Talk:Men's rights movement

/r/TheRedPill

From my understanding, the misogynists at /r/TheRedPill consider the MRM and /r/MensRights to be betas who reject gender biotruths. Would it be fair to categorize to as part of this movement? I'm sorry if I got anything wrong, it just seems to me that Roosh V and /r/TheRedPill hate MRM's rejection of biotruths.

However, how I see it, the MRM believes women have unjust privilege at the expense of men and the Red Pill Movement believe that men are being feminine and they believe that's wrong. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 08:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This matches my observations, but the sources are still too vague to go into that level of detail. Right now, sources treat them as overlapping groups. Since there are no membership cards or loyalty pledges, these websites and subreddits have no monopoly on the MRM label, and participation is fluid and anonymous. Per the discussion above, some weaker sources do make a distinction between the groups, but others emphatically lump them together. Part of the confusion stems from the phrase "red pill", which is widely supported as being commonly used by many MRM groups, while "/r/theredpill" is a smaller subset with some significant differences. However, lacking more definitive sources (independent, secondary ones) there's not much more to say about it. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Men as rape victims section

A recent section was added on Men as rape victims, and then quickly removed due to lack of RS [[1]]. While I agree that the source was shaky as a source on the numbers and statistics presented, it does highlight the need for a section like this. Some better sources for such a section that I could find on short notice that corroborate the claims made include:

http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

https://rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/hard-truth-girl-guy-rape/

http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2015/06/male-rape-charity-has-had-its-funding-slashed-zero-where-are-all-outraged-men

as well as this whole section on female on male rape in Rape of males, where it is stated categorically as under studied. Just thought I'd chuck some sources at the wall if anyone has the time to undertake a section like this as this is a common thing that MRAs often bring up.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  18:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Only the newstatesman.com article mentions the Men's rights movement in any depth. I think the Rape of males article would indeed be the appropriate place for the other stuff.PearlSt82 (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats fair, i was more talking about statistics in general would probably need to be cited along with MRA claims, and so providing some handy sources would help.

As for more on males as victims from MRAs See this paragraph from Rape culture#Criticisms which puts the point that MRAs often try to make (obviously this would have to be reworked, but is useful):

[Christina Hoff] Sommers and others[87] have specifically questioned Mary Koss's oft-cited 1984 study that claimed 1 in 4 college women have been victims of rape, charging it overstated rape of women and downplayed the incidence of men being the victims of unwanted sex. According to Sommers, as many as 73% of the subjects of Koss's study disagreed with her characterization that they had been raped,[88] while others have pointed out that Koss's study focused on the victimization of women, downplaying the significance of sexual victimization of men,[87] even though its own data indicated one in seven college men had been victims of unwanted sex.[89] Sommers points out that Koss had deliberately narrowed the definition of unwanted sexual encounters for men to instances where men were penetrated.[90]

Certainly the section should have a link to the main article Rape of males somewhere in it as well.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  19:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits

This edit [2] was recently reverted twice. The inclusion of "consider to be" or other similar WP:WTW seems to be a ongoing issue. I found one previous discussion here: [3] but the main argument for removal (which I included in my edit summary) was not addressed. The phrase The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who are concerned about issues of male disadvantage does not imply "male disadvantage" exists, only that those in the movement believe it does. We would similarly write "The alternative medicine movement is concerned with acupuncture and aroma therapy" or "the witchcraft movement is concerned with spells and potions" - neither implies the beliefs or practices are valid (which is something we should and do examine in the article.) It seems like a straightforward change. Are there other examples where we qualify the beliefs of a group? Perhaps those discussions raise relevant points. D.Creish (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the examples you've given are exactly equivalent. Acupuncture and aroma therapy exist (although their efficacy is doubtful.) There is no article on the 'witchcraft movement' as far as I know. Are there any specific articles you could point to where something similar is described in the way you're advocating? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Easy enough. Christianity

Christianity s an Abrahamic monotheistic[1] religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament.

or how about Collectivism

Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the significance of groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.—and tends to analyze issues in those terms.

We don't say "supposed teachings considered to be presented in the New Testament" (per WTW) or "alleged significance of groups." We get into the validity of the beliefs in the articles, which is what I'm suggesting here. Stating the beliefs of a group does not imply we or the consensus of sources believe they're accurate. D.Creish (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Both cited sources refer to discrimination or disadvantage against men, without weasel words such as "what they consider to be". The article should reflect the fact that men face discrimination and disadvantage. AfungusAmongus (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Other previous discussions on this issue can be found here and here. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the OP here, 'consider to be' are weak ineffectual weasel words which ultimately say nothing as the opinions of MRA's are the only thing that we are reporting on in this sentence anyway.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  11:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Long block quote in Divorce section

There's a long block quote in the divorce section:

Divorce courts are frequently like slaughter-houses, with about as much compassion and talent. They function as collection agencies for lawyer fees, however outrageous, stealing children and extorting money from men in ways blatantly unconstitutional... Men are regarded as mere guests in their own homes, evictable any time at the whims of wives and judges. Men are driven from home and children against their wills; then when unable to stretch paychecks far enough to support two households are termed "runaway fathers." Contrary to all principles of justice, men are thrown into prison for inability to pay alimony and support, however unreasonable or unfair the "obligation."[75]

To my eyes, this just seems like a rant that should be briefly summarized rather than included in its entirety. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I've gone and shortened it substantially. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The summary didn't reflect the entirety of the quote so I've reverted. I'm not convinced the sentiments expressed can be effectively summarized but I'll see what I come up with and post it here for review. Thanks. D.Creish (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is also a case of something being given undue attention in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the summary need to "reflect the entirety of the quote"? I don't think it's the mission of wikipedia to include everything anyone has ever said. I think the summary by PeterTheFourth adequately reflected the tone and substance of the quote and would support that edit. Of course, this sidesteps the overall point of it being given undue attention. Can somebody explain why a redlinked author deserves this much attention? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the cited source, the quote is on page 45 of Messner's "Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements" (https://books.google.com/books?id=EfyxAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=%22rich+doyle%22+men%27s+rights&source=bl&ots=peOQOAg_AN&sig=D5z87_BjLyvTIyCADgjJHE3XKOI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8k-XTyZXKAhXIDiwKHShkCvsQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=%22rich%20doyle%22%20men%27s%20rights&f=false

and is ascribed to "Rich Doyle", not Richard Doyle. I can find little else about Rich Doyle via a google search, and the top hit is Messner's book. Seems to me we have a fairily clear case of undue emphasis. I'm going to re-implement PeterTheFourth's edit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Opt-out of Fatherhood

There should be a section for forced fatherhood. Men should be able to opt out of fatherhood.--78.165.64.137 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

jan 21, 2016, Violation Of Men's Rights In Wikipedia Pages

jan 21, 2016, In the Men's Rights page we see that after complaints created by the men's activists as stated by the page there is another sentence that often states that the men's rights activists claims are wrong, but there is no such opposing claims after the feminist claim in the page in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism , where we can see feminists claims about women's rights being violated but without any opposing views, this is sheer discrimination against men in Wikipedia, on top of that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism states in the Talk section that there may be punishment who would change the contents as more punishable than the Men's Rights page implying that the contents in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism page remain uncontested whereas Men's rights page may be changed including with feminist perceptive, We need to create a Sexism Against Men Wikipedia page, Thank you, Nayan Mipun,