Examine individual changes

'{{talkheader}} {{WikiProject Gender Studies}} {{WikiProject Human rights | class=start|importance = low}} {{notforum|Men's rights}} {{Topic|Men's rights|talk=y}} {{archivebox|image=[[Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png|30px]]|auto=long}} == "Related areas of the men's rights include" possibly duplicates See-also == Should we remove it? [[Special:Contributions/97.113.232.137|97.113.232.137]] ([[User talk:97.113.232.137|talk]]) 03:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC) == Article is unbalanced - "Violence" is given too much weight == The article is unbalanced because "Violence" is given too much weight. [[User:Michael H 34|Michael H 34]] ([[User talk:Michael H 34|talk]]) 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34 I made some suggested edits. More material in this section could be pruned. [[User:Michael H 34|Michael H 34]] ([[User talk:Michael H 34|talk]]) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34 This section may again require some pruning because I moved the information on violence from another section that didn't fit into the section and it does appear a bit bloated. We should keep mention of the VAWA as a concrete example of discriminatory law. [[User:Stargnoc|Stargnoc]] ([[User talk:Stargnoc|talk]]) 05:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC) == Alimony == The article previously had: Men in Britain tend to become wealthier after a divorce, earning 25% more, while divorced mothers are three times more likely to live in poverty than divorced fathers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-divorce-makes-women-the-poorer-sex-1515463.html |title=Why divorce makes women the poorer sex | accessdate=2009-02-03}}</ref> However, this didn't fit in with the section at all&mdash;it's a random fact with no context and didn't support anything. I moved it here in case it could be used at a future point. [[Special:Contributions/72.87.188.69|72.87.188.69]] ([[User talk:72.87.188.69|talk]]) 05:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC) ::More pertinent to divorce than alimony. I found a better place to put it, but this source is great. Am adding it in! [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Not really pertinent to anything, doesn't seem true and would definitely need more than one source to verify it (I'd say at least three) Also it seems quite biased (especially given the lack of context) which would be against wikipedias policies. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.29.251.159|82.29.251.159]] ([[User talk:82.29.251.159|talk]]) 07:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Updated Citations == I the reproduce rights section it asks who refers to a court case as roe vs. wade for men. I just listend to a Tom Leykis show a couple days ago and they use this terminology for the case. I am looking for it on youtube, but there are a lot and I don't remember the exact name. So the source might be tom leykis or the lawyer he was talking to.[[User:Phoenixlanding|Phoenixlanding]] ([[User talk:Phoenixlanding|talk]]) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC) As a university lecturer writing/lecturing on both men's rights and feminism on courses covering employment and trade unionism, I have been through this article to add references to academic journal articles and books by 'experts' wherever my expertise permits. I agree that a great deal more could be done to improve the article and expand many of the sections - there is a great deal of informed debate "out there" and this article would benefit from input from more people. When I have time, I will return to the article and attempt to expand/improve more sections. In the meantime, I hope the many references that I've added will help people seeking reliable sources to support the points made in the article. Best wishes, Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Hallam University Lecturer / Composer / Writer 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Dr Rory you gave your address I give our SIF phone number which will guide you to an expert on mens right (91) 9243473704 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.172.30.9|122.172.30.9]] ([[User talk:122.172.30.9|talk]]) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == I believe in men's rights == I believe in men's right. Not all men are the same, we such always give them the benefit of the doubt. We can jump into conclusions. I believe, as a woman, that if we want respect and understanding, we too should be that way with our spouses..WHY??? Is it that we, women, can take advantage of the law and not the men? I would vote for equality, if that's what we want. We protest and jump like crazy if you treat us different than men, but for some reason we can't be treated the same by our legal system. Men, sometimes, have more respect than we do...and not put everything on the woman.. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.118.5.4|71.118.5.4]] ([[User talk:71.118.5.4|talk]]) 05:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Further to that, I would also say it's not just legal, but socially and personally. Men are asked to change, rethink, be more considerate, do this more... If a woman were asked the same by the media, social strata and government, there would be an uproar. [[Special:Contributions/173.33.142.104|173.33.142.104]] ([[User talk:173.33.142.104|talk]]) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos == The real problem == The real problem is people refusing to allow Men's Rights to become an issue of importance. This article is of low importance to this project, while Women's Rights is high. If you look in gender equality, it is defined as "Human Rights -- Especially Women's". All throught this discussion, and any media you care to mention, there is a definate mockery made of male's feeling they have rights. In addition, often there are reasons given that objection to degradations, humilations and abuses is wrong on the part of the recipient male(s) and how these reasons actually make the transgression just. It would not work if it was applied in the reverse. These issues are not debate table topics, nor are rights an issue for who can make the best point. Men and women should have equal opportunities, facilities and respect accorded to them. Women's Rights were needed to balance the overwhelmingly biased support of men in the early 20th century, why would we subject men and worse, boys, to what women and girls cannot tolerate. A majority of the current male population was not even a part of the culture that gave rise to these biases in the past, why should they be subjected to the punishments? Is it so hard to realize things are in a state of inequality? 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos :"Men's rights" will never be an issue of importance for the same reasons as "White Pride" has never become an issue of importance. Everyone knows that "White Pride" is a cover-up for racists. And everyone knows that "Men's Rights" is a cover up for misogynists. You gender runs the world, yet you keep asking for more. And people know what you are really campaigning for. [[User:SantaClaus86|SantaClaus86]] ([[User talk:SantaClaus86|talk]]) 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) ::SantaClaus86, that is a complete abandonment of logic. If someone can say they're proud to be black, Asian, etcetera, without being called hateful, why should you not be able to say the same for people of European descent? How come it's fine for a woman to say "All men are assholes"--with people laughing and nodding in agreement, but if a man said "All women are whores", he'd be sued into oblivion? ::If you can say that "Men's Rights is a cover up for misogynists", then I can say that Women's Rights is a cover up for misandry. In fact, I already have more supporting evidence, because of your apparent contempt for men in the comment I'm responding to. Stop being part of the problem. [[Special:Contributions/70.52.210.242|70.52.210.242]] ([[User talk:70.52.210.242|talk]]) 12:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC) *To all posters above: [[WP:NOT#FORUM|Wikipedia is not a forum]] - these kinds of comments are about the subject in general are an inappropriate use of wikipedia's talk-space. Talk pages such as this one are to be used ONLY for discussion of how to improve teh article's content nothing else. <br/>Secondly, 70.52.210.242, comments like yours which speculate on the gender and the motivations of another poster are inappropriate conduct as they fail to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and are both [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] and a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] alone one of these problems is very serious together they are an urgent problem further personal attacks will not be tolerated--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] ^{[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]} 13:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC) ::Wow.. pot calling the kettle black? Any particular reason you specifically went after 70.52.210.242 who did no more than reverse the gender roles of the comments made by SantaClaus86? Comments which themselves conflate men's rights with neo-nazi white power groups and women haters? I don't think assuming good faith extends to tolerance of clear gender based attacks.--[[User:Cybermud|Cybermud]] ([[User talk:Cybermud|talk]]) 16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC) ~~ I agree with Cybermund, I also think Cailil should respond [[User:Paragoalie|Paragoalie]] ([[User talk:Paragoalie|talk]]) 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC) A quick trip to Cailil's talk page provides his de facto response: "This user is a member of the Feminism Task Force." Flagrant bias does nothing to further this discussion. [[User:Cutty2k|Cutty2k]] ([[User talk:Cutty2k|talk]]) 15:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC) == NPOV == I have added a POV tag to this article. These articles are difficult to write but in my view there is work to be done to bring this one back into line, and away from advocacy and unencyclopedic tone and content. Some sections are fine, but in others [[WP:WEASEL|Weasel words]] such as "point out" are used. A few other examples *"only with special attention and consideration to the less recognised role of men and boys." *"The numbers of male teachers is even more alarming" *"And powerful feminist groups may not allow recognition, on the need to narrow this divide. They feel that such apathy may lead to future generations of males becoming less educated, and hence less gainfully employed." *"Allegations of rape can devastate a males life." *"In some societies there is legislated discrimination against males in provision of social security." *"Media and feminist vigilantism against allegedly cruel husbands, is currently encouraged in India" These problems are compounded by much non-cited material, which may or may not be [[WP:OR|original research]] and lack of attribution. Some of the above would likely be fine if they were reported as the (sourced) opinion of men's rights activists. --[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 23:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Excuse me, but that above list is definately of concern to men's rights. It addresses actions against Men which need changing. Feminism took the exact same stance, yet you would censor male usage of them? This then becomes another point for your list: *"The facts of the concerns of male rights are not allowed to be voiced, as it seems to be the opinion of some that -current- issues are not 'encyclopedic'. [[Special:Contributions/173.33.142.104|173.33.142.104]] ([[User talk:173.33.142.104|talk]]) 14:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos Since the issue is that there are no facts sited, it is much the same as it was with early feminism, instead of looking for published stats and articles that will not exist yet. For example, do you really need a citation for things everyone can see? Most medical billboards for diseases show women. Example: The ALS poster in front of the restroom at my gym, the new heart attack posters at my doctor's office, bowel problems, walking into a shoppers drugmart where the slogan is "Your health" it's three generations of women laying in the grass playing... You want the facts, do what the original women's right movement did, look around and point it out to people. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.33.142.104|173.33.142.104]] ([[User talk:173.33.142.104|talk]]) 20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> So what exactly makes this story not neutral point of view now? [[User:Jayhammers|Jayhammers]] ([[User talk:Jayhammers|talk]]) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC) == More topics/suggestions/ramblings == Some comments / potential topics to add/expand 1. Society's views on, and treatment of, gay men versus lesbian women (e.g. "lesbians are hot, gay guys are gross") 2. We should expand the section on how media views men's rights - incorporate not just the media's views but society's in general and general political stances on the issues. Also consider further how politics focuses almost entirely on women's issues rather than men's (for example gender disparity in insurance premiums that currently is biased against women is 'important enough' to be facing elimination: http://businessinsure.about.com/b/2009/05/07/health-insurers-to-abandon-gender-premium-disparity.htm ). Also lack of lobbyists for men's rights or true gender equality rather than solely women's rights. 3. Hiring practices / affirmative action should have a section, possibly in employment or education sections 4. Information on education (for example, scholarships solely targeted at women in engineering and discussions on what makes men pursue math/science fields more than women and attempts to "fix" this imbalance with possibly discriminatory practices) 5. More on gender roles, men are expected and assumed to be shallow only caring about looks, cannot be sensitive, etc. Possibly a comment on the perceived sexuality of men and women (women are considered innocent by default) 6. More on sexual harassment in the employment section (again women are considered innocent by default) 7. Police officer leniency on women when being pulled over for tickets - getting out of it by crying. I wish there was a study on whether some of the DUI discrepancy in gender is due to such leniency. Sentencing for DUIs and drug-related crimes, from stories I've heard myself, is lower for women. 8. Men being manipulated by women is a common affair, and even men perpetuate it by buying drinks at the bar and filling the role of the pursuer. 9. Views on women accused of sexual assault and molestation being taken less seriously than similar accusations against men, as evidenced by South Park (ha). Also note that women mature sexually earlier than men and women tend to seek out older men - this would potentially lead to a bias against men in age of consent laws. I have also heard stories of girls meeting the age of consent requirements in a state, but that have not yet turned 18, who have a long-term boyfriend who they then claim raped them after pressure from parents. Men in such situations are guilty by default. 10. An analysis of gender roles and whether they stem more from natural instinct or societal pressures, and how these are perpetuated. Just some thoughts I wanted to jot down.[[User:Stargnoc|Stargnoc]] ([[User talk:Stargnoc|talk]]) 05:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC) No mention of males in public education where even one false accusation by a student can devastate or even destroy the male's career and/or life. Males appear to have a higher threshold of proving innocence than females do. The problem is a clear and present danger to every male teacher. Anger but one child who knows there is little to no punishment for false accusation(s) while performing one's job, such as maintaining discipline in the classroom, and a veritable heck-on-earth can ensue. [[User:Obbop|Obbop]] ([[User talk:Obbop|talk]]) 17:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC) These proposed additions do not address the rights of men, they just bias the article against women. there is clearly unequal treatment between genders, but this is not an argument article. it is supposed to be an unbiased internet encyclopedia article of what the men's rights movement actually is, not why the rights activists feel justified in believing what they do. [[User:Commenter37051|Commenter37051]] ([[User talk:Commenter37051|talk]]) 06:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC) == cleaning-up this page == This page has become a complete mess. Please read [[WP:TALK]] - all new <s>posts</s> threads should be posted at the bottom of the page. I'm re-organizing the page chronologically and will be archiving old posts per [[WP:TALK]]--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] ^{[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]} 00:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC) :To clarify, [[WP:TALK]] states that we should "start new topics at the bottom of the page," not new posts. Indeed properly threaded new posts can occur in any section of a Talk page. [[User:Blackworm|Blackworm]] ([[User talk:Blackworm|talk]]) 05:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC) == Who tags. == As in a number of articles, this article makes extensive use of what can be termed "weasel words". This ends up detracting from the validity of the article. There needs to be a move against using terms such as: *"Some people say..." *"Some argue..." *"Contrary to many..." *"Research has shown..." *"...is claimed to be..." *"...is thought to be..." *"It is believed that..." *"It is rumored that..." *"Some feel that..." *"Critics/experts say that..." *"It is claimed..." *"It has been reported that..." *"It is generally considered that..." I added some {{who}} tags to places in which this was evident. [[User:rmosler2100|<span style="color:green">'''R'''</span><span style="color:black; font-variant:small-caps">'''mosler'''</span>]]&nbsp;|[[User_talk:Rmosler2100| <span style="color:black; font-variant:small-caps">●</span>]] 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________ How can one report on subjective topics without the use of the above words and terms? This is not a "math" topic wherein one can logically assume, within reason, that one plus one equals two? [[User:Obbop|Obbop]] ([[User talk:Obbop|talk]]) 17:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________ Read about [[Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words|weasel words]]. It boils down to "Who, when, where?". More explicitly, using the cited examples: *"Some people say..." (Who are these people? Where/when did they say so?) *"Some argue..." (Same as above. Who? When? Where?) *"Contrary to many..." (Who are the many? Where did they contradict it?) *"Research has shown..." (Who did the research? Where/when was it published?) *"...is claimed to be..." (Who made the claim? Where? When?) *"...is thought to be..." (Who/when/where?) *"It is believed that..." (Who/when/where?) *"It is rumored that..." (Who/when/where?) *"Some feel that..." (Who/when/where?) *"Critics/experts say that..." (Which critics, in what context, where published?) *"It is claimed..." (Who/when/where?) *"It has been reported that..." (Who/when/where?) *"It is generally considered that..." (Who/when/where?) It doesn't have to be maths, but it should be more reliable than "Someone somewhere said…". [[User:Jokl|Jokl]] ([[User talk:Jokl|talk]]) 15:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) No, Jokl. You do not understand. This is how "Men's Rights Activists" operate. There is absolutely '''nothing''' to support their ridiculous claim that men are somehow 'oppressed' or 'discriminated against' in this world. It's the same strategy that "White Pride" racists use to argue that whites are somehow 'oppressed.' <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SantaClaus86|SantaClaus86]] ([[User talk:SantaClaus86|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SantaClaus86|contribs]]) 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ~ Santa, your comments make it apparent that there is indeed issues relating to Men's Rights. I am Male, I find your comments both inappropriate and offense. You yourself are attempting to oppress and discriminate Men's opinions. [[User:Paragoalie|Paragoalie]] ([[User talk:Paragoalie|talk]]) 17:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC) == Minister for Men == The content removed by myself and by User:Blackworm was reinstated twice by [[User:82.12.250.107|IP 82.12.250.107]]. Both users removing the content explained. Rv 1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights&diff=305474748&oldid=305417315 "A blog is not a reliable source, also this section is much too long for this issue (WP:UNDUE) given that this is a general article on men's rights. Probably needs more work."]; Rv 2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights&diff=305626444&oldid=305617551 "rmv section on Minister for men- See WP:DUE also while lines are sourced there are issues with the sources (blogs) as well as the linking of sources to form an essay style synthesis"]. Both users have explained that the removals are based on policy - specifically [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:UNDUE]] and I raised a concern relating to [[WP:NOR]] (specifically [[WP:SYN]]). Please be aware that reinstating disputed material without discussion or consensus ''is'' considered [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] ^{[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]} 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC) : Please be aware that deleting material that you don't like, and then threatening other editors with phrases like "disruptive editing" is a power ploy used by those who want to force their version onto others. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Liberation3|Liberation3]] ([[User talk:Liberation3|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Liberation3|contribs]]) 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == This article needs a huge boot up the backside! == To a degree, this whole article has been run rough-shod over by Feminists, their sympathisers and general man-haters. I'm not looking to disparage the good work put in by those folks that have written most of articles. Any man that did the same thing over at the "Womens Rights" article, would have jumped on like few would believe. So, It's not so much that we don't have citations for different things, it's just that they keep getting deleted by the people that don't want our voice to be heard. Have a problem with this? Let's have some meaningful discussion here, with FACTS. There is no need for this sort of childish behaviour to be going on. [[User:Trumpy|Trumpy]] ([[User talk:Trumpy|talk]]) 06:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) :Yeah, the article definitely has a lot of room for improvement. I just don't have time right now. Work work work, it's a man's duty![[User:Jayhammers|Jayhammers]] ([[User talk:Jayhammers|talk]]) 06:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I've just undone this [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights&diff=prev&oldid=318405350 diff] here, as it seemed hardly constructive. (The last one before mine was just a guy joking about buying ladies drinks, so no tears there.) Apparently, the Hattieone user is on a bit of a rampage on feminist topics. [[User:Trigaranus|Trigaranus]] ([[User talk:Trigaranus|talk]]) 17:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC) The "Hattieone" user would be me, and I was doing you guys a favor, although you don't deserve it. You are making arses out of yourselves by turning these Wiki articles into opinion pieces. It's weird enough that certain webmasters from the UK who own a certain woman hating site, disguised as a pro male site, and other men's rights "activists" (who's "activism consists of doing nothing but sitting online day and night) use places like the gender's and women's section of yahoo answers to pose as multiple people in hopes of convincing somebody, anybody, that feminists are evil. Fine. But this is not a venue for opinion. And since I went to GWS and announced that I would be cleaning up these articles, I barely have (and the mention of me isn't surprising. In fact, I came looking for it, knowing that certain GWS "people" would be unable to resist talking about me here. Can anyone say predictable?) This is because I've decided that you MRA's look plenty idiotic on your own, and anybody reading your articles can see that you have an agenda. You're hurting yourselves more than my editing ever could, and you are just adding to your reputation as violent woman hating perverts. Your lack of public relations skills will never cease to amaze me. If you can't figure out that simply stating the history of your "movement" would play way more in your favor than your current MO, who am I to complain? Besides, it's not like anybody is paying attention. The average citizen still has no idea what an MRA is, an evidently, you guys don't care that the few who research you end up finding you to be a bunch of bitter sounding losers. As far as the feminism articles you dopes are trying to lay waste to, again, your opinions make you look like uneducated liars, and yet, feminism keeps on accomplishing its goals year after year. I haven't bothered to go back and undo more of the mess you brainiacs have made because no matter what you say or do, how much you lie, or how big of a fit you throw, women will continue to gain power, and eventual full equality. I'm just glad we've gained at least enough to be allowed to freely call men like you whatever we wish. And I will continue to just pop in on you here and there, to remind you of how completely and totally ineffectual MRAs and FRAs really are. If I didn't believe you fools had completely castrated yourselves a long time ago, I'd launch an ernest campaign against you, and out each of you as the neurotic ninnies I know you are. But since you are powerless screamers so filled with blind rage that you can't effectively represent yourselves, I'll just keep amusing myself at your expense. That's about all you are good for at this point. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hattieone|Hattieone]] ([[User talk:Hattieone|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hattieone|contribs]]) 08:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> hattie, you're kind of backfiring on anything you may try to do for women by resorting to this name-calling. if you have a problem with the movement or an individual, this is not the venue to express it. regardless of your ideas about MRAs, you're voicing an opinion here too. critique the article and leave it at that if you truly wish to be heard. [[User:Commenter37051|Commenter37051]] ([[User talk:Commenter37051|talk]]) 06:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Woa hattie, I didn't think that feminism was evil until you proved it just there.. Jesus <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.32.8.147|82.32.8.147]] ([[User talk:82.32.8.147|talk]]) 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Funny how this rant by HateyOne didn't get the same reply as was seen above from Cailil "To all posters above: Wikipedia is not a forum - these kinds of comments are about the subject in general are an inappropriate use of wikipedia's talk-space. Talk pages such as this one are to be used ONLY for discussion of how to improve teh article's content nothing else. Secondly, ........., comments like yours which speculate on the gender and the motivations of another poster are inappropriate conduct as they fail to assume good faith and are both uncivil and a personal attack alone one of these problems is very serious together they are an urgent problem further personal attacks will not be tolerated--Cailil talk 13:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)" "and I was doing you guys a favor" "I'd launch an ernest campaign against you" For someone who acknowledges they would launch a campaign against us, It's particularly difficult to believe any editing by you was intended as helpful rather then destructive. == False rape == This section could use some clean-up. Because there is a section to link to it would probably be better just to summarize some of the statistics and mention that part of men's rights activists issue with false rape allegations is that there is large disparity between the punishment for making a false allegation and the punishment just for being accused of rape, and that most false rape allegations are not even prosecuted. The linked section should mention this too.[[User:Jayhammers|Jayhammers]] ([[User talk:Jayhammers|talk]]) 07:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC) == Conscription == Put the conscription section back, not sure why it was removed. It probably needs work but conscription's effect specifically on men must be included in the article; a link to the conscription article would be insufficient in showing men's rights activists' issues with conscription.[[User:Jayhammers|Jayhammers]] ([[User talk:Jayhammers|talk]]) 08:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) == I thought wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased? == This article is clearly biased and reads more as a rant/position article than as an encyclopedia entry. You're not supposed to advocate for an entry last i checked. [[User:Commenter37051|Commenter37051]] ([[User talk:Commenter37051|talk]]) 06:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC) *The article demonstrates the views of men's rights activists.[[User:Jayhammers|Jayhammers]] ([[User talk:Jayhammers|talk]]) 05:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC) == Someone posted this on the actual article itself but it belongs here == [[User:82.6.72.118]] posted this on the article, but it blasts the editors of the page, so i've moved it here. maybe someone could consider it... If the author of this article bothered to check HIS facts, he would find that women are frequently given much harsher sentencing for commiting the same violent crimes as males, as it is seen as acceptable for males to be violent, but not for women to be violent. Also, a black male is 600 times more likely to commit crime, so 600 times more black males should be in prison than any other group, but this is not the case. If you analyse the percentages of convicted men handed custodial sentences compared to convicted women, you find that women are more frequently jailed for crimes that the vast majority of men escape a custodial sentence. Again, this is because it is seen as "less acceptable" for women to commit the same crimes as men. Punishment should fit the crime, not the gender. but it seems racist too... [[User:Devrit|<font face="eurostile">'''D'''</font>]][[User talk:Devrit|e]][[User:Devrit/Sig_Page|<font face="eurostile">'''v'''</font>]][[User:Devrit/Playpen|r]][[User:Devrit/BLAH|<font face="eurostile">'''i'''</font>]][[User:Devrit/Taser_News|t]] 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC) :I think I'll believe the findings of the University of Georgia scientific study over the ramblings of a random internet user. Black people are more likely to receive harsher sentences than whites, men are more likely to receive harsher sentences than women, and black men receive the harshest sentences of all, for the same crimes.[[User:Jayhammers|Jayhammers]] ([[User talk:Jayhammers|talk]]) 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC) == Prison Rape == There should probably be a section on [[Prison Rape|prison rape]]. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.185.254.220|71.185.254.220]] ([[User talk:71.185.254.220|talk]]) 10:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Intro references == I was asked by editor Aronoel for reliable sources for my update to introductory text of the article. I left it as: "The term men's rights refers to freedoms and rights of boys and men. This term is specifically related to focusing on rights which are protected for girls and women, yet inadequately protected for boys and men, and fall within the broader context of human rights. In essence, this term refers to human rights and dignity for men. Men's Rights also relates to the roles of men in contemporary society. Gender roles are within the mens's movement primarily considered as resulting life situations for men and women and secondarily also as causes to life situations. Men's Rights focuses on allowing a broad set of dignified roles or outcomes for men during their lives. Traditionally, the roles for men were largely influenced by the ability for men exclusively to provide protection and sustenance to his partner and offspring and the considered and in a reproductive biological sense actual expendability of an individual man but not the individual woman. These circumstances has undergone change. Mens roles are also considered related to beliefs about the physical and mental attributes of men and women and to some extent the actual attributes of men and women. Many of the traditional beliefs, however, have become controversial during the last decades. The actual abilities of men and women of today in comparison to the past has also changed aswell as the society in which men and women live. The changes are considered due to technological, intellectual, social, legal and religious influences. Groups, movements and loosely connected individuals over the internet have emerged in an effort to clearly identify and establish what the past, current and new roles of men are and should be. To achieve dignified roles the Men's Rights Movement is concerned with legal and societal rights. This has occured primarily in Western cultures. This includes addressing disparity in conviction, sentencing, custody, matrimonial and alimony laws, as well as the discrimination and degrading of males in society at large, including in education, the work place and in the media." I would like to make an argument to the consensus of editors for material not backed by sources. I am myself since long interested in mens rights and convey only what I experience to be consensus. I list below some sources to the statements. Please request or add what more sources could be, should be or must be had. Controversiality mental abilities: By established examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_Nyborg Controvsiality physical abilities: women run better?: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15064423 [[Special:Contributions/85.226.7.214|85.226.7.214]] ([[User talk:85.226.7.214|talk]]) 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC) :Hi, thanks for your interest in this article. Unfortunately, material that is not backed by sources cannot be included on Wikipedia. I think you'll find it helpful to read [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. Also, I'm not sure if I understand what the connection the links you provided have with the material you wrote for the introduction. They could possibly be used to back up the sentence "Some people have controversially argued that men and women have different mental abilities," or something to that effect, although I don't know if that would be relevant to the introduction in this article about Men's rights. I hope that this helps you understand why your version of the introduction as it is cannot be included in this page. --[[User:Aronoel|Aronoel]] ([[User talk:Aronoel|talk]]) 15:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC) :Sources are always important but are only strictly required when the content is controversial and I see very little in the introduction that could not be easily sourced or is all that controversial. Wouldn't be surprised to see a "sourced" claim get put in their that feminists fight for men's rights (and liberation) given the army of editors saying as much in the [[feminism]] article though. Also, sources are not required in the intro if the content is sourced in the body of that article per [[WP:MOS]] (not sure if this applies here since I haven't looked at the article for a while.)--[[User:Cybermud|Cybermud]] ([[User talk:Cybermud|talk]]) 03:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC) ::Hey Cybermud, I looked through the article and I didn't see any sources for what the anonymous editor wants to add. Some of the anonymous editor's intro probably doesn't need citations, such as the sentence "To achieve dignified roles the Men's Rights Movement is concerned with legal and societal rights." (though this point is explained better in the current version's lead.) But I think the whole third paragraph seems very much to be [[WP:OR|original research]]. However, I have to admit I'm having some trouble understanding this editor's intro because there seems to be a language issue. But if it's something that's very accepted and should be included here, then I would think it wouldn't be very hard to find sources to backing it up as a widely accepted fact.--[[User:Aronoel|Aronoel]] ([[User talk:Aronoel|talk]]) 04:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC) ==Pay gap== :"Furthermore, 2004 Census Bureau data shows that "a part-time working woman makes $1.10 for every dollar made by her male counterpart."[84] In contrast, economists' research conducted in the 1990s found that, even after accounting for parenthood status, education, job title, and other factors, there was still a significant income disparity in men's favor (Blau and Kahn 1997, Wood et al. 1993)." ::Is it right to show an older research as it was made to refute a newer one? I think this paragraph reflect that... == Proposed subject heading: Discrimination against men in Development Aid == Hey all, One area that I think you have not written about yet, which is a major issue in developing countries, is the fact that development aid is so largely skewed in favor of women (in many cases justifiably so, in others not). There are a wide range of services provided to poor women which are not provided to poor men, usually under the rubric that women are "vulnerable" or "marginalized". Men of course, can never be "vulnerable". Decisions about aid allocation are done by first world men and women in remote capitals, often with little knowledge of the situation on the ground except the reports that they get from local staff, which may or may not be factual. A recent example was how the WFP created "women only" food distribution points in Haiti after the earthquake, because a few men allegedly grabbed food from women/ elderly. This kind of sanctioned discrimination needs to be raised. Another example is how in developing countries that are post-conflict, a disproportionate amount of aid is given for "female ex combatants", when in reality the vast, vast majority of ex-combatants are men. The money allocated for female ex-combatants was/is disproportionate to the number of female ex-combatants. There are many examples of this which could be raised, but would require research. Please help me![[User:Liberation3|Liberation3]] ([[User talk:Liberation3|talk]]) 21:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC) == Proposed New Subject: International Law and Anti-Discrimination legislation == Another subject, is that when men feel that they are being discriminated against, I am not aware of any law that they can appeal to. Women have done very well to get laws which address discrimination against them, but men have hardly any law to turn to. A key example is CEDAW, which protects women from discrimination, but there is no CEDAM. I recently knew of a case where men were clearly being discriminated against by a local law, but I could not think of any way to legally challenge it, because there is no international law protecting men from discrimination. Or do any editors know of some such legislation? In the USA, the ERA would probably have protected men, but as we know it was not passed! Please help me find sources! [[User:Liberation3|Liberation3]] ([[User talk:Liberation3|talk]]) 21:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) == Proposed New Subject: Women's control of Gender studies/ women's studies == This is one of the main problems in gender for men- women control the entire discourse about gender, especially in academia. The fact that it is even defined as "women's studies" is instructive in itself (again the same trend of gynocentricity or men's invisibility). Although gender issues affect both men and women, the subject is often called "women's studies" and the people who study it are usually women, and professors are all women. Not to mention that all the theories developed by feminists over the years are extremely biased and gynocentric. These theories are the basis for the women's studies programs. It will be difficult for men to impact the gender debate without playing a role in these subjects, as both students and professors. Please help me find sources! [[User:Liberation3|Liberation3]] ([[User talk:Liberation3|talk]]) 22:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Liberation3|Liberation3]] ([[User talk:Liberation3|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Liberation3|contribs]]) 22:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Marriage Strike == The marriage strike section justifies it's own page. Unfortunately each time this page is created a Wikipedia feminist deletes it. This grossly undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.171.225.224|124.171.225.224]] ([[User talk:124.171.225.224|talk]]) 12:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->'