Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The real problems are not mentioned in this article

There is a MUCH stronger case for the concern of mens rights than you have portrayed, although well done for at least making an article. A few points here are briefly raised, but not in depth and most not at all. None the less, this is the first internet page that has really clicked with me. Thanks.

I have experienced much anti male sexism over the years. I am told that it is not offensive, but yet the offense I feel from it is often mentally traumatic and crippling. Surely the principle for bigotry is it is for the victim to decide what is offensive. As a victim I say the hate of males as a whole is offensive and disgusting. Richard, UK

Prison conditions

At least a few things to make a start on are: The enormous difference in treatment and living conditions in male prisons and female "soft-prisons".

Different treatment in the case of alleged sexism is also a problem. And its interesting that this article needs the word "allegedly" while the one about women's rights doesn't...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.236.235 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 April 2008

I removed the word "allegedly" -- if other articles on rights and discrimination don't need it, neither does this one unless someone can provide a convincing, objective argument for an exception to be made.156.56.201.81 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Prison Terms

The enormous disparity in PRISON TERMS and sentencing eg. Female offender gets 2, male offender gets 12. Years.

Military Slavery

Conscription. The fact that pretty much only in Israel are females also obligated to do military service. In all the rest of the conscripting countries, such as Finland, Greece, Mexico, Turkey and Russia, only men are forced into military slavery. Often for more than a Year. This, I think you can agree, is a FAR more serious form of discrimination than any petty wining that we have to put up with from the Feminists.

If we're talking about slavery, you may want to recognize that sex slavery involves many more women and girls than men and boys...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.236.235 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 April 2008

One of the main reasons that men are forced into the military is that women are predominately denied access. It is because of the Feminists that many countries now allow women into the military when they weren't before. --Sadieko (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

These still fail to address the original issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.120.10 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The key difference being that military slavery is enshrined in the law of the country and its institutions, where as sex slavery is punished and actively shut down.This sends a clear message that military slavery (of men) is fine, yet other forms are not.Rely Day (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Employment

In 'working class' jobs at least, if not elsewhere, the discrimination is absolutely outrageous. Never mind in the work place, Im talking about GETTING A JOB, PERIOD. In bars, for example, it is far more difficult for males, as bosses want to employ attractive females to serve drinks. Babysitting, sadly almost the only 'working class' job where you can travel, is almost exclusively female, with males finding it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be trusted with babies. Secretaries are very very commonly female, due to the same discrimination. Other service jobs, such as waiting on tables and cashiers, are predominantly female. Even shelf stacking has favored females, due to the universal fashion of overcompensating for the early 1900s. Let me make this clear: It REALLY DOES IT INJUSTICE TO EVEN BEGIN A LIST. I have left out literally THOUSANDS of examples.

The objectivity of these examples could be argued. It could be difficult to accept these points as a violation of men's rights when the majority of the bosses and executives with hiring power are, in fact, the men. However, the babysitting is an interesting point, as women are accepted as being far more nurturing and safer around children then men are. Some of this could relate both to the negative image that persists in society of "mommy men", or men who take on traditionally feminine roles of child care, and the predominance of reported child molestation cases involving men. I don't have the research power to look into this, though, but it could be an interesting addition to the article. --Sadieko (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unattractive or older women have a very hard time finding employment at bars, clubs, fancy shops, etc.! Therefore, they are being discriminated as well. The reason is that most men prefer to go to bars, etc. manned by ATTRACTIVE females!24.255.28.107 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Recreation

Many nightclubs refuse entry to males without payment. Yet they let females walk straight in. It doesnt matter what their claimed reason is, Im sure they gave reasons for baring black people back in the old days too. Free drinks are then given to the women, but the males have to pay. As the entire entertainment industry is now geared around women, who marketing analysts have ascertained have the most disposable income today, the entirety of society will and does discriminate against men in all applicable areas.

For objectivity sake, it would be better to note the reasons the nightclubs present for allowing free entrance to women. Regardless of whether or not they could be considered valid. --Sadieko (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason presented is that they are female. "Ladies nights," etc

Yes, the reason is that they are females, but the idea behind such discounts and promotions has NEVER been to favour women. Rather, it is to attract men by increasing the number of potentially available/flirtatious/attractive women in the club. Ultimately, since it is a fact that men pay more often and spend more on drinks, these discounts are aimed at favouring both the male patrons and the club owners.24.255.28.107 (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

These clubs promote stereotypical gender roles - that men are to pay for drinks, that men are to seek out women. That's part of the problem. And most men and women don't seem to mind.Stargnoc (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Genital attacks

Are, according to a stage combat specialist I know, the main thing to know about the subject. He says they are 'very, very popular' and indeed they are absolutely rife throughout mainstream media, including 'Scrubs'. Rape 'against' women is extremely stigmatized and persecuted, yet attacking a MANS genitals isnt just acceptable, it is apparently delightfully funny and an absolutely wonderful way to pass your time as an 'empowered woman'. The deplorable offenders neglect to mention that in real life, most women who do this are mercilessly beaten to death, and definitely should be.

Men tend to be both larger and stronger than women. It is much easier for a man to physically overwhelm a woman than for a woman to overwhelm or escape a man. Because the majority of sexual predators who resort to violence are male, it is advantageous for a woman to know a mans weakest points to be able to escape. This is rather like arguing that punching someone in the eye is discrimination because people can find it funny. --Sadieko (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I second the above objection.24.255.28.107 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That is ridculous. Besides, your argument doesn't hold, punching a woman in the eye while not discriminatory, is also not acceptable. Learning self-defense is not the purpose of main-stream media. Entertainment is, and since rape and female genital mutilation are not acceptable or funny, neither should the reverse be. How in the world do you try and even justify your statement? It did not address the fact that it makes it seem OK to abuse males, you addressed only a far-fetched stretch this is -always- self defense. — comment added by Crayos 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sex

Dont even get me started on the unbelievable amount of discrimination against men in sex. Men are portrayed in The Media as the ones who need to compete, and overshadow, former lovers. They are stigmatized and discriminated against for ejaculating when they want to, instead of when the female wants them to, for not using condoms, for the size of their penises, for the duration, the enjoyment of the female, and so on.

A man is in full control of his penis (which is a part of his body), therefore men are solely and fully responsible for each and every instance of sexual intercourse that is carried out without wearing a condom, and for the consequences of said lack of condom. 24.255.28.107 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not true, men become erect without intending to and can be raped.Stargnoc (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A woman is in full control of her vagina (which is a part of her body), therefore women are solely and fully responsible for each and every instance of sexual intercourse that is carried out without using birth control pills or a female condom, and for the consequences of said lack of birth control pills or female condom. 205.206.26.240 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I expected this obvious objection. There is a problem: Let us assume that a man and a woman have unprotected, casual sex, and that there is a risk of one of them becoming infected with HIV or an STD. The only available protection against these diseases, i.e. the condom, can be worn exclusively by men. Therefore, the responsibility to protect both partners is solely the man's. The female partner could refuse to have intercourse, but, if she accepts, then the responsibility for protecting both sexual partners from an HIV or STD infection is solely the male partner's -- for objective, practical reasons. 24.255.28.107 (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite - the female condom also protects against STDs. (Which requires cooperation by both partners for proper use). Also, the chance of transmission from male to female is much greater than transmission from female to male. (So in a single instance of unprotected intercourse, the woman is probably at greater risk of STDs than the man.) Zodon (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your point, although legitimate, will start having some real relevance only when these little-known and still relatively expensive and impractical female condoms become more workable, price competitive, widespread and, above all, readily available at gas stations and corner stores! Until then, couples will continue to use primarily the male condom, so the ultimate responsibility to protect both partners will still be the man's, who is the only partner who can truly initiate and control the use of the male condom. As I said, a woman can always refuse to have unprotected sex, but, in some cases, the psychological pressure for women to accept it is very intense. 24.255.28.107 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Having already noted a woman could refuse the sex, makes her equally as responsible. If a woman runs around accepting unprotected sex, instead of supplying a or insisting he have a condom and contracts a disease is at fault. Even if the male who had the disease knew, each person's health is there own responsibility. 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Crayos

The Media

The Media consistently and constantly bombards us with commercials that use conventions and stereotypes of men. Trojancondoms.com is just one example, depicting males who dont use their product as pigs. The corporation does not have to be sexual by any means. Commercials from domestic cleaning agents, to car insurance, to food, all portray the male as the stupid ape, and the female as the one who provides a solution to his stupidity by using the product being advertised. This creates gender roles where women are the smart, cool, sophisticated and innocent gender, and men are the complacent, retarded, pathetic gender. Despite the fact that history has proven that, if anything, it is the reverse. In this media, there are occasionally males who are allowed to appear cool in a 'metrosexual' way, and they are exclusively black.

"[...] and men are [portrayed as] the complacent, retarded, pathetic gender. Despite the fact that history has proven that, if anything, it is the reverse." This kind of hateful, disparaging sentences could very reasonably be perceived as an indicator of the level of most pro-men campaigning.24.255.28.107 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In all post-1997 mainstream media, the situation is the same, and appears in most movies and, the worst offenders, soaps, dramas and situation comedies. Examples include ER, Desperate Housewives, Sex and the City, CSI, Ally McBeal, and many others, even Scrubs. This elitist, fascist and discriminating portrayal has crossed over to society itself, where females are increasingly disrespecting males to a beyond intolerable degree, in the knowledge that the male coping mechanism - physical force - has now been completely illegalized and therefor women consider themselves immune from justice, with no repercussions, giving them a carte blanch to do whatever they want with no consequences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 February 2008

You seem to regret that men no longer are allowed to put women in their place with their fists, and to suggest that the only way to enforce laws among women is physical violence! Another instructive indicator of the level of most pro-men campaigning and of its lack of legitimacy!24.255.28.107 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, "carte" is a FEMININE noun in French. ;) Therefore, you should have written "carte blanche".24.255.28.107 (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The point being made, completely ignored by your rhetoric attempting to invalidate pro-men's rights, is women, in their equity were able to obtain the right to hit a man to enforce their point. That they are able to attack and harm a male without said male's ability to defend himself. Thus, "COMPLETELY illegalized", as in even in self-defense. Arguments that it's "unfair, men are stronger" should lead to the answer "why would you hit him in the first place?" not "Yes, your right how unfair of him". This is assuming the original author meant it in the context I presented. I don't agree with anyone hitting anyone except in self-defense, so if the original meaning refferred to striking in general I am not in parity with the original comments, only my own. I also disagree with "[...] Despite the fact that history has proven that, if anything, it is the reverse.". The portrayal of men is as outlined, and definately demeaning, and was one of the driving factors of the Women's Rights (see "I Love Lucy", "Leave it to Beaver", etc.). Even though the original comment was posted in a hateful context, you should not be grouping all men's rights activists into it, nor should you ignore the underlying point and sentiment that provoked it. 19:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Crayos

The focus of neutrality is completely lost in this article. Since Wikipedia is often the first stop for those who (like me) are learning about a new topic, there will be many who have not yet developed a personal attachment to the topic at hand, and are trying to form their own opinion, not have one forced on them. I was confused by the education section, as it was only about girls, with no mention of boys. Since I have a son, how are boys affected is what I want to know. I'm also getting that the movement has no programs to specifically help boys, which I thought I'd see due to the statement of intent to represent men and boys. I kind of thought they'd be organized against NAMBLA or have some sort of mentoring program, and was disappointed to see no mention. It makes the claim to further the interests of boys, but it appears that this isn't happening. If the movement isn't doing something, the article shouldn't claim that it is. Also, while reading one of the statements above, I became confused and a bit spooked, about laws meant to "suppress male instincts". I'm not sure if this is saying violence should be tolerated or what. I hope somebody will explain it to me, and that it means something other than how I am taking it. I also took it as insulting to men that violence is viewed as "natural". If it's a natural male thing, then what accounts for violent women? That makes no sense, especially in the face of the articles statements concerning domestic abuse and female perpetrators. I also wasn't told which channels the movement is using to realize their goals, only what they wanted. It makes it seem like they aren't actually doing anything. All of this, as well of opinions stated as fact, is leaving me remarkably unimpressed with what I came in thinking might be a wonderful new movement. Had the article been neutral, I might not have. There's no way of knowing, though, since I was not given the chance to form my own independent opinion. (anaise8 12:41 9-10-2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaise8 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor, Feminist editing

I totally agree with the above author here on the quality of editing, which leaves out much of the substantial facts, allowing only peripheral, and mostly controversial elements. I found the editing of this paragraph here totally unacceptable! If this is going to be the trend, there might as well not be called a 'Men's Rights', but on 'Men' in general, maybe?

Divorce

Women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US. One of men's rights primary concerns, is about the practice of alimony being exploited by feminist authors for financial gain [1]. Some suspect that alimony is one of the primary reasons for the skewed proportion of females, to males seeking divorce [2]. At divorce, more women gain monetarily, by alimony than men.

Others, however, suspect that the reason behind such a different percentage is that more women are being mistreated and exploited by their husbands, and that marriage is a repressive institution that does not favour women, so women are more prone to abandon it than men (who are happy to remain in a relationship that enables them to control and exploit their wife). One could play this silly suspicion game forever, or we could simply stick to facts!24.255.28.107 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how when men conjecture it's "Silly Suspicion" but when women stated the probable reasons for facts that stoked feminism they were canonical. 173.33.142.104 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Crayos

The origins of alimony ( a legal term that dates to the mid-17th century [3]) can be traced back to the ecclesiastical courts in England [4]. "Because the husband was the property owner, and the wife depended upon him to provide for her sustenance, the English ecclesiastical courts, consistently ruled that the husband had the duty to provide for the wife after divorce. Even though the courts in America continued that tradition, there were some critical distinctions between American society and society in England. England, at that time, only granted divorces "a mensa et thoro," while the American courts granted absolute divorces."

The first reported legal case of alimony in Nevada involved a wife, in a divorce action in the late 19th century, who petitioned the court for alimony pendente lite. This award at that time was considered money for attorney's fees. One year later, in 1867, the court expanded the concept of alimony pendente lite to assist the wife with travel expenses of witnesses. As the years went by the Nevada Supreme Court opinions reflected what the court, at that time, believed to be the purpose of alimony. As one reads the court opinions, it is apparent that the purpose changed from time to time and those changes reflected society.

Recently, however, the concept has reached excessive proportions [5]. Some men feel that there is a case for 'No compensation' divorce systems around the world [6].

Alimony is perceived by some to encourage women to divorce, and it is also also argued by some to violate men's rights. Alimony laws vary by state and may not be applied in every divorce case. Alimony has been extended to men and there are legal precedents that have paved the way for men to seek and receive alimony from their ex-wives.

The fact that alimony allegedly encourages women to divorce (which is their right) has nothing to do with "male rights": The fact that I find something "encouraging" does not mean that it prejudices someone else's rights!!!!! 24.255.28.107 (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

According to most laws, anything that entices you to do something to harm another person, yes.. It does prejudice their rights. The old "men's" clubs were seen as this. They encouraged men to spend time without women, therefore prejudiced a woman's rights to go where men went. The issue is really that the alimony laws are slanted and unfair, not divorce. Your rebuttal only argues that the symptoms of alimony (possible divorce exploitation) are not infringing male rights. They are not addressing the fact, in most cases alimony itself is. Crayos 173.33.142.104 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, in some countries (Canada) it is possible for a woman to avoid paying spousal or child support by deciding to:

a] Enroll in school b] Travel c] change jobs A man must pay his prescribed amounts even if his job has been last, he has become incapacitated or any other legitimate inability to meet a responsibility. 173.33.142.104 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the percentage of male alimony recipients rose from 2.4% to 3.6% in a five year period and is expected to increase as more and more marriages feature a female primary earner. The article states that in 2005, wives earned more than their husbands in 33% of all families, up from 28.2% a decade earlier.

Divorce and Child custody

Men are denied child custody after divorce, and this has caused considerable protest. [7]

Breast cancer and prostate cancer

I thought it may be worth discussing the inuendo injected into the mention of breast/prostate cancer by user Bremskraft [[8]] which insinuated that the higher funding for breast cancer in the UK is explained by the higher breast cancer prevalence. Another suggestion made by Bremskraft is that mens-rights/fathers-rights/masculist movements should be characterized primarily as "counter-feminist". For more on this user's proposals about men's groups see here: Template talk [[9]] and here: Counter movements/Men's rights [[10]].

The UK cancer figures are: 40,000 cases of breast cancer detected in the UK in 2000 and 27,200 cases of prostate cancer detected in 2000. Correct me if I'm wrong but this suggests a ratio of 4:3. Based on this 4:3 ratio the funding for the two cancer groups is massively disproportionate, and this should be reflected in the entry. PS. This discussion also took place on the Wikipedia Masculism page at [[11]]. All reference to this subject was deleted there by Cailil [[12]] without any attempt to replace it or improve it with relevant sources. [all for the record] Soulgany101 08:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the following template for this subject: In the United Kingdom a disproportionately higher amount of money is spent on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research.[13][14] Breast cancer is a slightly more common form of cancer in the UK [15] with 40,000 cases of breast cancer detected in the UK in 2000 and which claimed the lives of 13,000 women in 2002, compared to 27,200 cases of prostate cancer detected in 2000 which claimed nearly 10,000 lives in 2002 in the UK. However, as revealed by the most recent available figures, total research spending by government and the leading charity in the field comes to £36.8m a year for breast cancer against £9.7m for prostate cancer. In addition, the NHS spends an extra £72m annually on the national breast screening programme but there is no such scheme for prostate cancer.[16]. This might at least serve as a guide to a representative statement, if references can validate it. Soulgany101 08:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems appropriate if it can be sourced. And just for the record I deleted that section as original research - specifiaclly synthesis - as the references did not show or indicate how it was related to masculism. I think Soulgany101 has made an excellent call in posting this here as it is more pertinent to Men's rights - but it does need a source to verify that it is--Cailil ^talk 14:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

I've done some work to edit out the brazen POV issues in this article. Men's rights are not in adversary to female rights, yet much of the content of this article reflects a distinct anti-feminist POV. Please refrain from debasing feminists in future edits; such actions only denigrate the cause of Men's rights.

Removed some discussion of wage disparity. There's already an article dedicated to that, and the issue of wage disparity is not to the disparity of Men's rights. Mentions about those attempts at equalization which do unfairly effect men have been left as is.

Also marked many un-cited claims of fact with fact tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.6.29 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What?! I see absolutely no reason not to 'debase' Feminists. It is the Feminist movement that created the extreme cause for concern for mens rights in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you see absolutely no reason not to debase other human beings (in fact, you wrote "feminists", not "feminism", thus debasing people, and not an ideology) could be taken as an indicator of the level of most pro-men campaining!24.255.28.107 (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you unacquainted with wikipedia's guidelines? This is an encyclopedia article (well, it should be- it's still rough and unpolished). Not a soapbox for those with axes to grind. I suggest you calm down, by the way- men still earn more, can have children without sacrificing their careers, and hold almost all positions of power in government and business world. Men seem to be doing just fine. If you really want to be persecuted, become transgendered. All the persecution you could want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.150.47 (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That gave me a laugh. "Not a soapbox for those with axes to grind," then you give us a rant on how much men have it better. Classic. Blackworm (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, some Feminists could argue that your offensive, aggressive tone is a classic domineering, controlling male behaviour. 24.255.28.107 (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Others could argue that the preceeding offensive, aggressive tone is a classic dismissive behavior towards all the issues surrounding men's rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.120.10 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My tone was neither offensive, nor aggressive. 24.255.28.107 (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It was just as "offensive and aggresive" as Blackworm's. Which is to say, it's in the way you read it. You can't judge emotions or moods by writing, not accurately. This could be seen as both of you inventing reasons to be juxtaposed. 173.33.142.104 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos

to me it was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.30.9 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the actual body of this, feminism was based on being adversary to Men's Rights. Yes, unless you are talking "Equality" then the right's issues are directly a result of campaigns invoked by feminism. Feminism spoke very critically of males, whether it was truth or not, why would men be censored? It's for equity, equity is retribution. The quality is being tilted. 173.33.142.104 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos

Regarding points of view:

If feminism points out an issue, it will be repeatedly fought for until it is valid

If males have an issue, it's generally dismissed with rhetoric

The founding elements of feminism "classic Domineering, controlling male behaviour" bandied about

The above descriptive is not a female rights issue, no one forces them to marry men anymore

Also, by asking men to change, you infringe on their rights.. Everyone has personality traits

By classifying men as such, you bring the aggression you accuse us of to your POV - By the above (and typical) dismissals, this should also be dismissed.

When women are stereotyped or profiled, it's prejudice. There is no reason for women who do fit the stereotype to change because it's their freedom and right. If it's a man, then it needs changing.

No, some feminism factions are very antagonistic, and tend to rely on (again, some) cases designed to be hostile in a passive way, and designed to entreat an aggressive response to which the reply is "See? There is no need for that. You're violent". Violence and abuse can be caused through words, actions and opinions, not just physical attacks. 173.33.142.104 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos