Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Review of sources on three issues

[Note: I've adjusted my comments for improved readability since no one has responded yet]. I made an edit to this article the other day which was intended to clarify two points: first that the MRM is not merely a backlash against feminism, and second that the MRM does not necessarily support traditional gender roles.[1] The edit was reverted, and so I decided to look into the source material. At this point I've reviewed a number of sources and listed relevant snippets below. A third point raised my interest as I went: how writers on this topic distinguish the "Men's rights movement" from other groups or viewpoints. This seems to be central to the way that people discuss the MRM. I've posted some material on this definitional aspect below as well.

I'm "showing my work" here in case others are interested to participate. With a bit more thought, I may make make further attempts to edit the article. Note: I see an editor did something similar: User:Ismarc/MR/Basis. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender roles

• "There is a general agreement among the various strands of the men's movement in Australia (and elsewhere) that traditional masculinity is restricting, damaging and limiting to masculine identity and possibility (Flood 1996). Indeed, it has been argued that dominant representations of masculinity are now more in line with notions of "Sensitive New Age Guys" who are in touch with their own feelings as well as those of their partners and children (Lupton and Barclay 1997). Much of the newer collection of men's self-help books, for example, promote these representations and "interpellate men as maimed or incomplete subjects" (Buchbinder 1998, 46).Sarah Maddison
• "Both men’s rights and pro-feminist men share a critique of traditional masculinity — that it basically offers a raw deal for men."Salon
• "Men's realisation of the hollowness and corruption of traditional masculinity is a common path to the men's movement." Michael Flood
• "George Gilder's Sexual Suicide, published in 1973... expresses a conservative standpoint that reverberates in political discourse today. [Brief discussion of biological differences.] Any movement that challenges these traditional roles, such as feminism, gay liberation, or sexual liberation, is to be resisted... defense of the traditional family is equated with defense of civilization." Notes early conservative support for patriarchy, and cites Promise Keepers as falling in this tradition. Kenneth Clatterbaugh.
• "While profeminist men and profeminist writing generally constitute the dominant perspective within men’s studies in the academy, the shelves in the men’s section of most bookstores are filled with books that come from two other perspectives, namely, men’s rights and mythopoetic, which share the basic assumption that what is wrong with men’s lives derives from the traditional masculine gender role of protector, provider, and head of the family." Clatterbaugh
• "[S]tarting with Herb Goldberg’s The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege (1976), there has been a steady stream of books that argue that men are not privileged relative to women. The authors of these books claim either that men are just as afflicted by their gender role or that they are more afflicted by it than are women by theirs. In either case, men’s rights defenders find a great lie at the center of feminism, namely, the notion that men are privileged relative to women. Probably no writer has said it better than Goldberg [who cites] problems of traditional masculinity such as emotional repression, isolation from other men, fear of failure, and a high suicide rate." Clatterbaugh
• "The theme that was foundational to men's rights, namely, the oppressive nature of traditional masculinity, has been undermined by fathers' rights activists who want to pursue a set of custody rights 'and' traditional masculinity." Clatterbaugh

24.18.98.101 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Backlash"

• "Put in its crudest form, men within these organisations argue that the gender equity pendulum has swung too far and, as a result, men are now disadvantaged and discriminated against." Sarah Maddison
• "Some of the men’s liberationists actually supported feminism, said that feminism actually enables men to get in touch with their feelings, to be good fathers, to not simply be loved for their wallets, et cetera. And some men’s liberationists went the anti-feminist route, and say men get a bad deal because women are actually winning. That’s the basic split." Salon
• "Most if not all contemporary societies are characterized by men's institutional privilege (Messner, 1997, p.5).... The danger, therefore, is that by mobilizing men collectively as men and thus drawing on their shared interests, activists inadvertently will entrench gender privilege (Connell, 1995, pp. 234-238). This potential has been realized among men's rights and fathers' rights groups, which are energetically engaged in an antiwomen and antifeminist backlash (Flood, 1997, 1998).... However, men can be and are motivated by interests other than those associated with gender privilege...." Michael Flood
• "A few short minutes spent touring the cyber-world of men's rights Web pages will unveil, for both the converted and unwary, a truly remarkable gallery of anti-feminist content." Robert Menzies
• "Paralleling the experiences of feminisms and other 'new social movements' (Laclau and Mouffe 2001; Mouffe 1992), the "men's project" has, since its inception, encompassed a stupefyingly pluralistic and heterodox array of political and substantive approaches to the advancement of men's consciousness, well-being, and emancipation. Strands... range from the contributions of socialist, pro-feminist, gay liberationist, and anti-racist organizations... to the overtly regressive, fundamentalist, "moral majoritarian," and feminist-aversive initiatives of main concern to this current study (on the men's movement generally, see [source list]. In canvasing the outpourings of men's discourse and activism in these latter, more atavistic forms, it is important to remember that the right-wing orthodoxy is neither exclusive nor fully representative.... Pro-feminist, anti-(hetero)sexist, and other rights-promoting men's groups have been key and constant allies of contemporary feminism since the 1970s.... Robert Menzies
• "Indeed, the collected sites were far from being uniformly antagonistic to feminism. Three... actively advanced women's causes. Others were relatively indifferent on the subject of feminism or ignored women entirely while campaigning for men's rights.... But also notable is the numerical and ideological dominance of an avowedly anti-feminist, and habitually misogynistic, impetus." Robert Menzies
• "Men's rights is widely understood as being the 'backlash' strand of the men's movement. That is to say there is a widespread belief amongst men's rights activists that the women's movement has 'gone too far' and has harmed men in profound and fundamental ways. Men's rights men 'deny any idea of men's power and argue that men are now the real victims' (Flood 1996, 22)..." Sarah Maddison
• "Although a variety of men's issues organizations with a variety of orientations exists (Menzies 2007), this book focuses on antifeminist men's rights and fathers' rights groups because they have been the ones mounting legal attacks against protections for abused women in Booth v. Hvass and other cases." Molly Dragiewicz
• "The essential belief that underlies the men's rights perspective is that the women's movement has wrongly identified men as a privileged class and women as lacking power relative to men. A consequence of this perspective is a view that is unrelentingly hostile to feminist and profeminist ideologies." Men and Masculinities
• "The literature of the men's rights movement frequently cites statistics that show that men suffer shorter lives, higher successful suicide rates, and a higher incidence of most stress related diseases than do women."Men and Masculinities
• "However, profeminist men soon encountered another political conflict with an emerging movement that called itself the men's rights movement. This movement, like the profeminist men's movement, enjoyed the support of some prominent feminist writers and activists. The men's rights movement was premised on an agreement with the profeminists, namely that men were severely damaged by having to play the traditional male gender role. But they departed from the profeminists by arguing that this damage was so extensive that it was a mistake to view men as the privileged sex. They attacked feminists and pro-feminists from this vantage point and accused them of overlooking the oppression of men. ... Profeminist groups after a brief attempt to create a dialogue with men's rights activists banned presentations from a men's rights perspective from their national and international conferences. Of course, a counter exclusion came from the men's rights coalitions." Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities
• "Carrigan et al. (1985:580), in a review of 'books about men' found that much of the 'men's movement' literature of the 1970s believed that men stood to gain from women's liberation through opportunities to overcome over-rigid sex role requirements from which oppression, both women's and men's derived....Networks of men’s consciousness-raising groups were formed in the UK, USA and to a lesser extent Australia, and were comprised largely of heterosexual white middle-class professional men responding to the emotional fallout from confronting feminist critiques (often from close friends, wives and lovers) of men and masculinity. From these groups germinated the perspectives of pro-feminst, men’s rights and masculinity therapy, and despite their subsequent divergence towards the late 1970s as major differences in approaches emerged, all have continued to advocate the benefits from men learning to relate more closely to one another and (to varying degrees) of overcoming rigid and restrictive masculine norms." Lingard and Douglas
• "While conservative elements of the men’s rights position overtly describe themselves as a ‘backlash’ to feminism, their more liberal counterpart’s self-proclaimed commitment to ‘the true equality of both sexes and to the liberation of both sexes from their traditional roles’ (Clatterbaugh 1997: 89) make it problematic to describe the men’s rights position in general as nothing more than a backlash against feminism." Lingard and Douglas, pg. 36

Strands

• Four strands (also discussed by Maddison): "The men's movement can be understood in terms of four overlapping strands: (1) anti-sexist and pro-feminist, (2) men's liberation (the most widespread one), (3) spiritual or mythopoetic, and (4) men's rights and fathers' rights." .... The men's liberation strand argues that men are hurt by the male "sex role" and that men's lives are alienating, unhealthy and impoverished.... Men are overworked, trained to kill or be killed, brutalised and subjected to blame and shame.... mens' liberation is roughly equivalent to the 'liberal profeminism' which Clatterbaugh places alongside 'radical profeminism'.... Men's rights men share with men's liberationists the idea that men's roles are harmful, damaging and in fact lethal for men. But they blame women or feminism for the harm done to men, deny any idea of men's power and argue that men are now the real victims.... Men's rights is generally an anti-feminist perspective, and described by many commentators as representing a 'backlash'...." Michael Flood
• "This review essay... explores both academic and men's movement writings.... The reason these two are linked is that the men's movement, which is actually several distinct movements, is responsible for the creation and maintenance o much of what is called men's studies. Even today most academic writing owes its inspiration tot one or mroe of the men's movements that began outside of academia." Kenneth Clatterbaugh
• "Mythopoetic writing is a specialized area that falls within neo-Jungian New Age literature." Clatterbaugh
• "...the Promise Keepers, the fourth major men's movement...." Clatterbaugh

24.18.98.101 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The men's movement in all its forms (or strands) is certainly a countermovement to the advances made by feminism. A countermovement is a backlash. I don't see any reason why we would try to whitewash the men's movement or misrepresent it as arising spontaneously. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. For my part I see a distinction between someone who wants to get back to the "good old days," versus someone who says that men and women each have legitimate gripes as groups on specific issues, versus someone who declares men to be under-privileged on whole. I might characterize the first and third of these to be a backlash, but not the second. Of course, the ideas overlap in actual people. Here's one source: "[I]t might come as a bit of surprise to know that the seeds of the contemporary Men's Rights movement were initially planted in the same soil from which feminism sprouted."[2] Another, quoted above: "The men's rights movement was premised on an agreement with the profeminists, namely that men were severely damaged by having to play the traditional male gender role." The word "countermovement" is not so familiar to me, and could be interpreted to mean, in effect, "Hey, we want that too!" If so, I'd be inclined to say that basically covers the spectrum. However, countermovement suggests it means only the same as "backlash," as you say, and I'm seeing disagreement on that point in the sources which deserves more careful review. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You point to a Coston/Kimmel paper where they say the "same soil" sprouted both the feminist movement and the men's rights movement. What they don't tell the reader is that first-wave feminism was first. Nobody gave a fig for men's liberation until the pioneers among women were beginning to get ahead of the lesser men. So the men's rights movement was indeed a countermovement. Sharing the same "soil" (wanting the same life improvements) doesn't change that. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Was, is or always will be a countermovement? Feminism was the original fount of gender-awareness, perhaps. I'm sure you see the distinction, in any case, between a movement to reverse the gains of feminism, and a movement to copy the achievements of feminism. Some writers suggest that to copy is impossible, because at the heart of feminism is the concept that males are privileged, a notion antithetical to the MRM. However, that isn't the only view. I'd be surprised if you suggest that no significant strands of the broader men's movement want to copy feminism's achievements, rather than to reverse them, and perhaps even see themselves in conflict only with radical elements of feminist thinking, if any, rather than with "feminism." We all have our ways of framing conflicts, after all, and my own is to say that we've yet to find a clear one between the two of us. I appreciate your counters, nonetheless, as I am interested to learn more about this topic. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think 24.18.98.101 provides good reasoning and source material Binksternet (talk · contribs), to back up the distinction between describing this movement as one that is striving to reverse the gains of feminism, versus one that is trying to copy its achievements. I suspect this difference in perception over the movement's aims, and how other source material has been used in this article to describe the movement as a countermovement or a backlash within the article, is the cause of much disagreement. Part of the difficulty of describing the men's rights movement accurately is that some components of the men's movement involve challenging recent societal claims made by feminists, while other components involved men pursuing or fighting for rights in areas of gender roles in a manner complementing the advances women received from feminism. Categorically describing the movement as a "backlash" washes over the complexity of the topic's dimensions, and more dangerously, induces unwarranted WP:UNDUE weight to one perspective of how to describe the topic.Spudst3r (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I hope to keep adding material above as I find it. My sense is that rather than quibbling over details, or jumping into controversial parts of the article, it will be more fruitful for me to look for additional material on difficult points to add clarity. I just googled one of our sources and found an editor has gone through a similar effort: User:Ismarc/MR/Basis. If anyone has thoughts, I'm interested to hear. 24.18.98.101 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for these efforts, your work has been the best repository for sourced material so far for describing the various dimensions of the movement, and might allow us to reach a better consensus on fixing NPOV issues existing within the article.

Discussion notice

There is a redirect discussion that may be of interest to this group. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Just as a heads up: There has been some serious off-site coordination on dead link‍] Reddit and MRA sites to influence this article and discussions. Thus the recent influx of new editors and activity by dormant accounts. If it gets worse, someone should take this to AN/I. For now, I'll ping the patrolling admin Bbb23. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: although the page is still on my watchlist, I don't patrol this anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for the info. Is there a new patrolling admin? Or do the discretionary sanctions apply now? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: WP:ARBGG is probably worth investigating - it does cover "any gender-related dispute" and has provisions for Accuracy of sources and Sockpuppetry--Cailil ^talk 13:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: A few comments. The probationary sanctions at WP:MRMPS without the 1RR restriction still apply. They are somewhat similar to arbitration discretionary sanctions. There's really no such thing as a "patrolling admin". We don't get "assigned" to enforce specific sanctions. I was just probably the most active admin enforcing these particular sanctions. Also, certain kinds of disruption may lend themselves more readily to different remedies. For example, if you believe there's meat puppetry, as you said, you can take it to WP:ANI or you can even take it to WP:SPI. Handling meat puppetry complaints at SPI is a gray area, but technically WP:SOCK also prohibits meat puppetry. It's a little harder to prove because you have to prove coordination and/or solicitation, not just a bunch of new editors suddenly appearing and editing a particular article or topic. And, of course, as a separate path to attack disruption, there's always ARBGG, as Cailil noted. You could always bother Cailil, too. :-) After all, when I was more active here, he used to come "bother" me. I don't know if he's more active now than he used to be (see his user page), but he's very knowledgeable in this area.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cailil and Bbb23: Thank you both. I think that the most consistent problem has been the misrepresentation of sources. The accuracy of sources principle might help with that. If I have any questions I'll bother Cailil or some other unsuspecting admin;) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86 and Bbb23: LOL I'm happy to be "bothered" anytime, but unfortunately I wont use the tools (or activated WP:AC/DS myself, or adjudicate in the results part of WP:AE threads) in any area in any way associated with Gender - I'm WP:Involved (at least historically) and it'd be better for an outside, uninvolved sysop to handle actions (especially after WP:ARBGG and WP:ARBGGTF). But I'm certainly around for advice, WP:3O and article improvement. I'm sorry to see Bbb23 leave the topic he's always been level headed, clear and fair, however I fully understand how sysop duties in one area can burn an admin out--Cailil ^talk 15:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like another WikiStorm! Fold up the sails and tie down the covers. Xoviat (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: It's pretty easy to see that WP:Meatpuppetry was going on regarding the two recent, obvious men's rights editors we've been dealing with at this article, and others at WP:ANI agree. WP:Duck is all that is needed in cases such as these, just like in some WP:Sockpuppet cases. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

"Sectors of the men's rights movement have been critiqued for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies." This sentence not only describes, but also subtly endorses the criticism. A less opinionated and more concise sentence such as "[...]have been characterized as misogynistic." would better uphold Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

"Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards and gender roles, and a few can also be linked to patriarchy. Furthermore, some issues may also be linked to issues that affect other genders." The single, hostile source here suggests that the links to patriarchy and women's issues should be moved to Reactions/criticism. Double standards and gender roles have a neutral tone, while patriarchy is a contested issue. AfungusAmongus (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How about for the first sentence "Sectors of the men's rights movement have been critiqued as having misogynistic tendencies." I haven't read the sources in a while, so I'm not sure how well this represents them though. For the second issue, we should probably qualify the statement. As in "According to Author some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards and gender roles, and a few can also be linked to patriarchy." And the second sentence can probably be dropped unless we get a reliable source for it. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Have no preference regarding the first issue as they strike me as more or less the same. However, didnt a previous rev contain the exact phrasing "have been characterized as misogynistic" or am I just misremembering things? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I edited the article to this effect yesterday but it was reverted, so I came here. AfungusAmongus (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to a few months back. If you're the ip editor from yesterday, there were more to those edits than the above sentence, which is likely why they got reverted immediately. Even with non-controversial changes (which I would consider the first issue to be), its still a good idea to raise on the talk page before acting on the article space due to the article probation. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So where do you think the connection between patriarchy and men's rights issues belongs? If the link comes from sources critical of the MRM then I think it should go in the criticism section. AfungusAmongus (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking the MRM with patriarchy isn't criticism though. I agree with Kyohyi's above. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree - speculation that some (which?) MRM issues are caused by society "being male dominated, male identified, and male centered" (definition of patriarchy from [3]) is a criticism of the MRM's focus on specific areas of male disadvantage. It is out of place in a section introducing and categorizing men's rights issues. AfungusAmongus (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That might be stretching it a little too far per WP:SYNTH but its hard to say for certain without the original source in front of me as the whole thing isn't on Google Books. Maybe whoever added the text can chime in? PearlSt82 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"It may help to heal some of the damage patriarchy does to men's lives. But it is not a movement aimed at the system and the gender dynamics that actually cause that damage." The Gender Knot - already linked on the article - unambiguously argues that patriarchy causes MRM issues in order to criticize the MRM's focus. AfungusAmongus (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I find this sentence oddly ambiguous: "Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards, gender roles, and patriarchy.[55]" Is this accusing the MRM of these things, or saying that the MRM alleges these things? If it is somehow both, the article should presumably say so. 73.221.66.170 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This sentence lists three (possible) causes of MRM issues in an apparent attempt to provide context. One of them (patriarchy) was, as I showed above, specifically intended as criticism of the MRM. It should be moved to the criticism section. AfungusAmongus (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"men's rights activists have viewed the women's movement as a plot to conceal discrimination against men" This sentence expresses a radical position as if it were typical. I will add the qualifier "some" in order to avoid overgeneralization.AfungusAmongus (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who commonly focus on what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression." Excessive bracketing of perspectives is redundant and dismissive towards those perspectives. "Group X focuses on issues Y,Z" is agnostic on those issues, while "Group X focuses on what they consider to be issues Y,Z" invites the reader to doubt the legitimacy of these issues. Does "concerned with issues Y,Z" strike a neutral tone, or does it now subtly endorse a controversial position?AfungusAmongus (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you proposing as an actionable change based on reliable sources? PearlSt82 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed "what they consider to be" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions_of_doubt. I also removed "oppression" because it's a stronger claim than anything in the cited sources. AfungusAmongus (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You removed much more than the "what they consider to be" part which was discussed several times (e.g., [4] and [5]) and is supported by consensus and all the cited sources discussion, for example. You changed the lead section without consensus. I will restore the previous wording. Do not restore your changes without consensus. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also please do not add unreliable sources as you did here. A speech at the conference is not a reliable source. Please self-revert or wait for some experienced editor to undo your addition. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-reverted (removed link to speech at IMCI 2014). Will try to find a reliable secondary source. Thanks for pointing that out! AfungusAmongus (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You restored the word "oppression" - a word absent from the cited sources - without giving a reason. Can you find a reliable source for this? AfungusAmongus (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That men's rights activists think that men are oppressed? This is already sourced to six academic references in the "movement" section and to three additional refs in the "education" and "health" sections.

• "These writers believe that men (all men) are disadvantaged, discriminated against and oppressed...",
• "they would give more emphasis to conditions that they saw as proof of men's 'oppression'...",
• "By the late 1970s and early 1980s, men's rights discourse had all but eliminated the gender symmetry of men's liberation from their discourse, in favor of a more overt and angry antifeminist backlash. Feminism was viewed as a plot to cover up the reality that it is actually women who have the power and men who are most oppressed by current gender arrangements",
• "argue that men are more oppressed than women",
• "Men's rights groups... view men as a group of people who have been oppressed",
• "The animating principle of the men's rights movement is that men are in fact the oppressed sex in contemporary society." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok, so why are some claims in the header given footnotes and others not? AfungusAmongus (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to examine the quotes. Clatterbaugh comments: "The theme that was foundational to men's rights, namely the oppressive nature of traditional masculinity, has been undermined by fathers' rights activists who want to pursue a set of custody rights 'and' traditional masculinity.'" Here, the type of "oppression" is not what one would generally expect (oppression by others). The first quote listed above, from Madison, also refers to oppression "by systems." The second, by Newton, places the term "oppression" in scare quotes, seemingly to note the irony of such a claim. I don't deny that many sources refer to oppression, although I believe most are openly derisive in doing so. 73.221.66.170 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I don't see any consensus on the "what they consider to be" phrasing in any of the talk page archives. We may need arbitration?AfungusAmongus (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1) We can't use Wikipedia's voice because it's highly questionable as to whether the issues that MRAs are concerned about truly constitute discrimination against men and oppression of men. 2) The current wording and previous versions (e.g., "perceived issues of discrimination") accurately summarize reliable sources. 3) "Consider" or "perceive" is perfectly neutral; all it does is attribute the view to men's rights activists, rather than stating it as an undisputed fact. 4) This was discussed several times. I linked two archived discussions, here they are again: perceived?, and again, "Perceived". You can replace "what they consider to be" with "perceived" or "what they perceive to be", but if you want to remove the attribution altogether, you'll need to gain consensus first. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the wording concerning "what they consider to be," because it most accurately attributes the views to their source. However, this also means that you cannot put an accurate representation of reality in this section (no matter how you see it). You must use a representation of reality that is as they see it. There is no support that they consider themselves to be oppressed that I can find. I suspect there is support for this view somewhere, but it may be a minority view among the movement. If you wish to put this view here, you will need to clarify that there is disagreement about the oppression or that it is a minority view. Xoviat (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I just quoted six academic sources which state that men's rights activists regard men as oppressed. Hence, your claim that you see "no support that they consider themselves oppressed" makes absolutely no sense. Especially because it's about their view of men, not themselves. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, I think there seems to be confusion between the current dominant groups and the "men's liberation groups" of the past. Xoviat (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no confusion in the sources. The sources clearly state that MRAs think that men are oppressed and that MRAs oppose what the consider to be disadvantages, discrimination and oppression. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter that the sources "think" men are oppressed? I'm sure I could quote sources showing that women think they are oppresed likewise, but it would not be appropriate for the women's rights article to say that feminists consider themselves oppressed. As others have noted, framing the discussion in this way amounts to an expression of doubt (WP:ALLEGED) in Wikipedia's voice.Spudst3r (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It matters that the reliable sources state that men's rights activists argue that men are oppressed (titles such as "The Rape of the Male" by leading MRAs etc. is probably a dead giveaway). In Wikipedia, we try to accurately summarize what reliable sources say about a given subject and that's what happened here. Please stop the disruptive and inappropriate comparisons to the women's rights article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or valid" -- in this case my point is that the women's movement and men's movement articles are so similar in subject area and nature that there is a rationally connected reason for both articles to follow similar article styling conventions. Any ways, again, my issue with the current wording is the use expression of doubt (WP:ALLEGED) wording when citing these sources. Unless it can really be demonstrated that this movement is a fringe belief, it is not justified to use this type of wording.Spudst3r (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's fringe and undue weight to make that comparison. Of course it's also absurd. Who is oppressing these men? Women? smh........ Dave Dial (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

POV statement templates

Template:POV-statement is only to be used in the instance a) where material "misrepresents the views of high-quality reliable sources". (Please note misrepresent the sources's views not give an unpalatable description of the subject, i.e men's right movement and its views). The template further specifies that "The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant." Do not use templates like this to indicate displeasure with the use of particular source's and their POV. Edits like this which argue that "major reliable sources dispute that this accurately represents their views" are in fact misusing the template. That is a wholly separate matter and frankly that's an argument that cannot be won. As per NPOV we record mainstream scholarly opinions without bias (and that includes bias by removal/omission). Repeating such behaviour in the context of this article's probation and the increasing number of ArbCom rulings in adjacent areas (and ones that cover this page too BTW) would not be productive for those doing so--Cailil ^talk 11:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore adding Template:POV-statement to articles must be followed "promptly" by a thread on this the associated talk page - this was not done. failure to do this is grounds on its own for removal of the template. This was not done in this case but is only being mentioned as an aside - in this instance the usage was incorrect--Cailil ^talk 11:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting it to you sooner, I've posted my comment below. I had another edit I was working on.Spudst3r (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverts RE: female privilege

A quote similar to this was recently reverted, but I would like to add this to the female privilege section:

In denying the existence of male privilege as a concept of oppression, Warren Farrell states that men have a "facade of strength" that hides their weakness, and women have a "facade of weakness" that hides their strength, noting that "Women are the only "oppressed" group to share the same parents as the "oppressor"; to be born into the middle class and upper class as frequently as the "oppressor"; to own more of the culture's luxury items than the "oppressor".. "

I agree the quote might be a little long. Basically in expanding this focus I'm looking for material that looks into how the men's rights movement views male privilege and female privilege.

Spudst3r (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

POV claim: men's rights movement "defended the traditional gender order"

The claim that during the 80's/90's the men's rights movement "defended the traditional gender order" as its main activity is not supported by other sources, at least not enough that it can be declared in this way within the article. While a small minority of men's rights advocates may indeed desire a return for a more traditional gender order (as I'm sure sure some self-identifying feminists might), this is not an accurate representation of the movement as a whole, or even a majority of it.

"This perspective men's rights concurs with the profeminist view that masculinity is damaging to men but with gigantic difference of believe that the principal harm in this role is directed against men rather than women."

"The movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who that female privilege and male degradation are systemic in society"

"The Myth of Male Power is not a return to the 1950s man; it is a leap forward to the 2050s man and woman." - p. 11. [[Warren Farrell] author of the Myth of Male Power (described as the "touchstone" book for the Mens Rights movement elsewhere)

"Ideally there should not be a men’s movement but a gender transition movement; only the power of the women’s movement necessitates the temporary corrective of a men’s movement." - p. 356. [[Warren Farrell] author of the Myth of Male Power

I can find more sources for this, but I think it's accurate to say that most Men's rights advocates see issues of male inequality as ones that are systemic throughout most of recorded history and in need of changing society as we currently know it away from how it currently or previously existed to address them. Recent social advancements coming from the women's movement may be seen as making the situation for men's rights worse, but only because they see the movement as imposing additional obligations on to men and new social rights to women without providing commensurate changes to complement them in areas where men face systemic disadvantage.

It is not appropriate, nor accurate, for the article to declaratively announce they movement defends traditional gender roles when many are articulating a vision to evolve the gender order into something different from what already exists (i.e. what is "traditional"). Spudst3r (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Spudst3r your claim is inaccurate on a quick perusal of sources to hand and a search through Jstor there are MANY that talk about Men's rights and "traditional" gender roles. A number of articles by Messner, Kimmel and Fidelma Ashe's The New Politics of Masculinity. Now there are sources that take another stance as above Clatterbaugh being one of the more prominent who propound that its in fact the traditional role that is the enemy of the Men's Rights movement. Scholars like GI Williams have identified these two separate and distinct stands in men's movements since the 80s WRT to the father's rights movement. Williams has an interesting passage on this very debate within the MRA and FRM from the 80s on in Judith Baer's book Historical and Multicultural Encyclopedia of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States, in fact Baer's book is (to my knowledge) one of the earlier users of the term Men's rights activists in its contemporary meaning (2002). Now the problem here Spudst3r is not that one source needs to go but that the two other lines of argument (Clatterbaugh being a one and the others like Williams who talk about the fact that this is a debate within the movement being the other) need to be included. Sources disagreeing is not necessarily a reason to remove anything, and certainly not a reason for the use of the POV-statement template. fUrthermore it is irrelevant what anyone thinks most MRAs think/feel about this what matters is what's verifiable--Cailil ^talk 12:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cailil (talk · contribs), thank you for going into more detail on the treatment of this subject by other sources, it shows you are coming to this with a level of nuance that I do appreciate. My comments (unsourced -- I know) about "what most men's rights activists see" above was not me trying to articulate my personal views on the subject, but rather my personal views of how Warren Farrell has articulated the movement. I gave weight to Farrell's views in the maner that I did on on this subject because is views are very prominent, and WP:Balance emphasizes that: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.

This article has a collection of many scholarly sources using theoretical analysis to describe quite a heavily WP:SUBJECTIVE subject. These sources are no doubt valid for citation, but evidence of their quantity is not necessarily proof that they articulate a movement's makeup definitively if other sources, even if much fewer in number, can be shown to be extremely prominent in representating what a movement believes.

Farrell is highly influential within the men's rights movement (arguably more prominent than any other individual), so for the purposes of WP:WEIGHT his positions deserve highly elevated weight relative to scholars partaking in less widely-consumed theoretical analysis -- that is, if independent sources can accurately demonstrate that his contributions were highly influential to the composition of a movement's ideas, thoughts and perspectives of how they see themselves. And here Farrell's viewpoints, in articulating a description of the men's rights movement as they see it (including very clear ideas that speak against seeing the movement as a return to a traditional gender order), passes this prominence test with flying colours:

e.g. "Farrell is widely considered to be the father of the men's rights movement. ... Many of today's men's rights activists view Farrell's 1993 book, The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, as their touchstone, and the online forums where they congregate are steeped in Farrell's ideas."

Don't get me wrong: other scholarly sources are not to be ignored, and there is no justification to elevate Farrell's views beyond the point of WP:UNDUE, but if I was forced to make an arbitrary subjective judgement of how to appropriately balance WP:DUE of these sources in terms of prominence of sources on how to articulate the views of the men's rights movement in terms of how they see it, I would give Farrell a prominence weighting alone of at least 20% - 30% of the article (I say this as a rough heuristic) -- indeed Farrell's extensive citations elsewhere seems to indicate that I'm not the only editor drawing this inference regarding his prominece to the subject as a source.)

RE: POV / traditional gender claims: I'm not disputing that many sources believe that the men's rights movement want a return to traditional gender structures., my contention which led me to add a POV tag is the inclusion of a blanket factual encyclopedic assertion that the mens rights movement can be definitively defined as wanting a return to traditional gender roles. At the very least, enough prominent sources exist to cast doubt that there is consensus to make this claim factual. More appropriate would be a rephrasing this statement to accurately reflect opinions that both colloborate it and dispute it, with the reader being able to make a decision on their own.Spudst3r (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Spudst3r this is a futile discussion. WP:V is summarized thus: "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". It matters what mainstream scholars say not who may or may not be influential within a movement. Furthermore Motherjones is not the best source nor is it comparable with the ones I mention above. Farrell's work does not describe the men's movement itself (it is not a meta text) it is a foundational view of that movement. It is a primary source for views not a secondary one. A secondary source will discuss what men's rights activists/associations do directly. Farrell doesn't--Cailil ^talk 11:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough that Mother Jones is not the best source. I used it in place of others also saying the same since I believe little dispute over this assertion exists. Whether its anti-MRA blogs calling Farrell their leader or other articles covering the subject. It's pretty clearly many see him as highly prominent. I'm sure scholarly citations also exist for establishing the verifiability of his prominence, it's just a matter of finding them.

Also thank you for acknowleding Farrell's foundational views in this matter. Your distinction between Farrell representing what the movement thinks versus what other sources argue the movement does in its actions is a valid point to consider when constructing this article -- I don't think it merits exclusion of Farrell's views here though. Instead, arguably both a movement's actions and its ideals should both be included within the article if both are verifiable. E.g. in a criticism section this could manifest itself through wording to the effect of "Disagreement exists between feminist scholars and members of the MRM movement over whether the actions of a majority of the movement are in defense of traditional gender roles." Another approach would be to follow an approach similar to an article on a political movement/idea such as Socialism where a discussion of foundational views would appear in the lede similar to phrases such as "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[6] ... The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies. ... Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working-class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society." then elsewhere describe the actions of the movement as it exists: "Today, socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in all continents, leading national governments in many countries." This is not a perfect example, but the idea here is to draw out a clear focus between a description of the ideas/foundation views, and description of the actions of the movement.

Finally moving forward: I think the best resource for resolving what sources say on this matter may actually come from the wealth of citations dumped by 24.18.98.101 above which do cite scholarly articles and views of the MRM that are more nuanced and don't assert it's only just defending a return to traditional gender roles.Spudst3r (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

¿What makes one source scholarly and the other supposedly "un-scholarly"? Often in pages like this certain points of view are given more weight than others, in all my years in the Men's Movement I have yet to come across a single website advocate a supposed return to traditional gender rôles, of-course this has no weight in the conversation as it's original research, but if men's rights authors can be given the same weight as non-men's rights authors are in other pages I could quote/reference several dozen that go against traditional gender rôles. Also I fail to see why this article is categorized in the "Conservatism" category as most Men's Rights sites are as much anti-conservative as they are anti-feminist, so if one claim stands so must the other.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Namlong618 - see wikipedia's rules on verifiability, specifically its definition or reliability and weighting--Cailil ^talk 13:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cailil - I know that's why I won't alter the article based on either original research or first party sources, but if you'd look at "the other side of the coin" and see pages like Femicide that are based almost entirely on first party sources I wonder if the neutrality of these articles are upheld.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Relation to Feminism -- Warren Farrell's perspective

In defence to why I added Warren Farrell's call for a "gender transition movement" to the "relationship with feminism" section:

a. Warren Farrell's book (The Myth of Male Power) is widely considered one of the most influential books ever released within the 'MRA movement'. He easily meets the definition of Notability for the purposes of this article. e.g. from a January 2015 article:

"Farrell is widely considered to be the father of the men's rights movement. ... Many of today's men's rights activists view Farrell's 1993 book, The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, as their touchstone, and the online forums where they congregate are steeped in Farrell's ideas."

b. Right now this section only suggests that the MRM is a direct "backlash" to feminism. Warren's more conciliatory MRA sentiment towards feminism is not acknowledged once within Relation to feminism section of this article, despite evidence that Warren's beliefs are widely held by many MRA's. To be NPOV this article needs to accurately give light to various perspectives within the MRA movement as to how they (think) they relate to feminism.

The content I added to the Relationship with feminism section was written carefully to explain in a NPOV manner the complex interplay of how ideas within the MRM are perceived to interplay with feminism. If you have a problem with these viewpoints, or believe they do not accurately reflect the movement as a whole, then please refine or add to this section -- do not revert. Further analytical responses to Farrell's assertion that the men's rights movement is a "gender transition movement" could be appropriate to fully flesh out this section. Spudst3r (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You need citations that explicitly state that Farrell (1) sees MRM as complement to feminism and (2) both focus on the roles of genders of specific genders. The quote you gave simply said that there are gender roles and that they are not historically static. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree the wording "complement" could be improved. A more directly attributable quote from him may be needed to more appropriately echo his sentiment on how the movement relates to feminism, though I think the current sources show that the word "complement" is quite an accurate description of what Farrell was advocating within the source I cited.Spudst3r (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) & EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) please see my longer post of references below. I agree my usage of "complement" to describe the movement's relationship with feminism may not be the best phrasing, and in its place another citation echoing this sentiment may be more appropriate. Such as that the men's movement is "not a return to the 1950's man"; how feminism "emphasize expansion of rights" but not "avoid expansion of responsibilities"; and/or that "Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of women but neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men." All of these are direct citations from the source. Adding many of these quotes is not WP:UNDUE do to the clear immense popularity of this figure within the movement, as established by sources I cited earlier above. Spudst3r (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Many MRAs view Farrell's writings as important resources to draw on, however Farrell is not explicitly writing about the men's rights movement in the passages you cite. To apply Farrell's quoted writings directly to the MRM is to assume a thought that Farrell at no time actually states. To ascribe an opinion to Farrell supported nowhere in his book is original research. Evergreen's edit is an appropriate interim cut, but if no citation can be found (and, unless he's written something about it in the last few months, no citation will be found - none exists) the material will necessarily be removed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find more recent sources, but I question the need to do so because it doesn't matter whether Farrell's call for a "gender transition movement" within his book is not a direct reference to the present day "male rights movement." It's clear his class for this movement, which has been established via sources above as extremely influential for the creation of the movement itself, as its "touchstone" book, represents a description of how the movement can/should/will relate to feminism. I feel like there is an implicit effort here to address the topic of the "male's rights movement" as a concept that hasn't existed over a period of time. Currently I would disagree and think treatments of its "relationship to feminism" should be treated similar to how a women's rights article would describe a "relationship to men" -- as an evolving relationship that may be best described in chronological terms (with Farrell's quotes here as its opening, perhaps.) This chronological approach could resolve your issues that this definition is not a referene to the current movement as you see it, while preserving this quote from a book that is widely considered by sources to be seminal to the movement's existence, and thus, an apt resource for citation in regards to discussing the movement's relationship to feminism.Spudst3r (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, it appears that 'Wiki:Feminism' believes it has ownership of every single article on Wikipedia. It's about time that project is restrained to an appropriate domain limit. A task force should be set up to articulate mens gender issues clearly and fairly. 77.97.17.147 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the article, not your perceived cabals. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Spudst3r: Warren Farrell doesn't mention the men's rights movement in The Myth of Male Power, let alone discuss it in relation to feminism or anything else. Thus, you added original research with this edit and then edit-warred over your addition. This article and related pages are under article probation, as you very well know. I suggest that you self-revert and remove your original research as soon as possible. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, I can see now that you've been at this since March 2014. Trying to insert the same POV, completely misrepresenting sources in the process. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: please follow WP:GOODFAITH when responding. I am not inserting POV, my edits accurately represent the men's movement as described by the statements of its prominent leaders. My edits are not original research. As established above, sources clearly establish independent from myself that Warren Farrell's comments represent a major portion of the men's movement. My previous edits accurately reflect the sentiment of the author (Warren Farrell) -- I am not drawing conclusions or partaking in original research to elaborate on what he said. Please see my comment below for specific, explicit source citations backing up source citations for my original edits.Spudst3r (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @EvergreenFir:, @Sonicyouth86:, @Kevin Gorman: & @77.97.17.147: , as requested here are a collection of citations showing the ["the father of the men's rights movement" Warren Farrell is referring to both a "gender transition movement" and a men's movement clearly in his "touchstone" book The Myth of Male Power. Here are a selection of relevant citations from the book's official book website to draw from, for both discussing the the subject's relation to feminism, but also for describing the movement as they see it:

Page 11: "The Myth of Male Power is not a return to the 1950s man; it is a leap forward to the 2050s man and woman."

Page 13: "I will be saddened if this book is misused to attack the legitimate issues of the women's movement."

Page 15: "Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of women but neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men."

Page 16: "Patriarchy and male dominance doubled as code words for male disposability"

Page 20: "This book’s challenge to women: Be as open to the man's experience of powerlessness as you would to the woman's."

Page 54: "The political genius of the feminist movement: emphasize expansion of rights and avoid expansion of responsibilities."

Page 127: "Equality involves equal options and equal obligations."

Page 136: "The measure of a country’s emancipation: the degree to which it frees men from the obligation to protect women and socializes women to equally protect men."

Page 155: "The adults of the 1990s are a generation of men criticized for what they were obligated to do by a generation of women privileged enough to escape the obligation."

Page 166: "Perform, pursue and pay: what boys learn they must do to earn equality with girls' love."

Page 197: "We keep ourselves open to new ways of understanding (and helping) women, but fail to use the same mindset to better understand (and help) men."

Page 217: "We overlook men who need help because historically woman-as-victim attracts men; man-as-victim repulses women."

Page 228: "The sexist perception that violence by anyone against only women is anti-woman while violence by a woman against only men is just generic violence creates a political demand for laws that are even more protective of women."

Page 232: "One grand fallacy of the women's movement: Expecting work to mean 'power' and 'self-fulfillment.' "

Page 234: "Conservatives justify the protection of women and the disposability of men by calling it sex roles."

Page 345: "Like communism, feminism went from being revolutionary to dictating politically-correct ideology."

Page 349: "Feminists consistently demonstrate that a woman’s right to choose is primary while a child’s best interest is secondary."

Page 355: "Only the power of the women's movement necessitates the temporary corrective of a men's movement."

Page 364: "The men’s movement will become more political because 1) political structures are formed and forming, 2) the political agendas are concrete, and 3) men’s pain motivates."

Page 369: "The men's movement will be the longest of all movements because it is is proposing an evolutionary shift in the system itself."

Page 369: "Getting men to ask for help for themselves will be the hardest challenge for the men’s movement."

Page 371: "The challenge of The Myth of Male Power, then, is to care enough about men to spend as much of the next quarter century helping men become Stage II men as we did the last quarter century helping women become Stage II women."

These collection of quotes from the [[the Myth of Male Power] provide an excellent wealth of material to draw on to describe the men's movement as they see it from a prominent leader from the movement, and do not constitute original research. I bolded some of the quotations here directly relating to feminism and the men's movement to help show the connection of his comments. These citations establish that Warren Farrell was addressing a men's movement in The Myth of Male Power -- a view backed up sources in describing his influence. (the 2nd quote on page 13 also demonstrates his concern, held by many others in the movement, of how the arguments of the men's movement may be used by others for mysogynistic purposes. I made a note about this phenomenon in an earlier edit describing Warren's views, but it was removed, and I believe it would help expand the breadth and nuance of this article immensely.Spudst3r (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

First off, the men's movement is not to be confused with the men's rights movement. What you've shown is that Warren Farrell (who by that time still considered himself to be a member of the men's liberation movement rather that the men's rights movement) mentions the men's movement in passing, not the men's rights movement. Moreover, he doesn't say that the men's movement (≠ men's rights movement) is a compliment to the work of feminism. What you did is take Farrell's words about the longevity of the men's movement and twist them into a statement about the men's rights movement's relation to feminism. This is a textbook example of original research and misrepresentation of the source. You've been trying to add this OR for over a year, your additions were reverted by several editors, and I ask that you stop now. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In a comment above I already acknoledged how I think we have better citations for replacing the word complement with a better citation from Farrell's book better summarizing his ideas. In the comment above I provide examples of what to replace it with.

In regards to the claim that Warren Farrell's statements here represent the voicing of the men's movement rather than the of men's rights movement: I struggle to see the credulity of this argument and see it more as a reason to omit opinions from an author clearly linked authoritatively to the subject. Many sources clearly establish the Myth of Male Power specifically, and Warren Farrell himself, to be a "touchstone" voice for the men's rights movement, not the men's movement. For you, Warren's ommission of the word "rights" is significant more so because of this article's awkward splitting of these two subjects, rather than a clear indication of his intent to still be associated with the men's liberation movement versus what he was clearly trying to do in this book, which was advancing the arguments that souces acknowledge are now the men's rights movement's raison d'etre. Ask Warren himself, and I'm sure you will get the same answer as to the intention of his words. But fortunately for us, no such original research is needed, because it is clear from sources posted above in the talk page by even sources critical of Warren that Warren represents a leader of the men's rights movement, and that the the Myth of Male Power represents a seminal text of the men's rights movement. Even if Warren Farrell at that time still considered himself to be a member of the men's liberation movement rather that the men's rights movement (which you have provided no citation to back up), the simple fact that his work became influential from within the men's rights movement still necessitates that it should be mentioned in this article for properly representing sentiments of the movement itself for this article. After all, it would be inappropriate for me to post a Youtube video here as an authoritative source, whereas Farrell's book is by clear consensus among both competing and agreeing sources to be the original intellectual beacon of the men's rights movement that broke away from the men's liberation movement, serves as perhaps one of the best objective sources of material out there for understanding the mens rights movement from the perspective of its proponents.Spudst3r (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you struggle to understand the fact that the men's movement is not synonymous with the men's rights movement, then there's really nothing I or anyone else can do for you. You have misrepresented the Farrell source which doesn't discuss the men's rights movement at all. I suggest again than you remove your original research to avoid sanctions for repeatedly violating WP:OR and ArbCom's accuracy of sources principle. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, sources clearly establish that: "Farrell is widely considered to be the father of the men's rights movement. ... Many of today's men's rights activists view Farrell's 1993 book, The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, as their touchstone, and the online forums where they congregate are steeped in Farrell's ideas." When outside independent sources establish clearly that a book accurately speaks for a major portion of a movement's thoughts, opinions or ideals, then quoting explicitly and accurately from that source material is not WP:OR. See WP:NOTOR. Spudst3r (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Farrell may be a men's rights activist and the book may contain some key early MRM ideas, but he makes no statements about the men's rights movement or men's rights activists. Thus, your addition beginning with the words Others, such as men's rights leader Warren Farrell, see the men's rights movement as a compliment to the work of feminism… is a misrepresentation of the source because, again, Farrell doesn't say anything about the MRM. You have repeatedly violated the WP:OR and WP:Synth policies. It's time to request administrative action. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs) Administration action?! My remarks at the bottom of this comment show that I agree the wording of this specific sentence can be improved, and show my attempt to reach consensus on this sentence. See: WP:IMPERFECT Again, sources establish that Farrell's ideas espoused within the the Myth of Male Power represent the movement. Farrell's comments during the Personal Introduction section of his book are accurate to the source because they are discussing how the movement he is trying to build (which sources acknowledge Farrell greatly influenced) relates to feminism.

The sentence Others, such as men's rights leader Warren Farrell, see the men's rights movement as a compliment to the work of feminism… was written to accurately represent statements made by Farrell within the personal introduction section, such as "I will be saddened if this book is misused to attack the legitimate issues of the women's movement." (page 13), "Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of women but neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men." (page 15), among others.

For reaching consensus, improved wording here could be Others, such as men's rights leader Warren Farrell, see the issues advanced by the men's rights movement as a supplement to the work of feminism…. Alternatively if a more direct citation is desired, rephrasing this sentence by using another quote as I proposed at the bottom of this comment could also work. Spudst3r (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Farrell is a men's rights activist. There are many reliable sources stating that Farrell is a men's rights activist. You are saying that because he's a men's rights activist, he wrote something about the men's rights movement in his book The Myth of Male Power. But he didn't. He didn't write a word about the MRM, let alone its relation to feminism, in that book. Your reasoning goes something like this: Farrel is an MRA (+ he articulated some key MRM ideas in his book) = Farrell said something about the men's rights movement in that book. But he did not. You can write a book arguing that there's no causal link between HIV and AIDS without ever discussing the AIDS denialism movement. Similarly, you or Farrell or some other MRA can write a book arguing that men are the oppressed sex and that women have more economical, social and political power than men without ever discussing or writing anything about the men's rights movement. There's a difference between putting forward MRM arguments (men are oppressed) and saying something about the actual movement or activists. Farrell doesn't say anything about the movement or its activists and you and I both know it. Yet you pretend that he does. I suggest that we continue this discussion elsewhere so that more editors can weigh in. I'm not sure yet where I'll raise my concerns about your editing, ANI or AE, but I'll let you know. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

1. So under this logic, could we not refer to Marx's ideas of Historical Materialism within an article about the Marxist movement or Socialism, because Marx wasn't yet referring to anything about Marxism or Socialism? Or could we not refer to John Maynard Keynes ideas within The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money on an article about Keynesian economics, because Keynes was yet writing about Keynesianism? What matters is the influence of a source in how it represents what a movement believes, not whether at the time of them writing they were necessarily aware of the movement they were writing to influence. 2. Warren Farrell as you said is an male's rights advocate. Unless you can provide evidence to show that Warren Farrell changed his viewpoints in later years since when this book was cited (i.e. redacting his opinions expressed in this book), then the sections and quotes I added to this article from the Myth of Male Power will remain both representative of Warren's present day male's rights views, but also of the men's rights movement that he has come to lead and represent. The fact that modern sources confirm the influence of the Myth of Male Power on present day male rights movement opinion is proof that: a. Warren's views as expressed during the time of the the Myth of Male Power still remain representative of the men's rights movement, and b. his purpose in writing the book was written with the full intention to advocate for what we now understand broadly to represent the men's rights movement. Indeed, a look at the intellectual response to the book's release when it was written establish clearly it was divergence from other men's movements of the era. Spudst3r (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I can prove that Farrell doesn't say anything about the men's rights movement or men's rights activists in his book. That's what matters. I don't need to prove anything else. You're the one who needs to prove that Farrell is writing about the men's rights movement in his book per WP:Burden. But I see that you're not listening. I requested arbitration enforcement, so hopefully this will sort itself out soon. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree we need arbitration on this matter. I've added another scholarly reference to the page calling Farrell's book a bible to the Men's Rights followers. Or this NPR article linking Farrell and his book to the MRM: "It's happening here. It's happening now. It's happening with us," Warren Farrell, one of the keynote speakers, told the crowd. Farrell, who published The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex in 1993, is often described as the intellectual father of the men's rights movement. ... Even Warren Farrell concedes that the movement includes some angry people, but he insists they're a small minority. " I have now provided numerous independent sources, including scholarly citations, establishing a number of clear facts: a. Warren Farrell is prominent member of the men's rights movement as conceptualized within this article. b. Farrell's book, the Myth of Male Power was written at the time to represent, and still represents, prominent perspectives within the men's rights movement. Spudst3r (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrt. Men, Rights and Movements .... the Wiki article on the Men's Movement (MM) claims that the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) is part of the MM ("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..." The source for this, btw, is the hopefully still reliable source Michael Kimmel).

IOW, if the MM is like... USA, then Farrell is ... Obama? And if MM is like the USA, the MRM would be kind of like Montana. Then it doesn't make sense to say that Obama is president of the USA, but not Montana. Farrell is a memeber of, a leader of, an inspiration for the MM, but actually not for the MRM, although it is part of the MM?

Perhaps not the end of the World, but should not the content of these two articles be consistent, one way or the other?

T 88.91.200.83 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This thread is veering wildly off topic. And IP User, T, your analogy above is original research (hence my removal of the section). Unless Warren Farrell's books say something, explicitly, about the Men's Rights Movement then they don't get included as sources about the movement per se.
It is the definition of synthesis to use a source to prove point A then link to point B and thus prove a thesis. The removed section links posts that says Farrell is an MRA, with his writting on Feminism, to prove MRAs views on Feminism - that's original research in wikipedia's terms. Farrell would need to have said "MRAs think X about Feminism" for the work to be included in this section. Saying Farrell's writing is influential somewhere in this article is fine but using it in this way (or restoring that section) will only lead to sanctions. For anyone who's confused please read WP:NOR.
No further arbitration need. No policy debates necessary. These rules are implacable and very clear. And no amount of wikilwayering will change that or help. It's time to close this thread and move on to productive editing--Cailil ^talk 16:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Men's rights movement initiatives for investigation and possible inclusion

If reliable sources for the initiatives below can be researched and discovered to be reliable MRM initiatives (although they fly in the face of the claim that the MRM branched off a more primary feminist men's liberation movement of the 1970's), then they should be added.

Information regarding possible historical origins of the MRM, collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1886 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, writes his first major commentary on gynocentrism and misandry, ‘Some Bourgeois Idols; Or Ideals, Reals, and Shams.’ 1890s New York Alimony Club (informal) 1896 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, co-authors book, The Legal Subjection of Men (Twentieth Century Press), in which he discusses inequality faced by men under the law in comparison to women. 1896 Anti-Bardell Bachelor Band, Atlanta Georgia. Formed to fight against a national campaign headed by activist Charlotte Smith (Women’s Rescue League) to promote a tax on bachelors. Another, similar effort was made by the Hoboken Bachelor’s Club in Hoboken, New Jersey. 1898 League for Men’s Rights formed by Mr. William Austin in London. The movement is reported in newspapers of the time as a “Men’s Rights Movement”. 1908 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, republishes his 1896 book, The Legal Subjection of Men (New Age Press) 1911 Anti-Alimony Association, New York 1912 Ernest Belfort Bax, England, writes a landmark book ‘The Fraud of Feminism’ in which he called feminism a fraud and discussed “female privilege” 1912 Anti-alimony leader: George Esterling – Denver, Colorado 1925 Samuel Reid, “Alimony Sam,” the “alimony martyr” of California 1926 Men’s Rights organizations formed Bund für Männerrechte, Vienna, founded by Sigurd von Hoeberth (Höberth) and Leopold Kornblüh in March 1926. In January 1927 the Bund split into two organizations circa: Aequitas (Hoeberth), Justicia (Kornblueh); journal “Self-Defense” 1926 Themisverbandes (Men’s Rights organization for female members, Sigurd Höberth von Schwarzthal). The founding of this organization led to a schism in Bund January 1927 Aequitas Weltbund für Männerrechte (Aequitas Word Federation for Men’s Rights) (international), Vienna, following a schism in Bund für Männerrechte (Federation for Men’s Rights). This was Sigurd Hoeberth’s new organization for men’s rights which welcomed female members. 1927 Justitia Verein für Männer und Familienrecht (Justitia Society for Men’s Rights and Family Rights), Vienna, founded by Leopold Kornblüh following a schism in Bund für Männerrechte (Federation for Men’s Rights). This group did not allow female members. 1927 Alimony Club of Illinois, Society of Disgruntled Alimony Payers, Chicago, founded by Dr. Vernon B. Cooley and second wife, Mrs. Bessie Cooley 1927 Alimony Payers Protective Association, led by Robert Gilbert Ecob 1927 Milwaukee Alimony Club, Wisconsin 1927 Fifty-Fifty League, London; manifesto “The Sex War” 1928 Tibet Men’s Rights organization (name of org. unknown), founded by Amouki 1929 ‘World’s League for the Rights of Men’ formed in the UK, advocating for male issues, and holding an anti-“ultra-feminist” stance. The League had chapters in Vienna, Berlin, Munich, and other Continental centres. 1930 D. A. M. Association, Kansas City, Missouri, founded by French L. Nelson 1930 National Sociological League, Dr. Alexander Dallek, executive secretary 1931 Organization “The Modern Men’s Rights Movement” (formation date unknown) publishes broadsheet, The Gauntlet outlining goals for gender equality and “emancipation of man from feminist domination.” 1932 Alimony Club of New York County (Adolph Wodiska) (cited Jan. 9, 1932) 1932 Ohio Alimony Association, Cleveland 1933 National Divorce Reform League, Theodore Apstein (cited Feb. 14, 1933) 1933 “Men’s rights” org ‘1933 Men’s Association’ started by lieutenant colonel R. A. Broughton, England 1935 Alimony Reform League, New York 1960 Divorce Racket Busters (incorporated 1961 as U.S.A. Divorce Reform, Inc.) – California – Reuben Kidd. This initiative continued to operate into the late 1960’s. 1970 Esther Vilar publishes Der Drissierte Mann’ (The Manipulated Man) in Germany, and subsequently in English in 1972. 1971 Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements, founded by Richard Doyle 1973 Lone Fathers Association established in Australia by Barry Williams- still running. 1973 Men’s Rights Association formed by Richard Doyle 1976 Richard Doyle publishes ‘The Rape of the Male’. 1977 Men’s Rights Incorperated (MR Inc.) founded by Frederic Hayward and David Ault. David Ault also started the ‘Men’s Rights ERA,’ a project of MR Inc., which lobbied for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and promoted the benefit of the ERA for increasing men’s rights. MR. Inc. operated until the year 2010 (communication with Mr. Hayward). 1977 Free Men Inc. was founded in Columbia, Maryland, spawning several chapters over the following years, which eventually merged to form the National Coalition of Free Men (now known as the National Coalition for Men). 1977 Richard Doyle founded Men’s Equality Now International (MEN International) in 1977 and edited its newsletter, “The Liberator” until 2004. 1979 Coalition Organized For Parental Equality formed. 1980s The mythopoetic men’s movement refers to a loose collection of organizations active in men’s work since the early 1980s. 1985 Texas Fathers for Equal Rights formed. 1992 Professor Thomas Oaster director of the Missouri Center for Men’s Studies at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, established the first International Men’s Conference in Kansas which was attended in 1992-1994 by men and women from all continents. He also inaugurated the first International Men’s Day on February 7, 1992 – an event that is now celebrated in over 70 countries. 1993 Warren Farrell publishes the landmark book The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex, which reiterates many of the men’s issues published at the beginning of the century by the Ernest Belfort Bax. _____________

I don't think any of the above, including those after 1970, can be conceptualised as having "branched off the feminist men's liberation movement in the early 1970s," except loosely, perhaps, Warren Farrell's initiatives. Let's not forget that the feminist movement, too, is an aggregate of often separate feminist initiatives and not a single monolithic movement. 58.7.254.244 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I deleted the long list you provided since it was a direct cut and paste from a copyrighted blog. Most of the things you provided have been discussed on this page previously, and none of them can be included in the article until reliable sources discuss them as parts of the MRM (or parts of different men's rights movements.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This list is NOT copyrighted, I compiled it myself. It is not presented here as a reliable source but as detail that may be investigated. The individual items above are potentially germane to the WP entry, please do not delete. 124.148.53.255 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's directly cut and paste from an AVFM article. If you wrote it, prove it - that shouldn't be hard. Until you do, if you keep putting it back, you will be blocked. And don't remove other people's comments (unless they're a copyright infringement, huge personal attack, etc.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't remove other people's posts indeed. You claimed it was copyrighted. Now YOU prove that claim. Now. I'm reinstating the info until you prove copyright. In the meantime, feel free to instruct on how I am meant to "prove" it is my writing - I'll be more than happy to oblige. And BTW - that is only a copy on A Voice for Men - not the original. 124.148.53.255 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not my responsibility to prove that it's a copyright infringement - and it's certainly not my duty to prove that it is copyrighted in the first place, since all post-1978 works in the US are automatically copyright. It's a cut and paste made by an anonymous poster of something that appears in identical language elsewhere on the internet. Wikimedia sites run on the precautionary principle; if something appears to be a copyright violation, we treat it as if it is a copyright violation until someone demonstrates that it's not. If you keep reposting the list, I'll either block you myself (although administrators aren't supposed to use their tools in disputes involving themselves, we generally allow it for apparent copyright violations,) or (more likely) pass you off to another administrator to deal with. Even if you do demonstrate that it's your work, myself or someone else will probably collapse the list - it's way too big to be pasted inline, it hurts the readability of the page. If you want to demonstrate that it's your work, see here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, reinstated the material that was censored under the completely false premise that it originated from A Voice for men, and that it was copyrighted. The original is here, and I have typed the following note at the top of the page to prove I am author- "Is this proof enough for you, Kevin Gorman?". Now please, do not censor on the basis of copyright, or that I didn't write it, or that it came from A Voice for men, or any other spurious claim. The items on this list are not offered as sources, but as items to discuss, investigate and check whether reliable sources can be tracked anywhere. No more disruptive censorship from you, please.124.148.53.255 (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Awww, I get my very own mention on yet another mrm site :p. That is of course enough to demonstrate you wrote it, since the dates do indicate it was posted earlier there than elsewhere, but in all seriousness I don't remove copyright violations just to be a pain in the ass - I've done so hundreds of times in many different topic areas, just because they can pose a serious threat to individual Wikipedians, Wikipedia as a whole, and all of the people who use our content downstream. Someone I knew at Berkeley was quite literally sued after a British museum decided the images he had used on WP - which were public domain under US law - were copyright violations in the UK, and Wikipedia and the WMF receive tons of copyright related claims and threats of litigation each year. I've collapsed your table just because it is so long that it makes this page less usable to discuss how to improve the article, which you can undo if you'd really like, but which will probably be redone by a passer-by less involved than myself. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem, Kevin, was that you assumed that the info was lifted from A Voice for men, unequivocally stating "It's directly cut and paste from an AVFM article." That appears to me not only incorrect, but an attempt to reduce credibility on the back of AVfM's unpopularity with some Wikipedia editors. Had you investigated for a moment, you would have noticed at least four versions online, all clearly dated. In future I recommend you ask about origins rather than placing a certain accent on the information that accords with your editorial assumptions and wishes. I'm pleased to see the information has been retained for research, as it should be. 124.148.53.255 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You might have a point, except it's standard practice anywhere on Wikipedia to name the apparent source of any cut and paste material, and people rarely bother to look for more than the first place on Google that hosts the same exact text with a clearly earlier datestamp since nothing else is needed to demonstrate text is lifted from somewhere else (and a presumable copyright violation until it's shown not to be.) Just because this isn't a copyright violation doesn't make it any less appropriate to have removed it until that was demonstrated. It's... weird... to suggest that naming the top hit on Google with identical text is a purposeful attempt to diminish the credibility of something. If you want to improve the article, contribute actual usable sources, don't cut and paste random stuff from your blog. The only wish that caused me to remove it until copyright status was demonstrated was a wish to avoid copyright problems, the same thing that has made me remove text on hundreds of other subjects. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)