men's movement, which includes pro-feminist men. The Men's Rights Movement is explicitly described by the RS as being a misogynist reactionary backlash movement to feminism, and there really isn't anything in the RS to suggest any divergent splinter groups within the MRM that disagree with one another in the way you are describing, aside from arguably the father's rights movement. If you take a look at some of the more popular MRM sites like A Voice for Men, Return of Kings or any of the Reddit subcommunities (or even some of the talk page archives for this article where POV pushing is at its highest), these sentiments are more or less expressed across the board. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As for its relationship to the overall Men's movement, there is an entire paragraph that says The modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some thinkers began to study feminist ideas and politics.[15][16] The leaders of the men's liberation movement acknowledged men's institutional power while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity.[15] In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: The pro-feminist men's movement and an anti-feminist men's rights movement.[15] Men's rights activists have since then rejected feminist principles and focused on disadvantages and oppression of men that they have identified.[15][17] In the 1980s and 90s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the traditional gender order in the family, schools and the workplace. - in what ways do you feel this is lacking? PearlSt82 (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's start with the part of the article quoted by PearlSt82. I have the following question:
- What are we saying the relationship is between the MRM and "men's rights activists"? Are all men's rights activists members of the MRM? Would/could someone in the "men's movement" be a "men's rights activist?" without being a member of the MRM?

I think a large obstacle to understanding this article is that we have a whole bunch of terms that are easily confused. "Men's rights movement" and "men's movement" being an obvious one. While those of you familiar with the field and terminology might see a major difference there, to an outsider it is hard to follow/distinguish. I'd say the article is guilty of using "terms of art" without carefully drawing a stark contrast and noting the potential for confusion. A diagram showing the relationship between these groups might help?

Also, the name of the thing, MRM, implies that anyone speaking about men's rights is a member of the MRM. We can't do anything about the name, (RS use it, we're stuck with it), but perhaps we can carefully clarify what we mean. The use of "radical feminism" makes its relationship to feminism quite clear. But MRM doesn't do that. So we need to spell it out clearly, early and often.

Another large issue is that we are claiming a lot of things about the MRM without identifying groups that are a part of the MRM. We generalize at every turn but don't give examples. Are there any notable MRM organizations that have (or should have) Wikipedia pages? If so, we need to link to them. If not, we should still list them and perhaps link to their web presence. As it stands, the article feels like a rant against a group we don't even affirm actually exists.

Again, the main problem here is that we are generalizing like mad. A careful reading of the article may be clear (though I dispute that as I carefully read it, but needed the explanations in this discussion to understand large chunks), but without that careful reading things are much less clear. It needs to be abundantly clear how the MRM relates to things it has "spawned" (as spawn would imply that such a movement is a sub-group, and apparently we aren't claiming that the father's rights folks hold most/all the views that the MRM does?) Hobit (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

- To be more clear. Is the MRM a subset of the Men's movement? If not is the union of the two the null set? How about Father's rights activists and the MRM? What are we claiming the relationship is? In the lede we have "The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement." But we also have "The pro-feminist men's movement and an anti-feminist men's rights movement." which implies pretty strongly that the men's movement is pro-feminist and the men's rights movement is anti-feminist and therefore one is not a part of the other. Which is it? Do RSes use these terms in consistent ways? My quick reading indicates that they don't. So we need to get a single taxonomy (ideally commonly used and as clear as possible) and use it while explaining that the taxonomy isn't universally used. Not doing this not only causes confusion, but creates a NPOV issue as we seem to be labeling a bunch of different groups as being a part of the MRM when apparently that isn't the intent. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Men's movement is an overarching term which applies to any interest or activist groups that relate directly to Men's interests. From the lede of that article: The men's movement is a social movement consisting of groups and organizations of men who focus on gender issues and whose activities range from self-help and support to lobbying and activism.[1] Major movements within the men's movement include the men's liberation movement, profeminist men's movement, mythopoetic men's movement, men's rights movement, and the Christian men's movement, most notably represented by the Promise Keepers.[1] The movement is predominantly Western and emerged in the 1960s and 70s.. The MRM is decidedly anti-feminist, and the Men's Movement (overall) encompasses this group of people, as well as other types of men's movements such as profeminists and mythopoetics. I would say the RS are pretty consistent in describing them this way, though it is rather unfortunate they share similar names. Father's rights are a subset of MRM, and while its possible that there are Father's rights groups who don't express views consistent with the rest of the MRM (perhaps in some of the Indian examples provided), the two groups typically overlap a great deal. MRM members and Men's rights activists are one in the same. Would a sentence at the top saying "This article is about the Men's rights movement and not to be confused with the overarching Men's movement" or something similar help?

As for notable individual groups, this is one of the problems of the RS - much of the activity is on forums and blogs and not covered in RS. For example, there was recently a self-described Historic Men's Rights Rally in Toronto that was touted as a huge success by the Men's Rights Movement in an article on A Voice For Men (I tried to link it directly but Wikipedia gave me a message saying its on the blacklist, making me unable to link directly to it, but if you google the phrase "men's rights protest toronto success", it is the first result), but it only seems to be covered by Men's Rights blogs inflating its historic importance, and feminist blogs making fun of them, and seems to be completed ignored by any local news source. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a lot more clear. That said, some things still seem contradictory. The Father's rights article doesn't mention most of the MRM issues. To lump them in with the MRM seems wrong (unless we've got RSes that do that). Also "The pro-feminist men's movement and an anti-feminist men's rights movement." reads as if the MRM and the men's movement are non-overlapping yes? I do think the sentence you propose at the top would help a lot, but I think we actually need a section explaining how these various groups interelate. If we can't find reasonable RSes for that, we can at least explain how the article uses the terms. I'm probably done editing WP for today, but thought I'd at least address those issues. Thanks again, Hobit (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What are peoples thoughts on merging the Adoption, Child Custody, Divorce, Marriage Strike, Paternity Fraud and Reproductive rights under one "Father's rights" section, and trimming down some of the text so there is less overlap with the FRM article? PearlSt82 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That would help, mainly because it could let us make clear that while the MRM is concerned with father's rights, not all father's rights folks are part of the MRM. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, isn't this a simple exercise in Venn diagramming? There is the universe of men and women; some men are actively engaged in gender issues (Men's movement); some members of the men's movement agree with the feminist analysis of gender issues, some disagree; in both thtese camps there are people adressing issue X, Y ... amongst which are family issues; of these, some are MGTOW's, and some or not. Of the nots, some are into reproductive rights (for which one does not need to be a father, but may be concerned with adoption, reproductive health etc.), and some of these again are already fathers (paternity, fathers' rights, custody etc.). Issues would be wider (roles, sexuality etc) or narrower (rape, violence etc) aspects of the behaviour and expectations etc. of men and women. IOW, wouldn't these divisions yield to a little analysis? Or not? T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe? I think the trick here is to make it clear the MRM is A) a specific thing; B) not everyone who has overlapping views with the MRM is part of the MRM; not all views listed as being part of the MRM are held by everyone who is part of the MRM. As noted, our reliable sources paint a pretty negative picture of the MRM and it is problematic to not draw lines as clearly as we can. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the comments here are helpful; for example, I hadn't thought that it wouldn't be clear that men's rights activists/advocates are part of the men's rights movement. To me (and it seems to the reliable sources) the key words are "men's rights"... this term is used in variety of different (but more or less synonymous) formulations (groups, movement, advocates, activists, organizations, websites). To answer your comment Hobit, there are actually lots of articles and books describing the men's movement and its various subgroups (which we are using as sources here), but I agree some of the phrasing can be cleaned up (in your specific example, the contrast is actually between the "pro-feminist" men's movement grouping and the "men's rights" men's movement grouping, rather than trying to suggest that the men's movement is pro-feminist.

I think it would be good to put some of the subsections together, but I would actually suggest getting rid of anything that is simply sourced as the opinion of fathers' rights movement. While there are some sources that see the fathers' rights movement as a subset of the men's rights movement, most sources see it as a separate but related, overlapping movement- exactly like the Venn diagram described above!!! (e.g. [2][3][4][5]) I've suggested this before, but I think the article will be stronger if we limit our sources to specifically to those describing men's rights viewpoints (rather than those describing the viewpoints fathers' rights activists). There are good quality sources out there about the MRM and their views on issues to do with marriage/children/divorce etc, and in my view it is best to stick to those. What do others think? Slp1 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what you could come up with--I think it could help. I do think we need to draw lines as clearly as possible. We shouldn't be tarring groups by stating that "men's rights" groups mostly believe X or Y without clearly defining what we mean by that term. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Seconded; particularly if this also includes what various MRHMA's mean by this and that tterm. It is by the differing views on various issues that one establishes sets of activists here. So, for the article to be of encyclopedic value, the content of these beliefs should constitute the ccore of information, with style marks and other third party evaluations as commentary. T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well I will take these as a go ahead for a few changes. I'll start with the obvious ones. T (IP83) it looks like that you might need to consult this policy WP:PSTS and WP:OR more generally. WP generally prefers secondary sources (ie third parties), rather than the original sources, and we cannot as editors "establish [the] sets of activists here". That would constitute original research.Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I take it that you will present your changes here for discussion? The way I read the discussions over mere single terms it appears that there is little here that is obvious. T (me) has researched policies extensively, but in the overall picture, what seems to be the aim of Wikipedia is that it should be encyclopedic and informative; the lesser corollaries are aids to this goal; IOW, they are not the end-all and be-all of any article, they do not trump higher principles and should therefore be used with discretion. Anyone who uses them like a hammer will merely detract from the quality of the article.

This is why I reccommend a (careful and perhaps sparing, and in any case very specific) use of primary sources, even in, say, very hateful cases like "Mein Kampf" - it doesn't do to just say that it is a badly written book of evil ideas that noboby should read; for an article on MK to be informative, one has to refer to actual badly written evil ideas in MK first, in order to critique.

Grouping things according to their properties is not so much "OR" as it is "thinking", against which I have so far not found any WP policy; it is how people identify natural kinds and other entities we find it relevant to pick out and describe. Until someone comes along who has direct insight into reality, it remains an editorial choice, if not a duty, to decide which items to group together in an article and which not. However, do not read to much into a Venn diagram - it was meant as a tool for structuring the discussion _here on the talk page_, not necessarily the article. I'll of course not insist on any particular method for that; I do, however, put it forward again as a potentially useful tool, since it would centre the discussion on actual traits of actual groups, and thereby perhaps facilitating reaching a consensus, if only based on mere facts. T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that content that is sourced as the opinion of fathers' rights activists should be removed. I was about to delete the adoption section when I saw that it had been expanded with a reference that discusses fathers' rights activists' efforts to prevent third-party adoption of their children [6]. Didn't we just agree to remove information sourced as the opinion of fathers' rights activists or am I missing something? The second source is Farrell opining about a woman's obligation to notify the biological father of her pregnancy. What does this have to do with adoption and how can we know that Farrell's view (i.e., a primary source) of pregnancy (and adoption?) is representative? I think that we need to rethink the article's laundry list layout and the selective use of primary sources (e.g., describing Farrell's opinion on prison sentences and pregnancy but leaving out his opinion on rape). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the issues section, 17 are named. Six fall under Father's rights (Adoption, Child Custody, Divorce, Parental Abduction, Paternity Fraud, Reproductive Rights), five deal with governmental and institutional structure (Governmental structures, Education, Conscription, Prison, Social Security), three seem to be positions taken contrary to the feminist positions (Rape, DV, female privilege). That leaves health, marriage strike and anti-dowry laws - health and marriage both overlap with the fathers rights and instutitional stuff, and anti-dowry laws seems to be a primarily Indian specific issue. Perhaps a lot of these related issues can be merged under one section? PearlSt82 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Two (parental abduction and anti-dowry laws) of the 17 subsections are sourced to little more than primary sources. Multiple subsections are interrelated and overlap (marriage strike and divorce, custody and divorce, reproductive rights and adoption etc.) The female privilege subsection is one more repetitive bullet point in the laundry list; the relation to feminism section already states "They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women." Many subsections consist of two sentences. The list of 17 (shooting for 34 if two sentences require their own subsections) issues is less than ideal. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could condense it to two issues - Fathers Rights and Institutional issues (I'm sure theres a better phrase for this), move the issues that are contrary positions to feminism into the "Relationship to feminism" section, and move the anti-dowry stuff to a separate "MRM In India" section outside of the issues header?PearlSt82 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if you "move to India" on something, that would have to be on some principle oof "national issues" (? for lack of a better term), which would require a "issues in country X" list, which I think nobody is happy to have to draw up. T 83.109.183.59 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The dowry stuff seems very India specific, at least I'm not seeing sources that discuss groups where its an issue in other countries. There is already a Men's rights movement in India article - maybe that section can just link there? PearlSt82 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I agree that we should combine some sections, and that some of the sections need beefing up with higher quality secondary references. I myself don't like the long Doyle quote in the divorce section and suspect that we can do better than that. On the other hand, I think Fathers' rights isn't really the right term; some issues e.g. alimony, antidowry, aren't related to being a father. Maybe something like "Family and relationship issues", that could include domestic violence and possibly rape.

On the other hand, I do think that it is okay to amplify secondary sources with well-known and representative MR voices published in reliable sources, even if they are to some extent primary sources. The Farrell and Sterba book was published by Oxford University Press; with Farrell being a very prominent MR activist I think it is quite appropriate as a source. The book is also nicely internally balanced as it comes with Sterba's responses, which will likely prove useful for balancing the article too.

Sonicyouth, you asked about the material cited to this source about adoption, and the lack of a link to men's rights. You've linked p. 82, but if you look on p 83, which is the page cited, you'll see that the link to the MRM to this issue is made explicitly. Slp1 (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There are probably almost as many issues as there are men's rights groups and individuals. Activist A is concerned with promotional events where women pay less than male patrons, advocate B thinks that gender studies departments discriminate against men, group C campaigns for the male pill. There are probably dozens of things and practices that men's rights activists view as evidence of discrimination against men. I was trying to make the point (very badly, obviously) that we need to come up with some inclusion criteria for "issues" unless we what the list to exceed fifty issues. For instance, there are plenty of sources that discuss this men's right activist's fight against Ladies' night. Do we include Ladies' night as an issue that men's rights activists are concerned with? I hope not. I think that the last thing that the article needs is more "issues" sections.

Slp1, I can see now that it says on p. 83 "pressure from men's rights activists will probably influence law makers to expand the rights of unwed fathers with respect to third-party adoptions". Sorry, I missed that. But I still don't understand what it is exactly that Farrell says about adoption. He discusses pregnancy and the requirement to notify the sexual partner of the pregnancy, but what does this have to do with adoption (apart from the obvious fact that having a child is a necessary condition for giving the child up for adoption)? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that we don't really want to expand the issues sections, as the possibilities are endless. My thinking has been that if topics are mentioned by several high quality secondary sources as men's rights issues, then it may be appropriate to expand a little with more primary sources (though obviously secondary sources are still preferred). I don't think one Village Voice blog about one guy's campaign against "ladies' night" in New York thing gets a passing grade, myself. Though it is an interesting example though.... and I see he even made it onto the Colbert report!! [7] Watch it, it's hilarious!

Thanks for persisting in getting to the bottom of the adoption issue, SonicYouth Farrell makes this suggestion in the context of a discussion of adoption: the point being that say, in the context, of a pregnancy following a one night stand, the woman should be required to notify the father of the pregnancy rather than given birth to the child and give it up for adoption without the father even knowing of the baby's existence. It looks like the sentence might need a tweak to make this clearer to people other than me!! Slp1 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On Fathers' rights

Hi,

I was thinking about this passage in the article: "Critics argue that empirical research does not support the notion of judicial bias against men[62] and that men's rights advocates interpret statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it.[65] /..../ Deborah Rhode argues that contrary to the claims of some men's rights activists, research shows that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents.[74]"

The first claim iss that "empirical research does not support the notion of judicial bias". The way this is written makes it sound like there was, at the time of writing, actual emprirical research refuting the claim of judicial bias. When looking at the source, however, the source says "... despite the lack of supporting empirical research", IOW, that at the time of publication of the source there was no empirical research presented. That's a different state of affairs. How to rewrite this to reflect the source in a correct manner?

The second claim is that "men's rights advocates interpret statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it". The source for this is Susan Crean's book "In the name of the Fathers...". However, according to Susan Crean, the starting point of the book is changes to family law in Ontario, Canada, in the mid-eighties (http://www.susancrean.ca/books). Whatever the scope of the book, it can hardly support a sweeping statement about _all_ fathers then and today that they do not want custody - even only the fact of fathers' rights groups arising should be enough to demonstrate the falsity of that claim. How to change the article to correct this impression?

The third claim is that Deborah Rhode claims that "research shows that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents". OTOH there exists other research that claims the opposite, e.g. Madonna E. Bowman & Constance R. Ahrons, Impact of Legal Custody Status on Fathers' Parenting Postdivorce, 47 J. MARRIAGE AND FAM. 481, 481-88 (1985) (reporting that joint legal custody increased the amount of time fathers spent with children); Judith A. Seltzer, 1997, (http://ssc.wisc.edu/cde/nsfhwp/nsfh75.pdf) (reporting that "...Controlling for the quality of family relationships before separation and socioeconomic status, fathers with joint legal custody see their children more frequently, have more overnight visits, and pay more child support than fathers in families in which mothers have sole legal custody. However, among those with a formal child support order, fathers with joint legal custody pay about the same percentage of the child support order as fathers without joint legal custody. These findings support the view that joint legal custody encourages some aspects of paternal involvement after divorce"). The study "LAGGING BEHIND THE TIMES: PARENTHOOD, CUSTODY, AND GENDER BIAS IN THE FAMILY COURT" by Cynthia A. McNeely contains criticisms of the scientific validity of the article sources nr 62 (the "Massachusetts Study") and nr 74 (Rohde); IOW, these sources are contentious, if not downright unreliable, which would make them not RS, as they contain unverifiable claims.

Any thoughts?

T83.109.182.29 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the claims, #1 - the source is Melville, Angela; Hunter, Rosemary (2001). "'As everybody knows': Countering myths of gender bias in family law". Griffith Law Review 10 (1): 124–138. The wording in the WP citation states: "Several authors have observed that men's rights groups claim that the family law system and the Family Court are biased against men, despite the lack of supporting empirical research.". Looking at the paper, this quote is a annotation of the following sentence: "Another myth that permeates the men's movement, and which has also entered public consciousness, is the belief that male experiences of the Family Fourt are devalued.". Most of the paper discusses other myths regarding men's issues and uses similar wording of "lack of empirical evidence/research". As such, I think this reflects the source quite accurately, and a suggestion that new empirical research has arisen since 2001 would be WP:SYNTH without a separate reliable source backing it up.

Claim #2 - I don't have access to this book but from the looks of it, it may only be about Father's rights people rather than MRM. Its hard to say without actually reading it - but if this is the case, the sourcing should be removed, information taken from here and placed in the FRM article (if not already) and sentencing resourced in context of MRM.

Claim #3 - The sentence specifically attributes that opinion to Deborah Rhode so it should be appropriate in that context - the exact quote from the article is "Contrary to the claims of some men's rights activists, most research finds that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents." If you have research from RS that speaks otherwise (and can attribute said research to the MRM) it can be appended to those sentences. Whether or not McNeely criticizes sources nos 62 and 74 is largely irrelevant for WP purposes in respect to inclusion - they are from scholarly journals and very clearly RS and explicitly deal with the MRM. However, McNeely's article is also a RS but I'm having a hard time directly linking it to the MRM - it seems a piece more suited for inclusion in the FRM article. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, (re 1) well, that's where language can take you for a ride. For example, say that there in any year research is performed either on birds or fish, but not both. Suppose that in 2012, research was only done on birds. And suppose that someone writes an article about fish, saying "The newest research findings in 2012 do not support the hypothesis H about Fish". Since no research was done on fish in 2012, this is true. However, the sentence can mislead readers to believe that reseach was in fact done on fish, and that hypothesis H was falsified by that research; while the state of affaris is that since no research has been undertaken, the hypothesis (while remaining unconfirmed by research) has not been falsified by research in 2012. Likewise, to state that something lacks supporting research can be misconstrued as saying "actual research has debunked this hypothesis" instead of "no research has confirmed this hypothesis". There_is_ a difference between a hypothesis being falsified and it being not verified; tertium non datur. Of course, if what the source is really saying is that the claims are debunked by research, then the article should reflect this, and the relevant debunking research should be referenced. But the sentence "...research does not support ..." is too ambiguous to be allowed in a good article.

See below where I've looked at the article and pulled out another quote. The language is less ambiguous than that and clearly states "The relative lack of no-contact orders suggest that men are not being denied contact with their children by the Family Court. These findings are supported by other research, which suggests that the principle of both parents having contact with their children often overrides considerations of the safety of the parties, and, arguably, the best interests of the children.". PearlSt82 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(re 2) Whether or not it's about fathers in particular or MHRMs in general is a different problem. The problem in the article is that a claim about local conditions has been generalized tto make it seem true for a much larger group. Shoddy use of sources clearly lowers the quality of the article.

(re 3) Using one single quote about a study that is dated, local and also heavily criticized for methodological flaws is clearly to give that quote undue weight. T 83.109.183.59 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Crean's statement that "T" believes is incorrect is about the men's rights movement, not the fathers' rights movement. "T" (who should log in), our job is to summarize what reliable secondary sources say about the men's rights movement. It's a piece of cake to find sources that disprove most MRM claims in the article. For instance, research doesn't support the men's rights claim that the teacher's sex (i.e., the "feminization" of the school system) causes problems for boys in school. What is not a piece of cake, however, is to actually find sources that discuss these issues in connection to the men's rights movement. For example, if you want to show that Crean's assessment is wrong you need a source that says that men's rights activists are correct in their interpretation of statistics and that they consider the fact that many men do not contest custody. Besides, be careful where you take the scope argument because the primary sources (e.g., Farrell writing about the view of one men's rights activist, himself, Benatar writing about all sorts of stuff except the MRM) would need to go first. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad that you agree that sources should be reliable. Since this is not the case for Crean, I'll be happy to take it out, if no one can point to other material that substantiates the Crean quote.

Wrt. debunking MHRM claims, the article is not the place for tearing into MHRM issues with personal opinions about these issues (read some guidelines one day, there's a lot of good stuff there), the article should present the MHRM. Because, like, this is what the article is about, right?

There is no need to find material that shows that Crean is wrong; it is as simple as not including Crean. To be able to state that MHRMs claim this or that it is enough to point to MHRMs claimnig the same thises and thats. Due to the structure of the MHRMovement, the preponderance of sources on the actual opinins of the MHRM are primary sources; which, although secondary sources, where available, are preferred, can serve as basis for Wikipedia articles. Whether or not others believe, or not, that these claims are true or justified or whatever is secondary in information value; i.e. one may include criticism, or link to a separate article on any given issue, or establish balance by (many) other means - at least this is what the guidelines state. T 83.109.183.59 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Crean is definitely reliable by WP:RS standards. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Crean might be speaking the truth with angels' voices in every single word in her book; nonetheless Crean is not a source that supports the sweeping statement in the article. The scope of the statement in the article is far wider than the scope of Crean's work. The problem is not with Crean's work, but with some article editor interpreting Crean's work in a manner which is misleading. T 83.109.183.59 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Directly from the Crean website you posted - The book looks at the history of women’s rights as mothers, and recent trends in the courts where, in fact, women almost always lost. Lost support, lost their children, lost their homes.. While she states it started as a Toronto issue, the scope clearly indicates the book is larger. If you can pull text directly from the book that is misrepresented by the text in the article that is one thing, but speculating on its contents based on what the author wrote about it on her website doesn't really seem like the way to go. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, where in the book is this scope that clearly indicates that the book is larger? Is there any text you can pull idrectly from the book which would support the notion that Crean's findings are generally applicable across the whole MRHM? If not, the source does not support the formulation in the article as it stands now. T 83.109.183.59 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a single study or piece of literature that is "applicable across the whole MRHM"? I'd like to see you try before I explain that research about an international social movement is necessarily limited in scope because it is (practically, although not theoretically) impossible to research all MR groups and activists in all countries in all time periods. You hold the Crean source to an unrealistic standard that all sources in the article will be unable to meet. You made a pitch, it didn't work, and now you need to let it go. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't hold Crean to any standard at all. I merely compare the scope of the claim in the article with the scope of the claim in Crean. If it is difficult to find litterature that is applicable across the whole MHRM, if research about an international social movement is necessarily limited in scope because it is (practically, although not theoretically) impossible to research all MR groups and activists in all countries in all time periods,

then perhaps the article should not use language that gives the - implicit in what you state - clearly misleading impression that Crean's claim is applicable across the whole MHRM, that it is research about an international social movement that is not limited in scope because it represents research all MR groups and activists in all countries in all time periods. You made a pitch, it didn't work, and now you need to let it go. T 83.109.183.59 (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello "T". The article and the article talk page is also not the place for tearing into reliable secondary sources with personal opinions about these issues. Please read WP:RS. Yes, the article should present what reliable secondary sources have to say about the MRM. Editors' opinion that a reliable source is "wrong" is immaterial, sorry. If we start removing references, we'll start with the primary stuff, e.g., the conference paper from the Second Annual Male Studies Conference. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sonicyouth, pls see my comment to Mr/s Pearl on Crean. I am not tearing into a source, I do not doubt that Crean is a RS for whatever Crean asserts; I do, however, doubt that Crean is a reliable source for what Crean does not assert. To propose otherwise would contravene OR and SYNTH and what have you not of Wiki editing guidelines. Please read something more than just WP:RS. Good thing that we all agree that Crean is not wrong per se, that would indeed be immaterial; however, that is not and has never been the issue. This is about the article and how the sources support it. I'd be happy to see you input once you address the actual issue here as well. It's not about removing references, it is about making sure that the article holds a high standard by using available hermeneutical principles to the best advantage. T 83.109.183.59 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Crean writes about the "men's rights movement, which has taken up joint custody as the rallying cry for fathers of all persuasions. Taking the statistics on custody awards as incontrovertible evidence of judicial bias against men, they pay no heed to the fact that the vast majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it." The actual issue is that Crean is a reliable source and that editors' personal opinions about this and that do not matter much. In order to improve the article ("hermeneutical principles" and all that jazz), we should start removing the conference paper from the Second Annual Male Studies Conference, the opinions by people who do not write about or for the men's rights movement (e.g., Benatar) and all unreliable primary sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Going further with Claim #1, the article goes on to say "The relative lack of no-contact orders suggest that men are not being denied contact with their children by the Family Court. These findings are supported by other research, which suggests that the principle of both parents having contact with their children often overrides considerations of the safety of the parties, and, arguably, the best interests of the children." PearlSt82 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. IP "T", I think some of your earlier comments may have some merit (I'll be looking into them in more detail later), but your last few posts about Crean show a distinct lack of understanding about how do we operate. We are not here to judge the correctness of otherwise of Crean. If you can provide other sources that dispute the point specifically then we have something to talk about. But as it happens it is trivial to find multiple additional sources from multiple jurisdictions that confirm that there are critiques that custody statistics are misused because they don't take into account situations where the parents have agreed that the mother should be be primary caregiver. e.g.Sterba in the Sterba and Farrell book Benatar [8][9] - (note that not all of these are reliable sources for article writing purposes or mention the MRM, but for this talkpage discussion that's beside the point). If you really want to help build this encyclopedia, please don't create strawmen such as the fact that the article is making "a sweeping statement about _all_ fathers then and today that they do not want custody" (cf the article "ignores the fact that the majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it"), and also please do a modicum of research to see whether what you want you want to get rid of isn't actually supported by other sources. Slp1 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello yourself Slp1 - I'm flattered that "they"* bring out the Big Guns :-). (* You write "we" - I assume that you speak for some group - Wikipedia, perhaps? - or some other which I do not know about? )

I'm sorry to have to repeat myself again one more additional time, but I do not judge the correctness of Crean. I judge whichever editor it was who used a statement of Crean's about the state of affairs in Ontario in the nineties to describe all fathers not only in Ontario in the nineties, but at all times and all places in custody disputes in Canada, the USA and a lot of other countries who are covered in this article about the men's rights movement (which extends to Canada, the USA and a lot of other countries).

To use a simile: Assume for the sake of discussion that the "true situation in Ontario in 1994 - 1999" = "20 points"; and Crean's description of the "true situation in Ontario in 1994 - 1999" " = "20 points described" - then we agree that Crean is a good source for all af Crean's claims, right? Crean says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. Situation and description are a perfect match. This is something I have never disputed. But then some editor takes Crean's description of the situation in Ontario in, say, 1994 - 1999 (just to use some figures) and applies it to all of Canada and the USA and a lot of other countries. Say, for the sake of discussion, that the situation in this larger region is not "20", but "80", the the Crean quote which holds for "20" is cited to do the same supporting work for a situation that is really "80" - and then the "20" description no longer holds true as a perfect match of situation and description.

All this is presented for the sake of discussion. IF - if, if, if if - what I have written should turn out to be the case, then correcting the article is not a matter of finding results that contravene Crean, it is a matter of deleting the statement based on Crean because the _statement in the article (not reliable mrs Crean, not reliable mrs Crean, not reliable mrs Crean, not reliable mrs Crean, not reliable mrs Crean,) _ is misleading since it refers to an evidence base that is too narrow to support the scope of the proposition. If there is some editor X who wants to propose what the article now falsely proposes, the burden of evidence is on this editor X to provide corroborating evidence that enables one to generalize Crean to the MHRM in toto.

I don't know if you have read this, but a higher priority than the WP:RS guideline is the no less specific, but somewhat more universal guideline that Wikipedia information should be _verifiable_. A statement that mispresents an otherwise unimpeachable RS inevitably makes a claim that is unverifiable, because, verily I say unto you, it does not present verity.

It is, from some perspective, perhaps, fortunate that there are other references that support the editor in question in the given description; however, if the sources you cite are not RS for the article, this does not really bring us forward in any way wrt. to the article.

I am going to depart from the discussion of the article itself to impart a little amiable feedback, for you to take or not, but if you do, hoping that you will receive it in the spirit that it is given: if you want to accuse somebody of presenting strawmen, you should avoid referring to the purported strawman as a "fact". If not, you come across as somebody who thinks that facts are strawmen, and worse, you maight arouse the suspicion that you are among those who themselves would be likely to present strawmen as facts. I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

That said, I thank you for the advice on researching any issue; however, the volume of published litterature since the Gilgamesh epos is.... shall we say, vast? And more is published every year, such that it is impossible to keep abreast of it all; who knows where contrary facts may be lurking? The principle of letting the one who presents a proposition based on and backed by a source carry the burden of evidence is a sound one in our context. Otherwise, we are bound to demand proof of negatives from each other (like I could ask you to research if there is any research that contravenes Crean, which I see that you haven't.)

No, let bold editors edit boldly, boldly present their sources, and let other editors boldly check the sources and the edits and see if this particular presentation of a case is tenable. If not, it must go; like Crean. T 83.109.183.59 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

^ Equity without Equity: Universities’ Love-Hate Relationship with Men in 1972 Farrell was "leading a protest in support of the Women’s Strike for Equality" and see his wikipedia entry, he was elected chapter president of NOW three times

[1] Equity without Equity: Universities’ Love-Hate Relationship with Men in 1972 Farrell was "leading a protest in support of the Women’s Strike for Equality" and see his wikipedia entry, he was elected chapter president of NOW three times

[1]