Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 20

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Has there been an RfC on the use of "Misogyny" in the lede?

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

William Jockusch is topic-banned for 3 months for disruptive editting in violation of this topic's probation and Federales is/was a block evading sock-puppet. Discussion closed as it was for the purpose of disruption of wikipedia only--Cailil ^talk 14:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

result=closed. If not, is there any reason it wouldn't be appropriate to start one?William Jockusch (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to me. Depending on the language, of course. Federales (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gee whiz, lads, the issue has been discussed quite a bit, and recently, too. In reverse chron order:

Every one of those discussions contains support for some kind of mention of the misogynist issue in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No question it has been discussed. But has there been an RfC?William Jockusch (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the matter has been discussed... but not resolved. I searched the archive and I don't see any evidence of an RfC that addresses the issue. Federales (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a formal RfC when the article is stable and all of its editors have come to an arrangement that they can live with. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

When is there ever a requirement for an RfC? There isn't. Yes, the article is relatively stable, but this particular issue keeps coming up continually. Federales (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I perceive the "misogyny" thing as a slur aimed vaguely at anyone who likes the MRM. As such, I can't live with it.William Jockusch (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I think that some Wikipedia editors hide behind the aegis of the word "scholars" to wedge this kind of politically charged language into articles such as this one. Naturally, such statements can be added with proper attribution, and there's not a problem. But it's an abject failure of NPOV to use "scholarly sourcing" to portray such things as objective, empirical fact. And that's just exactly what some editors want to do. Federales (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just started the RfC below. I'm not very experienced with that template; feel free to fix the formatting if it's wrong.William Jockusch (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Censorship of "Marriage Strike"

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The Marriage Strike article was redirected to a non-existent page, vandalized and then deleted multiple times. Then references to "Marriage Strike" on wikipedia have been changed to links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights#Marriage_strike

Then the subsection in men's right about marriage strike was silently removed. This is a men's rights issue and the reasons men have been refusing to marry and declining marriage rate since the 1980s has been brought up weekly in press for last decade.

This is also a major social issue in Germany and is constantly talked about in the European press as a reason for declining fertility rates in Europe. I know that some editors may have an agenda, but I do not believe this information should be censored, given the number of references in the media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.228.195 (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Only recently there had been reports of it in Japan. so I second this motion. The Chapter should be reinstated. --Krischik ^T 17:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is correct then there'll be no problem finding reliable sources, that accord with wikipedia's standards of WP:V and WP:DUE, which are specifically about 'marriage strike' and its relationship to the men's rights movement--Cailil ^talk 18:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be related to this AFD. I've done a quick search of reliable sources, and it is clear that the term "marriage strike" is used in the context of all sorts of issues, including women led strikes (some examples [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8],) men led strikes (more examples [9][10][11]) and joint strikes ([12][13]). Based on google searches an article on the topic of "marriage strike" would need to be about all the different kinds of marriage strikes and based on the preponderance of sources, women striking would probably need to take the bulk of any article. As far as this article is concerned, I think that the Helen Smith book mentioned above [14] is a good source for this as an issue in the US. If there are lots of other reliable sources about the matter in other countries etc then I'm with Cailil and all ears, but the reliable sources do need to be presented.Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Opponents"

Latest comment: 11 years ago37 comments11 people in discussion

I reverted because the sources do not describe them as "opponents". I would like to hear further reasoning behind the idea that we should use the term "opponents" to describe scholars when they themselves do not call themselves opponents.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone describes entire sectors of a movement as "misogynist", it's pretty obvious that one opposes it. I just checked the LGBT social movements article for example, and I saw the word "opponents" used that way twice. William Jockusch (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they do in article X. Moreover, the men's rights movement is in no way comparable to the LGBT social movements. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep on trotting this out. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, and it was not intended to quash all efforts at consistency by comparing to how similar articles treat similar situations (in the intro, it says "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes") In this case, how other articles treat discussions *is* relevant, if only to highlight potential systemic bias in treatment of certain issues - if 5 social issues are treated in one way, while the 6th is treated differently, this is a valid concern w.r.t WP:NPOV. I don't think there would be any issue in noting SPLC as an "opponent" instead of as a neutral scholar, given how they brand MRM. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

But there is an issue- one that has been pointed out repeatedly by numerous editors: and the issue is the wish to marginalize the criticism away from the sources: the academics who are supposed to be our main guide in writing this encyclopedia. And that is not going to happen, precisely per WP:NPOV. Surely you understand that we do not require sources to be neutral. We look for what the mainstream, academic position is about topics and summarize it. People who support homeopathy, aids denialism, alternative Shakespearian authorships, 9/11 conspiracy theories etc etc don't like it, but we use sources that are in their view the "biased" views of "opponents". What we have here is just the typical partisan bias of campaigners who believe that everything that they do not personally agree with is "non-neutral" and therefore must be deleted or marginalized. Slp1 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think calling someone an opponent marginalizes them - it just contextualizes their statements. Also, the comparison with 9/11 conspiracy is not very apt; there is not a widespread scholarly consensus that MRM is misguided and useless, especially since MRM is an umbrella term used for many different groups pushing for many different things, some of which people are violently opposed to, and some of which they write books in support of.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course it marginalizes them!! In any case, why does it need contextualizing when from the context itself it is pretty darn obvious that this is not something said by a supporter?!!

I don't think anybody here has said that the "MRM is misguided and useless"- please avoid strawmen. However, it is true that very few scholarly sources have much good to say about the men's rights approach or the men's rights movement. I've done a broad literature search, but maybe I've missed something. Can you offer up some academic sources that speak more positively about the movement? Slp1 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The strawman I knocked down was that you can fairly compare MRM to 9/11 conspiracy theorists or aids denialism. You started that line of comparison, not me - I was just discrediting the comparison.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The term "scholars" contextualizes their statements because that is what they are, scholars who hold professorships [15][16][17][18][19][20]. Not even a man's rights activist who is very angry at them for criticizing aspects of their movement can deny that they are scholars. „Political opponents”, „opponents”, „misandrists” is how some editors want to describe them but, luckily for Wikipedia, we do not undercut the credibility of academic sources even if they do it in article X. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But you haven't discredited a thing. The reliable mainstream academic sources don't have anything much good to say about aids denialism, 9/11 or the men's rights movement. Back up your claims that these are somehow different with some academic sources that speak positively about the men's rights approach and the men's rights movement Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the others. These individuals are unequivocally scholars and labeling them otherwise would violate WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To ignore that 'scholars' themselves are biased or have been specifically funded for an outcome would be NPOV too. Pleasetry (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What Pleasetry said.

Being a "scholar" does not make one NPOV, and NPOV scholars do not produce NPOV scholarship -- especially when it is non-empirical scholarship. There are scholars with strong POVs... Marxist scholars, feminist scholars, religious scholars, postmodernist scholars, etc. Religious studies scholars who are themselves devout Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. routinely disregard / discount the scholarship from those who do not share their fundamental starting assumptions.

The over-reliance on feminist scholars here in no way makes this article NPOV. Memills (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much an "over-reliance" on scholars of feminism as a shortage of any other scholars who care about the topic enough to comment on it. Regarding NPOV, the guideline does not require our sources to be neutral—it requires Wikipedia editors use the sources in a neutral manner. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is about wikipedia's recording of sources, not about sources being neutral themselves. "[Articles] should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." What you are suggesting Memills is the opposite of NPOV (removing sources because they take a side), and this has been explained to you before--Cailil ^talk 18:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The key term here: "over-reliance."

Imagine an "NPOV" article on feminism where the great majority of sources were authored by masculinists, an "NPOV" article about evolution with most sources authored by creationists, an "NPOV" article about the Democratic Party with most sources authored by Republicans.

The problem here is that when sources authored by MRM folks are introduced, they are often immediately deleted or challenged by editors with an antipathy toward the MRM. Memills (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Memills it would be a better use of time to acquaint yourself with what this site's policies actually are. You show a clear misunderstanding of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and are casting aspersions about others (which is prohibited generally and specifically in an area under probation)--Cailil ^talk 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Memills, I don't know how many times it has been explained to you that for WP we summarize the highest quality sources available to us. If you have some high quality academic sources about men's rights or the MRM to suggest, then produce them. Otherwise this repetitive bleeting is just plain disruptive. Slp1 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently lacks (but needs to develop) administrative policies to deal with situations when a group of like-minded editors with a POV "sit" on an article (see Multiple Editor Owership). Especially for articles on controversial topics, in these cases the entire article itself can become NPOV. The "consensus" policy of WP is ineffective in this situation. To wit: Note how this article is dominated by references that are authored by critics of the MRM. Now, compare it to the article on feminism -- quite a difference.

It is instructive to read Multiple Editor Owership re this:

"In practice, an article on an obscure topic will often be on the watchlists of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by newcomers while insisting quite forcefully that their version is "consensus". If the newcomer persists in editing the page, they may be accused of edit warring or disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, targeted with spurious complaints to administrators, threatened with blocks or bans and bluntly told (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to drop the stick. ...A small group thereby could succeed, largely unnoticed, in intimidating a new editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving Wikipedia entirely."

Note the comment by Carptrash (talk) above: "Jock is gone? Oh well, Another man bites the dust." Memills (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Quite the staying power for a red linker. Carptrash (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are calling the MRM an obscure topic then why are you complaining about what kinds of scholars comment on it? You should be happy to discover each of the scholars who write about the topic, rather than carping about whatever biases you think they have.

You consistently strive against sources you say are biased, but this is not how Wikipedia works. At Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, the guideline tells us that we do not remove reliable sources because they appear to have a bias. Instead, we work to present the material with a neutral tone, in a factual manner. This article is a good example of that. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. I have no problem with NPOV. My comment was about a more subtle issue involving editor group dynamics wherein the WP NPOV policy can still result in POV articles.

Let me give you an example. Previously, I brought material referenced to notable, reliable sources -- academic authors writing about men's issues and rights. To wit: Benatar's (a philosophy professor) The Second Sexism and Bauermeister's (a psychology professor) Is There Anything Good About Men?). Both were immediately challenged as inappropriate reference sources to use here, with various rationales -- they were unrelated to the MRM per se (although both deal with men's rights and issues), that use of these references consistituted OR, etc. Sources by MRM critics were not similarly challenged. See my point?

Also, above I suggested comparing the overall tone of this article with the feminism article. There are many sources by reliable / academic critics of feminism that could be peppered throughout the feminism article. There aren't. There could also be a sentence in the lede characterizing feminism as misandrous, followed by a list of notable sources. There isn't. Point being: one can compare these two articles, and despite claims of NPOV, the bias just jumps right out. An embarrassing situation for WP.

These concerns have been expressed many times by many editors on these Talk pages. Most of those editors who had such concerns are no longer here... which, given the group dynamics noted above in WP:Multiple Editor Owership is a clue that similar group dynamics may be occurring here, and resulting in an POV article... Memills (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Per comment below, fixed a couple of references to NPOV that should have been POV in my comment above. Memills (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Memills. There is a group here that watches over this article and reverts new additions, and they (obviously) won't agree with you. Their main rallying call is "It doesn't reference the men's rights movement, thus it doesn't belong here". However, the article was originally at the broader topic of "men's rights". It was then moved to "movement", but since many of the sources discuss it as "men's rights" or even using different terms but the same meaning, any such sources are banned becuase they don't include the word movement. It's silliness to the highest degree. Can you imagine if sources that don't mention "feminism", and instead used "women's rights" or some other term, were barred from the "feminism" page? (Note: Memills, you say NPOV several times above but I think you mean POV)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

OWK, that is total rubbish. Can you provide even one diff of material being excluded because it doesn't mention the word "movement", but that does talk about "men's rights"? You won't be able to to because it has never happened.

Memills re: "Sources by MRM critics were not similarly challenged" that is total rubbish too. Can you provide a single diff of a source by an "MRM critic" that does not mention men's rights or the men's rights movement that is included in the article? You won't be able to because there aren't any.

The problem is that POV editors who complain endlessly about bias, but do nothing to actually provide high quality reliable sources that actually talk about men's rights or the men's rights movement. They keep suggesting the same sources (such as Benatar and Baumeister) but which don't mention either except in one case very briefly to be negative about the MRM. No, the situation here are series of pro-MRM editors, who would like this article to ignore WP's clear policies on verifiability, reliable sources, original research etc, to include material that "they" think are about men's rights or the MRM, and who break various WP policies and guidelines while trying to force it in. Yup, they get blocked and topic-banned, and that is going to continue to happen until the light bulb goes on and they actually produce reliable sourced material about the topic. Slp1 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Perfect example of a member of the protection squad above. Slp1, I'm not going to do diff research for you. Answer me this: are there articles in the "feminism" or "women's rights" page that don't mention either term? Yes, of course. In fact, you will find such sources brought in across numerous wp articles that don't directly use the same word in the title, but which address the same topic, which IS THE POINT. I think the solution here is to create Men's rights in any case - this page is hopeless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's one that is par for the course:"The deleted references do not mention the men's rights movement." However, the first reference, if you take care to read it, is ENTIRELY about the rights of men within the context of the family leave act, even if the phrase "men's rights" may not appear (I can't seem to search the PDF, so I just scanned it - it may be there nonetheless). There are many other examples of the same thing. It's really the move to "Men's rights movement" that has caused the issue, as the protector squad now reverts on sight anything which doesn't explicitly use the term "men's rights movement". There is clearly a desire by wikipedia editors to add more information on this subject, but the current setup isn't tenable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are a longtime editor, OWK and you should know that if you are going to make accusations or claims then you need to support them with diffs. As far as I am concerned, suggesting I am "a member of the protection squad" is ridiculous given my contributions to this article in the last 6 months, by far the bulk of which have been to to add properly sourced material detailing the MRM's viewpoints, including multiple MR sources. [21][22][23][24][25]. Please stop immediately with these kinds of personal attacks.

As far as your diff is concerned. It was discussed [26] where others (who actually had read the articles) agreed that it was SYNTH to include. I also pointed out in that thread that several sources were grossly misrepresented, something which Memills recently agreed was the case, as he had not actually read the articles he had cited.[27]. Slp1 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't present for that conversation, just the diff popped out at me when I looked at the history. I just read the discussion, and it's the same old argument being trotted out here: "the sources don't mention MRM, therefore they are not allowed". However, Men's rights redirects here, and this article is a bit of an amalgalm at the moment. Sources that are ON TOPIC are perfectly acceptable, even if they don't use the words in the title - and even if the topic is within a sub-section of the article. Thus, a source that talks about men's rights w.r.t family leave should be an acceptable source, even if the magical words "men's rights movement" do not appear. For a counter-example, check the sources at Women's_rights_movement_in_Iran - several of the never mention "women's rights movement" and yet, there they sit. No need to say WP:OSE, by the way, I know, but it's still relevant and OSE is just an ESSAY. Anyway, I don't want to rehash that particular discussion from March, but it's one example of what I'm talking about. I honestly think this whole thing would go much easier if we left this article to the dogs and started a new one on the much broader topic of men's rights, that would allow a lot more sources to be brought in and focus could be put on making that a good article. The MRM is just a small part of the story, a part I personally don't really care that much for in any case. Also, it was not a personal attack, it was a reflection on your editing style, and I grant that you have also made many positive contributions to this article, but in any case, I'm sorry you took it that way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it was an - utterly unfounded - personal attack, but thank you for your apology, even if the apology continues to imply that make "negative" contributions" to this article. Which I don't. I keep it on track from POV editors (of both sides if need be) who want to add synthetic, unverifiable, falsely cited material, as I have just shown you; and I add material from reliable sources on the subject, as I have shown you too. Next time I suggest you actually look through people's contributions first because making such assumptions.

I think you have misunderstood, OWK. I'll think you'll find that it is not the magic phrase "men's rights movement" that is looked for, but any reference to "men's rights" at all. It is likely that people have written edit summaries and explanations sloppily and confusingly about this, but I don't think any editor has ever rejected material that talked about "men's rights" because it lacked the word "movement" or "activists" or "group" or whatever. In other words, any reliable source reference (in the title, in the text) about "men's rights" is welcome for consideration here, and to my mind would and should be accepted. (The only exception is historic material discussing "men's rights" (e.g. menschenrrechte) but which are actually talking about what we would now call "human" or "civil" rights.)

I am not responding to your comments about other pages because it is not relevant to this one, and is an false Otherstuffexists type argument. I don't edit those pages, but for what it is worth, if what you say is true that sources in that article don't mention "women's rights" or "rights of women" or something very similar then I would support the material being removed as synthetic. If you notice synthesis in those articles, then remove it.

I also don't support the creation of a separate page, because as the multiple requests for moves have showed, there is basically no sources about "men's rights" that are not discussed in the context of the "men's rights movement".e.g.[28]. I am going to reissue the challenge issued in the last discussion by Kevin Gorman. "First, find and post at least six reliable sources that deal with "men's rights" as a topic not specifically in the context of the men's rights movement. Then, write and post a coherent statement of the scope you envision for this article, and, since we don't conduct original research, justify that scope with reliable sources that use similar scopes.... Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)". If it is "men's rights" are indeed a separate topic from the "men's rights movement/activists/groups/whatever" then it should be easy find these sources. To date, nobody has been able to do this. Slp1 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Another article worth comparing is this one LGBT social movements - there is certainly zero requirement that all sources there discuss "LGBT movement" or "Homosexual rights movement" or whatever - and many and diverse sources are brought it to tell the story. Moreover, much of the LGBT movement article is not presented as sections with "Gay rights movement advocates claim that XXX" - which is, quite amazingly, how almost every single section in the MRM one is framed - read it. It almost never just STATEs something, it always says things like "Men's rights activists point to differential prison terms for men and women as evidence of discrimination" instead of "There are differential prison terms for men and women, which MRM use as evidence of discrimination" Do you see the subtlety there, how it carefully disarms every claim by making it ONLY a claim of advocates, instead of stating things agreed upon facts by neutral observers? The women's rights article is framed completely differently in this regard as well. Finally, the requirement that we find sources that discuss "men's rights" but that don't discuss them within the context of "men's rights movement" is also silly - these are closely related, but NOT the same thing - but almost any source that covers one will cover the other - as evidenced by the multiple disputes here. One book worth looking at is this one, if we haven't already: "Men's rights: a handbook for the 80's; Authors William R. Wishard, Laurie Wishard; Publisher Cragmont Publications, 1980" - has anyone seen it? Here is a broader bibliography: [29].

Please go and try to remove the so-called synthesis from those articles I mentioned - it would, in many cases, cripple the articles. You are taking an overly broad view of synthesis IMHO. The references to other articles *are* relevant, because there is an assertion made here, by many editors, that this article is subject to a special local consensus that doesn't apply elsewhere, and showing how other articles are treated is evidence of the difference in treatment of sourcing here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that some editors do not accept that the article is about the men's rights movement and how it is described in reliable sources. Instead, they want the article to support the notion that gender-based discrimination against men is real. They seem to wish for a Discrimination against men article where they can add sources about "actual discrimination faced by actual men". Ironically, the sources that they provide to prove that gender-based discrimination against men is real tend to deal with discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and nationality although the men's rights movement, i.e. the topic of the article, does nothing to redress discrimination against gay men, black men (e.g., the MRM opposes affirmative action), immigrant men and so forth.

What we have is actually three problems: 1) Some editors want the article to reflect their belief that discrimination against men is real, not summarize what reliable sources say about the men's rights movement; 2) They want to add sources that do not say anything about the MRM; 3) When they don't get their way they call other editors biased or accuse them of being members of the "protection squad".

I wrote it before and I will write it again: It doesn't matter if a source was writte by a critic or a supported of the MRM. What you need to do is make sure that the sources are reliable, that they say something about the topic of the article, and that they support the material being presented. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Not really gonna respond to that incredibly POV screed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, Obiwankenobi, it would really help if you familiarized yourself with previous discussions and the sources before declaring them worth looking at for this article. The Wishard & Wishard book you mention was discussed here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's an excellent illustration of the lame orthodoxy that reigns over this page. Here we have a whole book on men's rights, but it is excluded because it's not SPECIFICALLY about the men's rights movement. But we can't put it on the mens' rights page, because that page doesn't exist! And if we try to move this page back, the squad says "There are no sources!" - it's really quite comical. I would love you to show me a discussion at LGBT movement or Women's rights movement or Feminism that says "Well, Joe, that article is giving a history of homosexuality in america, but it's *not* about the gay rights movement, therefore, we're gonna have to remove it." This page is the only place that I've seen such nonsense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The book wasn't excluded. One editor considered it not a good source for a particular statement, and in fact, because it was being used in the lead, no source was actually required: problem solved. I don't have a copy of the book but I would consider it to be likely a reliable source for this article, though very old and perhaps not so valuable as more up to date material. Slp1 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your (Obiwankenobi's) claims about the machinations of the "squad" are comical, really. I'll give you one example to dispel the myth that only books that say "men's rights movement" are allowed: Warren Farrell's books are used as sources in the article although he doesn't specifically discuss the men's rights movement in his books. They are used because Farrell self-identifies as a men's rights activist (unlike Benatar and the other authors mentioned by Memills) and is the leading figure in the men's rights movement (unlike Benatar and the other sources mentioned by Memills). Phillip Davies, on the other hand, is not a men's rights activist, does not speak for or about the men's rights movement and that is why his opinion about prison sentences isn't mentioned in the article about the men's rights movement. Get it? There is no wicked agenda at work here. There is WP:OR and then their is WP:Synth. The attempts to insert OR and SYNTH in this article and cry foul when it's removed need to stop. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Would Ernest Belfort Bax's piece about the subjugation of men fall under the umbrella of "mens rights"?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men Metalhead498 00:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, yes. However, it doesn't ever directly say the phrase "men's rights" so the squad would probably shut it down (but it does discuss rights under law of both sexes, and looks at how some laws are biased against men). But, it's worth a shot. We should start drafting something in userspace. There are many other pieces like this one, that could help put together an early history of MR.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On a similar note, has anyone been able to read the new book by Helen Smith? A quick search seems to show some relevency at the very least, and might have some good content. [30] Arkon (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I can only see what Amazon gives me, but it seems that she self-identifies as a men's rights activist in the book. The publisher seems to be adequate (ie not a self-publisher), so I think it is fine for her views at least, and possibly the MRM too. --Slp1 (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting paradigms in the social sciences, sex/gender differences studies, and politics

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

No more discussion of this topic per probation sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above discussion reveals the problems that occur when there are two opposing perspectives, yet one (the MRM) is allowed to be described/defined by the other (gender feminism) as if the latter was a neutral arbiter. For example, most in the MRM would not agree that their movement / concerns are a "backlash" to feminism, but that is how the MRM is described in the article. In this case, it would be more accurate to say "According to many feminists, the MRM is a backlash to feminism."

User Peudo made an relevant observation:

"We have to acknowledge that in (the) social sciences, there is no single prevailing paradigm but different schools. We can't just interpret one or a few sources as the only truth in non-exact sciences. ...scholars often have differing views which they sometimes debate in the publications. The feminist school in sociology represents one normative view that inherently disagrees with the MRM. The feminist scholarly view can't be the only one covering the whole subject. I think it's a rather fundamental acknowledgement editors must make when editing [an] article. Claiming otherwise shows a rather grave misunderstanding of social sciences... "

A problem here is that some editors apparently believe this article should be filtered through the lens of particular paradigms: gender feminism, post-modernism and/or social constructionism. These currently dominate "gender studies" and "women's studies" departments (and even some men's studies programs headed by male feminists). References coming from authors with these perspectives are not NPOV -- they are embedded in, and wedded to, particular theoretical and political perspectives. This is not currently acknowledged in the article.

Many academics in other fields of study hold such "gender studies" departments in very low esteem because they are so thoroughly theoretically in-bred. What passes for scholarship is often not empirical but is instead rhetorical polemics (basically, POV pushing dressed in academic language). A complaint of many in the MRM is that these academic departments have been over-run and lack theoretical and political diversity.

Other approaches to understanding and/or dealing with sex/gender differences reject the basic assumptions of gender feminism and social constructionism (i.e., that sex roles are arbitrary and socially constructed, that "the patriarchy" is designed to oppress women, etc.). Opposing perspectives include scientific positivism, equity feminism, sexual selection theory, parental investment theory, brain sexual differentiation theory (hormonal differentiation of the brain during prenatal development and beyond, etc.).

When there are major, conflicting paradigms regarding a topic, a WP article should acknowledge this. Further when statements are made about the MRM, it would be helpful to note the theoretical perspective of the author(s) -- where the author is coming from. Memills (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen Bbb23's warning below, so I will keep this very brief and to the point and will not be responding beyond this. Supporters of minority and fringe positions on topics such as Holocaust denial, Homeopathy, Chiropractic, Aids denialism etc frequently make the same point: that reliable, highest quality sources are internally and constitutionally biased against the topic, and they need to be excluded/their bias attributed/replaced etc, etc. This perspective shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV is: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It is incumbent on those who wish to redress any perceived imbalance to actually produce sources of other "significant views". Pudeo, as cited here, states that there are "different schools" and "The feminist scholarly view can't be the only one covering the whole subject". If either or both of of these two statements are correct, then it should be trivial to produce scholarly or other high quality sources about men's rights and/or the men's rights movement from these different schools. Just as at the other articles, editors who claim that there are such NPOV issues have repeatedly been asked to produce high quality reliable sources to counterbalance those that have been found to date. But the silence has been deafening.

Moving forward, I think it may simply be best to work up some FAQs for this talkpage that we can point quickly and briefly when somebody brings up particular subjects for the umpteenth time. Slp1 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

While I accept that some fields of study are dominated by people with a certain view of their subject, scholarship does not exist in isolation. Most scholars on conservatism for example are conservative, but that does not mean that political science textbooks present a pro-conservative view. Also, feminism is not the only academic area where the MRM is studied. Of course one could argue that social sciences are inherently biased, but then that is dispute about the policy rather than something that should be discussed here. TFD (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I would be happy to reply. But, frankly the threat of sanctions/bans (below) tends to put a chill on open discussions. To get input from some uninvolved, neutral sources, I've asked for input at WP:3. Memills (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

When there are a half dozen and more people discussing an issue, the fine folks at Third Opinion will not take the case. Their purpose is to solve disputes between two individual editors.

Regarding the notion that some people here think "this article should be filtered through the lens of particular paradigms", I say you failed to prove it. I think that existing scholarship on the MRM topic is scholarship, not advocacy. If you want to bring in scholars with a different background, you are welcome to find them. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The only sources that matter Memills are third party mainstream scholars. If you don't like what they say ... tough. And no just because scholars take an ideological stance does not make them unreliable. Trying to ban certain scholarship from this page (as you are doing above) is the opposite of NPOV. Again your above post shows a clear misunderstanding of it. Scholars do not need to be neutral. Our record of their work needs to be neutral. Take Cold Fusion as an example - we don't write about that topic in a supportive way, we write about it in the way 3rd party reliably sourced scholars do. We record what the mainstream discourse is. If that discourse on Cold Fusion changes in 5 years then the page will change. You've been fond of comparing articles to Feminism well here's an apt example. If wikipedia existed in 1901 the Feminism page would reflect teh dominant view of feminism at that time (dismissive). Indeed if wikipedia existed 150-200 years ago the topic of Aether would be recorded as if it were fact, because that was how it was recorded then. It's not wikipedia's job to change the discourse on a topic and attempting to use this site to advocate for a change of discourse in the real world is highly disruptive--Cailil ^talk 19:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are just a couple of scholars who make the case for men's issues and rights, and who suggest that a feminist lens on those issues is biased.

From psychology professor Roy Baumeister's book "Is There Anything Good About Men? How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men":

The reasons that it has recently become taboo to say positive things about men are rooted in the women's movement and its wide-ranging influence (p. 3) ...perhaps we are more accustomed seeing how society exploits women, but perhaps that is all the more reason to take a look at the other side too. (p 6) Any fair assessment of modern American feminism would have... to acknowledge... that some of it has fostered hatred and readily sacrificed the pursuit of truth of the sake of self-interested political gain. (p. 8) ...I strongly suspect that there is no point in debating with feminists. The business of feminism was aptly summarized by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, two scholars who have spent their careers in Women's Studies programs and who wrote a thoughtful book, "Professing Feminism," on what passes for scholarly activity in these departments. Crucially they pointed out that most feminists do not pay any attention to criticisms from non-feminists. They listen a little bit to criticism from each other--but that mainly concerns the purity of their commitment to feminist politics and doctrine. When scientists criticize each other, they focus mainly on research methods and how well different possible theories fit the data. That sort of thing is not common in Women's Studies departments, according to Patai and Koetgre. That means that even if an outsider like me made the most brilliant correct, and insightful point against some feminist claim, the feminists wouldn't listen or change their view one iota. (p. 9)

A couple of quotes from philosophy professor David Benatar's book "The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Boys and Men":

I distinguished between egalitarian feminists and partisan feminists. The former seek equality of the sexes, whereas the latter seek the advancement of female interests (irrespective of whether that advances equality). Partisan feminism does entail some unfairness to men. (p. 240) ...Feminist excesses are also to be found in the rationalizations that are frequently employed. ...they curiously always reach the conclusion that it is the interests of females that ought to prevail. There is always some reason, as we have seen, why the interests of females are of paramount importance. (p. 243) ...Perhaps the most serious cases of feminist excess are those in which scholars -- many themselves feminists -- have been threatened or harassed by highly partisan and intolerant feminists who have deemed their work threatening. (p. 244)

Memills (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That a few scholars see others as taking a negative view does not disqualify that body of work. The point remains as above, 2 scholars might consider the mainstream view on Cold Fusion as biased. That does not mean those mainstream views are censored/altered/prejudiced in order to reflect a preferred POV. What you are arguing for is not a neutral point of view it is a neutered point of view. A truncated record of scholarship and thus a misrepresentation of the mainstream of 3rd party reliable sources. Mentioning Benatar and others with the above POV is fine as long as the record is accorded due weight, but attempting to use their existence to give them the appearance of equal weight vis-a-vis other views or to reduce the weight of other mainstream views is POVpushing. Nor is appropriate to use this page for soapboxing about subjects--Cailil ^talk 23:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not seeing the forest for the trees -- this issue is embedded in the larger conflict two major, conflicting theoretical paradigms in the social sciences. To wit: social constructionism vs. biological/environmental interactionism. The latter rejects gender feminism's theoretical assumptions regarding the genesis of sex roles / sex differences as being solely socially constructed.

"A few scholars" is incorrect. Here is a list of just a few books by nature-nurture interactionists (and I'll limit the list to only those with a female author or coauthor) who reject the gender feminist perspective on sex differences:

Margo Wilson and Martin Daly (1983) Sex, evolution and behavior.

Helen Fisher (1983) The Sex Contract: The Evolution of Human Behavior

Laura Betzig (1986) Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History

Laura Betzig, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder and Paul Turke (1988) Human Reproductive Behaviour: A Darwinian Perspective

Helen Fisher (1994) Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray

Linda Mealey (2000). Sex differences. NY: Academic Press.

Nancy Etcoff (2000) Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty.

Bobbi Low (2000). Why sex matters. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Anne Campbell (2002). A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women

Louise Barrett, Robin Dunbar, and John Lycett (2002) Human Evolutionary Psychology

Olivia Judson (2003). Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex

Louann Brizendine The Male Brain (2010), The Female Brain (2011)

Judith Lipton and David Barash (2009) How Women Got Their Curves

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (2011) Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding

Maryann Fisher (2013) Evolution's Empress: Darwinian Perspectives on the Nature of Women

The suggestion that only a few scholars reject the foundational theory of gender feminism -- the social constructionist view of the genesis of gender roles -- is incorrect. Memills (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like grist for another, different mill. This article is about the men's rights movement, and Wikipedia is not going to dump good sources just because you have argued in a general sense against their perceived bias, because the authors are feminist scholars. This grist should be carried to some other article, one about how unfair it is for non-feminists to argue with feminist scholars. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Memills' list is a series of texts closely related to evolutionary psychology; none of them are about MRM, so have no relevance to this article. Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've checked Memills' quotes as far as I can and note an extreme cherrypicking sources has been going on; as one might guess from the ellipis, I suppose. Here are a few other cherrypicked quotes to balance out the quotes he has provided:

"The Global World Forum recently rated most nations on various dimensions of equality, and it found not a single country in which women generally enjoy superior status over men. Nor did the Forum find full equality was reached in any. Thus, men have higher status than women in every country in the world today". Baumeister p4
"Many cultures do exploit women, some more than others, and sometimes cruelly." Baumeister p.5
"Nor is this book a pitch to gain victim status for men. The modern widespread eagerness to claim victim status for one’s own group makes me ill. If you read this book and end up thinking the main point was that men instead of women should be considered victims, or even assume this status alongside women, then you have completely missed my point". Baumeister p. 5
"Any fair assessment of modern American feminism would have to assert that on the one hand, there has been some brilliant and insightful scholarship that has advanced our collective understanding of the truth. Likewise, it would have to acknowledge, on the other hand, that some of it has fostered hatred and readily sacrificed the pursuit of truth for the sake of self-interested political gain. Feminism is a big tent, covering many different views and attitudes." p8 I have bolded the parts of this sentence that Memills has chosen to quote above -draw your own conclusions.

Since I can't do the same for the Benatar book as I don't have it to hand at present, I will point out a comment or two from a generally positive review from The New Statesman. [31]

"Benatar is not a Backlash merchant. He does not argue that men have a worse time than women; that feminism has gone too far; that men are now the oppressed sex; or that sexism against women does not exist. On the contrary, he repeatedly details the many forms of injustice faced by women across the world, and applauds efforts to address them. Indeed the clue is in the title: not “The New Sexism” or “The True Sexism” but “The Second Sexism.” Second, meaning in addition or secondary to the first sexism which is, of course, against women. Benatar does not blame feminism for anti-male discrimination, rightly noting that most such injustices long predate the women’s movement."
"Nor, BBC Online readers, is Benatar a champion of the Men’s Rights Movement. In the book he notes astutely that men’s groups can become “fora for self-pity and for ventilating hyperbolic views that are not checked or moderated by alternative opinions.”"

I am once again appalled, Memills, at the lengths that you will go to to misrepresent and misquote sources.Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, I am appalled too. Our mutual appallment is irrelevant here, tho.

I am afraid we are talking past one another. My point, again, is this. There is no one "main stream" paradigm in the social sciences. There are two primary paradigms (social constructionism vs. nature-nurture interactionism), and their basic assumptions are in conflict. Feminist theory is based on social constructionism. Scholars and other folks who reject social constructionism are naturally more skeptical of claims derived from feminist theory / social constructionism.

Given clashing paradigms, it is a service to the reader to identify from which paradigm critiques are coming from. For example, in the creationism/evolution debate, it is helpful to the reader to identify the paradigm -- e.g., "According to creationists, the complexity of the design of the eye reveals its 'irreducible complexity.'" "However, according to evolutionary biologist, the eye is indeed complex, but that complexity is not irreducible and can be explained by step-by-step cumulative selection over time." Without these identifying 'paradigm prefixes', the reader sees "The eye reveals irreducible complexity." (long reference list) and "The eye is complex, but not irreducibly so." (long reference list). This only leaves the reader with irreducible confusion. Identifying the paradigm helps to clarify the underlying assumptions and the fundamental issues.

Similarly, here it is appropriate to also include 'paradigm prefixes': "According to many feminist scholars, the MRM is misogynist." "According to many MRM proponents, the MRM is not misogynist."

This is the crux of my (and other editors) suggestion. It is not difficult to do, and it would make the article both more accurate and clear. Memills (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warnings

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

This page is under article probation. That means that as an uninvolved admin I have broad discretion to impose sanctions for disruptive editing on any page related to the MRM, including this page. I am particularly troubled by the backlash section above and the newly added paradigm section just above. Specifically, the edits by Memills and by Badmintonhist are disruptive. They are similar to the edits that led to a topic ban imposed on another editor. The two users are defying consensus as to what should and should not be included in these articles and pushing an agenda that is clear on its face. Their defense that the "other side" is pushing their own agenda is unsupported by any objective measure. The disruption comes not only from their unsupported points of view but also by pushing them beyond what can be considered reasonable discourse on Wikipedia. Although warnings are not required for me to impose sanctions, I decided that intervening now might head off bans and/or blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

disruptive? Seriously? Someone posts a thoughtful critique of the prevailing dogma and you call it disruptive? Why don't you let the eds here discuss in peace without your warnings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What a shameless load of hogwash, Bbb23! Badmintonhist (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If by dogma you, Obiwankenobi, mean the requirement to stick to reliable sources then the critique of said "dogma" is not very helpful. Is there any doubt that all the cited references describe the MRM as a backlash? No. As a side note, I do not consider a discussion where you describe editors as members of a "protection squad" as particularly peaceful. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Also see WP:Multiple Editor Ownership.

However, rather than trading barbs back and forth, or threatening sanctions on editors who edit in good faith, a review of some these issues by uninvolved neutral third parties, e.g., WP:peer review, seems long overdue and might be helpful. Memills (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

1929 article

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This definitely exists and is written by a reputable source, so I included it in the history section. Any improvements to suggest? I included an excerpt to establish what Moulton wrote. Ranze (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Pre1970s history sourcing

Latest comment: 11 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Since men's rights redirects to this article, and since what follows (activism, movement, advocate, enthusiast, etc) varies, that is the core phrase to be considered here.

Tried this earlier at #History section but the conversation got convoluted. I'm giving this another go, regarding the sourcing of historical statements about "men's rights" and attempting to arrange them chronologically. Starting with the earliest JSTOR result for the phrase:

Outlines of Universal History, from the Creation of the World to the Present Time by George Weber, M. Behr from The North American Review, Vol. 76, No. 158 (JANUARY, 1853), pp. 124-166 (page 134)

We may accept, then, in its full extent, the remark of Sir James Mackintosh: -

"The first principles of jurisprudence are simple maxims of reason, of which the observance is immediately discovered by experience to be essential to the security of men's rights, and which pervade the laws of all countries."

This early example highlights a supreme difficulty in researching sources for the origins of the topic of this article. That the term was used in a general sense (by which we might now think citizen rights or human rights) rather than a specific man vs woman sense. That said, the predominance of 'men' could be due to men being the ones held legally accountable for acts in which women were not. Due to that, it could be significant to elaborate on this in the history section, though it would benefit from tertiary references to interpret that reality. Weren't there policies where men were held accountable for their wives actions, or something of that sort, in the pre-1900s?

I did find one notable reference:

Woman in German Literature before and after the Reformation by Myrtle Mann Gillet from The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1918), pp. 346-375 (page 351)

"Although he looked at marriage on the whole through the eyes of a man he in no case shows himself in the least unsympathetic towards women. Although a Catholic and Dean of Bamberg Cathedral, upholding no doubt as a churchman the doctrine of celibacy as holy, he nevertheless wrote his Ehebuchlein with a layman's comprehension - and more - of woman's personal problems. To be sure he demands that women should obey their husbands and serve them in every way, but after a loud discussion of men's rights, he turns to them with stern directness:

I am looking for suggestions on what terms to look for, to find more specific references. Particularly regarding the 1920s group earlier dismissed. Ranze (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ranze, let me ask you to use our citation templates. I just finished the last of those four you added. Three of them could have been more easily handled if you had used Template:Cite book where all you had to do was stick in the URL and click the fill-in button. Besides, you added formatting to the quotes without indicating what you added. I think you added wikilinks for two historians, but wikilinking in quotes is strongly discouraged. So I edited them a little bit, but I am not entirely sure whether they are an accurate representation of what was in the sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ranze, you may consider framing up a "Men's rights" page in your userspace, I'll help you if you like. I think there are enough sources, both the older ones you've found, and more recent ones, that use a rights-based discourse but that aren't talking only about this one branch.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This was discussed in April and there was no consensus to include the information. Ranze knows this because he was the editor that tried to include something similar before [32] and participated in the discussion. Ranze, do you have reason to assume that the consensus has changed or why have you ignored the previous discussion? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sonic I get the impression you either did not read my message or are intentionally trying to misrepresent my actions. Look at what you say:

Ranze knows this because he was the editor that tried to include something similar before

You write that as if to inform people of it, as if I was avoiding that information. But look at what I said in my post:

Tried this earlier at #History section but the conversation got convoluted. I'm giving this another go

Clearly I was open about being the editor who addressed the issue before. Please do not imply otherwise. Now in regard to consensus:

there was no consensus to include the information. .. do you have reason to assume that the consensus has changed? .. why have you ignored the previous discussion?

The only accurate statement here is the first one. A lack of attaining consensus to include information is not the same thing as having attained consensus to NOT include the information. As anyone can see from reading the discussion, I could not have ignored it, because I participated in it heavily, including replying to people who replied to the thread. Consensus was simply not reached because people stopped replying to it, and now the thread has even been archived so to discuss it further there must be this new section. People did not address my counterpoints, so I am reconstructing the argument here. I have found copies of one of the 1920 newspaper articles using Ancestry.com (a preview is available which confirms its legitimacy) so know for certain it exists. We should prepare to include it as soon as we can get a full copy. Ranze (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I wrote. There was no consensus to include the information. What changed in the meantime that you believe that there is consensus to include it? And if you are so confident that "Consensus was simply not reached because people stopped replying to it", then why didn't you bring this up here and wait for more editors to respond? I should add that I'm not opposed to adding information that some men in Austria and Germany felt so oppressed by women in the interwar period that they formed "men's rights" groups here and there. I believe that I said something similar [33]. What bothers me is that you implied that there were actual organized "movements" (sources don't support that). You didn't mention that it is all about one organization, "League of Men's Rights" in Austria, and, most importantly, you didn't consider the explanation in the previous discussion that "Liga fur Menschenrechte" ("Leage of Men's Rights") translates to "League for the rights of people". This is why the "Liga fur Menschenrechte" described in the last source (Plotkin) doesn't bear any resemblance or share any of the same interests of the men's rights organizations as we've known them since the late 1960s. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I consider it an improvement if a prehistory were given, an account of some forerunners, lest we completely define the term "men's rights movement" in opposition to feminism. But that can only be done, the way I see it, on two conditions: a. that a context is provided, not just with a quote in the footnote; and b. that a modern reference indicate that these are indeed forerunners of a kind. I say this having edited the templates but being blissfully unaware of the content of the cited works or the previous discussion. After all, time's a wasting. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The very early Putnam source discusses "men's rights" as a backlash reaction to the upwelling of women's rights, so your notion that the forerunners might not be in opposition to feminism is incorrect. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me: I don't have that notion, but that's how our article currently defines it. I'll be more complete: in opposition to 1960/1970s feminism. Drmies (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that Ranze's sources mention one Austrian organization, not "movements" as he wrote. Another problem is that at least one of the four sources, an excerpt from a diary from 1932 [34], is about the "Liga fur Menschenrechte" which means "League for the rights of people", not "League for the rights of men". There is no evidence that this was a precursor to the men's rights movement. Moreover, one could argue that we're dealing with primary sources because they were so close to the event (a diary written by someone who was invited to join the organization, an NYT article from 1926, a book from 1932).

There's this one source [35] that discusses the responses to feminism at the turn of the century and it mentions the men's rights movement under the header "Contemporary parallels". There's also a masters thesis that deals with the "Mannerrechtsbewegung" ("men's rights movement") in Austria in the 1920s: [36]. The two sources characterize the 1920's version of men's rights groups as part of a backlash against the women's rights movement. I'm not aware of any sources (apart from the two I mentioned) which deal with forerunners or turn-of-the-century parallels to the men's rights movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Now we're talking. Thanks. Now... care to add that to the article, properly verified and contextualized? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Before that I want to remove the Plotkin ref (diary entry about the "Liga fur Menschenrechte", which does not translate to "men's rights" but "rights of people"). I also want to reword the entire sentence to clarify that the sources deal with one organization, the „Bund fur Mannerrechte” (League for Men's Rights), not "movements". Do I have the support to make the edits? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also replace the Healy ref with the actual book by Hauch and the relevant quote in German about the "Bund für Männerrechte" (Hauch, Gabriella (1995). Vom Frauenstandpunkt aus: Frauen im Parlament, 1919-1933. Vienna: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik. p. 13. ISBN 978-3-85115-216-6.) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to look in detail at sources, but I'll start of by saying that there was clearly a consensus in the prior discussion that the 1932 diary extract [37] was not suitable as a source because it a left-wing human rights group (see [38][39][40][41]) and absolutely nothing to do with the men's rights being described in this context. I am going to remove that reference.Slp1 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't researched this, but based on the links you provided, that makes sense - it seems this particular group was a human rights group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It took me a long time to track down a paper published in the "Wiener Geschichtsblätter" about men's rights groups in Vienna during the interwar period. I'll use that paper and a 2009 Diplomarbeit to add a paragraph about the League for Men's Rights, Justitia League for Family Law Reform, and the Aequitas World's League for the Rights of Men. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this including wading through all the German in these secondary sources!! FYI found this which suggests that aequitas/equitas was defunct long before 1939.Slp1 (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Justitia disbanded in 1937 due to "lack of interest among members" (Malleier p. 228). Aequitas was dissolved by the government in 1938 and, according to Malleier (p. 229), an official record of the dissolution exists [42]. Malleier even gives the address where the last Aequitas meetings took place (Allerheiligenplatz 17, Brigittenau). Financial difficulties, lack of success, and the death of Sigurd Hoeberth von Schwarzthal, the founder of the League for Men's Rights and Aequitas, in 1938 were some of the other reasons why Aequitas disappeared. I think that Malleier's paper in the Wiener Geschichtsblaetter is a highly reliable source concerning the history of Vienna. Maybe the Montreal Gazette assumed that it was over for Aequitas in 1930 because the last edition of the Aequitas journal "Self-Defense" was published in September 1930? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow! What a great example of why using secondary sources rather than a primary sources such as historical newspapers is so important. It just goes to show. For the record, I think the Gazette (and the NYT- the same report was published there) assumed that Equitas had folded because their Vienna Office closed and the world conference the year before had had to be postponed due to lack of interest. Slp1 (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It is usually preferable to have a secondary source that interprets information from primary source material and puts it into perspective. The Malleier paper looks like a very well researched secondary source with an impressive amount of detail about the organizations. And the Wiener Geschichtsblaetter appears to be an authoritative source of information on Viennese history. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If there was no consensus to include this material, what about "misogynist" in the intro? Is there a consensus for that? Or do the "no consensus" rules somehow apply differently?William Jockusch (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Scholars

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Noticed a lot of edits in June regarding a "scholars" statement tending to give authority to perception of the movement. Here's the current incarnation as I see it:

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.

I am wondering if perhaps "feminist scholars" could be appropriate, this would require confirming whether or not all scholars are feminist or not, as it was alleged in edit history that some were. Furthermore, I find this sentence lacks clarity. We can break it into several points based on construction:

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars
The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by others
sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist

Now the confusion here: when we say "described as misogynist" it is unclear WHO is saying this. Is it 'scholars' or is it 'others' or is it both? I would like to see this sentence restructured to make this more clear. Really "critiqued claims and activities" is somewhat vague I think, I question the purpose of such a vague statement. Honestly I question the relevance of "others" at all.

Look at if we said this about any other issue:

"Scientist's claims and activities have been critiqued by others"

Is that important? Does it belong in encyclopedia? Literally every topic under the sun must have inevitably been 'critiqued' by 'others'. I think we need to establish a higher level of importance here. 'Others' is not notable. 'Scholars' is, and other groups might be, but if there are others besides scholars whose opinions on MRM are notable, I think we need a more specific description imparting why they are relevant moreso than 'others'.

We can do a name breakdown here, of the references that go with this statement, and define who they are. Here are the seven references I see (currently bulleted 4 to 10) after this statement:

^ Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia" (PDF). Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies. 4 (2): 39–52.
^ Clatterbaugh 1997, pp. 77, 88.
^ Chris Beasley (20 May 2005). Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. SAGE Publications. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-7619-6979-2. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
^ Kimmel, Michael; Kaufman, Michael (1997). "Weekend Warriors". In Mary R.Walsh (ed.). Women, Men and Gender. Yale University Press. p. 407. ISBN 978-0-300-06938-9.
^ Menzies 2007, p. 71.
^ Brod, Harry; Kaufman, Michael, eds. (1994). Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-8039-4903-4.
^ Pease, Bob (2000). Recreating men: postmodern masculinity politics. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-7619-6205-2.

Clatterbaugh, Kenneth C. (1997). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: men, women, and politics in modern society (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-2701-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B (ed.). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

So going by alphabetized surname, here are the "scholars" we should probably just go and verify are scholars, and then see whether or not they identify as feminist:

Brod: LACKS Wikipedia article
Beasley: LACKS Wikipedia article, mentioned him on disambig
Clatterbaugh: PhD in philosophy, chair of Philo in U of Washington, also wrote "The Oppression Debate in Sexual Politics" in "Rethinking Masculinity: Philosophical Explorations in Light of Feminism" in 1992
Kaufman: LACKS Wikipedia article, mentioned him on disambig
Kimmel: categorized under "american feminists"
Maddison: PhD in " the Discipline of Government and International Relations", wrote "Collective identity and Australian Feminist Activism"
Menzies: LACKS Wikipedia article, mentioend him on disambig
Pease: LACKS Wikipedia article, will discuss changing Robert Allen Pease's page into a disambig, pretty certain not same guy.

Establishing who these 8 people are is only the first step though. Then we actually have to interpret the references. Clearly the point where we can assume others to correctly interpret references in good faith has past and we should discuss them one by one to see what each is actually saying. I believe every reference should provide an excerpt which we can show to be correctly interpreted to support how it is paraphrased in points in the articles.

So, for those five who lack a Wikipedia article:

Brod
Beasley
Kaufman
Menzies
Pease

Please create articles for them and/or establish who they are as reputable scholars.

For those with articles:

These are perhaps, due to having enough notability to have Wikipedia articles about them, perhaps who we should focus on as the 'scholars' of the group. All three have written in association with feminism though, so their neutrality on labelling MRM as 'misogynist' is debatable. Do we have any scholars who don't write about feminism who hold such an opinion? Ranze (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:IRS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. There is absolutely no requirement for sources to have articles written about scholars/sources to show that they are notable/reputable and their views "significant". It is a wholly novel suggestion, that has no basis in policy at all. Slp1 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Again this is anti-NPOV. This is an attempt to label or segregate 3rd party mainstream reliable sources that may not fit with how elements of the men's rights movements' want to be described. Wikipedia's policies are crystal clear on this Ranze. Wikipedia records all mainstream reliably sourced material without interpretation--Cailil ^talk 13:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:IRS, there is no need to analyze the sources as individuals, to strike down certain of them because of their background. Suggesting that we do so smacks of advocacy for the MRM topic. This discussion should be hatted as out of process. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Per my comment in the section above: It is appropriate to include 'paradigm prefixes' to help the reader identify from which of several clashing paradigms a claim is coming: "According to many feminist scholars, the MRM is misogynist." "According to many MRM proponents, the MRM is not misogynist." Without them, it is confusing and less informative. That is all that is being requested here. It would make the article both more accurate and informative. Memills (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Spot on, Memills. There are, indeed, numerous wordings preferable to the current"The MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement" which, in addition to its POV problems, is also stylistically awkward. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Per discussion above, I edited the lede to read:

The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement. It has contestsed claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it has identified as issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.[1][2] The men's rights movement has been involved in a variety of areas related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including education, compulsory military service and social safety nets), and health that they believe are biased towards women.

Feminists have critiqued the MRM's claims and activities, and they have accused some sectors of the movement as being misogynist.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] According to many feminists, the MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement.[10] However, according to many MRM activists, the MRM, or masculinism, is not necessarily an oppositional perspective to feminism, but is complmentary to it. [11]

Mathsci immediately reverted, claiming POV (disagree -- identifying paradigms, per discussion above promotes NPOV and accuracy) and he claimed that changes were not discussed on the Talk Page. They were (above). Rather than immediately revert (which just encourages an edit war), it would have been helpful for Mathsci to discuss the edits here first. Memills (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Memills, POV edits that misrepresent the source should be reverted and I agree with the revert. Per BRD, it is up to you to get agreement for your edits. I will enumberate a number of specific errors with edit.

"Feminists have critiqued the MRM's claims and activities, and they have accused some sectors of the movement as being misogynist." The sources already in the article make clear that it is not only feminists that critique the claims and activities, or describe sectors as misogynist. The SLPC is not "feminists". The Canadian government report (in the McElroy articleyou cited) is not "feminists". The Boston Globe is not "feminists". Glenn Sacks is not "feminists".
"According to many feminists', the MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement." The article you yourself cited has one father's rights activist saying ""I have very little patience for feminists. This notion that because we are opposed to the feminists' political agenda [doesn't mean we are misogynist]...." That's not an admission of backlash? Note that per this news article this same man lost a defamation suit against the Canadian government report which "he contended characterized him as an anti-woman hatemonger". The website of his group features/d "a swastika, four arms altered to the letter F over a photo of a baby making a rude gesture with one finger", with the caption "We are all tired of feminazism. So stop it, okay,". In Fox article, Men's rights supporter Wendy McElroy, states that certain sectors of feminism has replace[d reasoned argument with ad hominem onslaught and has sparked a hate-filled backlash at the fringes of the Men's Rights Movement, where women are hated as a class in tit-for-tat fashion..", and in doing so supports the notion of both a backlash and misogeny.
"The complementary, not oppositional perspective to feminism" is more interesting. My main problems is that we don't add new information to the lead; Mark Toogood doesn't not seem to be a major figure in the movement[43]; he was associated with the fathers' rights movement not the men's rights; and is talking about masculinism, which isn't necessarily a synonym for men's rights, based on that article. But I do think that maybe this article could do with a sentence or two on more on the implied more moderate men's rights activists/activism, if some more good sources could be found. Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to read that you believe that the article needs more material/emphasis re the more moderate aspects of the MRM movement. I agree. There are outliers/radicals in most every movement. As one example of a representative of the more moderate perspectives, I believe Warren Farrell pretty much fits the bill.

Note above that I did not say "all" feminists / masculinists. I specifically said "many." I believe that is is an accurate description, and that it should be reflected in the lede. Memills (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Memills has been topic banned, but just to quickly respond that many of Farrell's concerns are already included in the article, and indeed for some he is the source. What I was talking about was somebody writing about the men's rights movement more moderate wing, which might even include how they acknowledge the problems of and are standing up against more extreme elements. This Sacks article is something of a source for that, but it would be good to find others if they exist. Slp1 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You can identify "primary paradigms (social constructionism vs. nature-nurture interactionism)" all you want when you teach evolutionary psychology to a class of freshmen, Memills. You can tell them that the social sciences are dominated by social constructionism (i.e., the alleged standard social science model) perspective, and that EP is the real deal being nature-nurture interactionist and all. But this isn't the time and place to stick it to the man (i.e., the social sciences). It's about the highly reliable sources that describe the MRM in a way that you disagree with. Tough. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Feminism is a paradigm. Maculinism / the MRM are paradigms. We do a disservice to the reader if we do not include that information with sentence prefixes such as "According to many feminists...", "According to many masculinists..." etc.

As I noted above, imagine saying in a WP article "Humans were designed by God" (long ref list)" followed by "Humans were designed by evolutionary processes." (long ref list). Not helpful. Better: "According to creationists, humans were designed by God" (long ref list) followed by "According to evolutionary biologists, humans were designed by evolutionary processes." (long ref list). Without acknowledging the paradigms, you have confusing dueling statements without appropriate context. Memills (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That the MRM is a backlash movement is the majority view expressed in most academic sources about the MRM. That "Humans were designed by God" is not an academic majority view. Please save your lectures on paradigms ("social constructionism" vs. "nature-nurture interactionism") and "creationism" (i.e., defined by evolutionary psychologists as everyone who opposes evolutionary psychology) for the students. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say "most academic feminists and feminist activists." (Show me a reference that shows the results of a poll of academics, feminist and non-feminist, who do / don't believe the MRM is a backlash. Don't think there is one.) Also, WP doesn't restrict sources to only academic ones, especially on political, rather than scientific, issues. Memills (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You and your confreres have repeatedly been asked for reliable sources showing that there is any different academic school of thought on the topic of men's rights and the men's rights movement. As it stands, your argument smacks of exactly the kind marginalization that a creationist would wish to add to a WP article e.g. "(Most/Many) evolutionary scientists state that humans were designed by evolutionary processes." Surely you can see the thoroughly inappropriate marginalization the mainstream, majority perspective. Slp1 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing in the lede

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Disruptively going over the same ground. Closed per probation sanctions. Reintroduction of the same topic may result in sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Memill's substantial edit to the lede did not have consensus here. The changes were non-neutral, yet appear to have been written as if in the voice of wikipedia. The edit gave undue weight to what appears to be Memills' personal point of view. Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You apparently have not read the discussions above. Might be a good first start... Memills (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have seen the discussions above and the warning that you received, which you appear to have ignored. No sources have been discussed recently that relate directly to the MRM. A previous discussion which you started was hatted because it was leading nowhere. Your interpretation of "consensus" seems not to be in line with wikipedia policy. Per WP:BRD, please provide other editors with relevant reliable sources concerning the MRM to justify your substantial changes to the lede. A list of possibly irrelevant references is not sufficient. Mathsci (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

...entirely misses the point of the discussions above. We know all that. This has to do with a broader issue re identifying the paradigms from which claims are coming from, which can help to make the entire article more NPOV, accurate and fairly balanced (which is entirely consistent with the mission of WP). Memills (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This has to do with activists' understandable difficulties to accept the way the MRM is described in reliable sources. This has nothing to do with "identifying paradigms" and what you term "social constructionism" and "nature-nurture interactionism" elsewhere. Your belief that the reliable sources in the article take a "social constructionist" stance and that you need to point out their "bias" from your evolutionary psychology perspective is misguided. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict and have responded specifically to problematic aspects of Memill's material above.--Slp1 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

To me this is less a matter of sources than it is of wording. Given the sources that already exist for it, a better (both more neutral and less awkward) formulation for the fourth sentence of the current lead would be something like "Many scholars and other observers have described the men's rights movement as a backlash to the feminist movement." It's hard for me to see why anyone would object to this. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've revert the edit including this wording. For one thing, the lead is supposed to summarize the text, not introduce new information. Also, as noted above, academics, lay people and even the men's rights movement itself consider it to be a backlash and even celebrate it. e.g. [44]. There doesn't seem to be any justification at all for saying "many scholars", for example, when no evidence has been provided for such a WP:WEASEL word. If there are specific sources which argue that it isn't a backlash movement, then please produce them and we can look at altering the article text and then the lead, of course. Slp1 (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to mince words, or use weaselly ones, I'm right and you're wrong, Slp1. We can and should also change the text, of course, so that's not much of an issue. What our current sources demonstrate is exactly what I have suggested should be our wording: Many scholars and other observers have described the men's rights movement as a backlash to the feminist movement. It is really no more weaselly than our current wording: It is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement which, of course, invites the question "by whom;" the answer being "by many scholars and other observers." The answer is not "by all scholars" of course; and no, we don't need to find scholars who explicitly argue against it being a "backlash" because disputing epithets given to certain social movements is rarely the work of scholars. It is enough that some don't use that description. As for the fact that some MRM folks embrace the term, as I basically explained to Binksternet, that and two dollars will get you a cup of coffee. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you see a problem with "many scholars and other observers consider Aids to be caused by the HIV virus"? Or "many scholars and other observers consider that holocaust denial is anti-semitic"? I'm sure you do. The situation is an exact parallel. Unless there is some clear sources indicating that there is - at the very least - a minority academic perspective that this is not a backlash movement, then formulation you propose is a clear use of a weasel word to increase doubt. Slp1 (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Slpl1, Please!! The situation is NOT "an exact parallel" to the examples you've given, especially the first. In that example you're comparing a matter of hard science to a highly subjective journalistic description. Basketballs to oranges. We don't have a choice as to what causes AIDS. We can't say, for example, that it is caused by a severe deficiency of Vitamin C because that would simply be false. But in the case of the men's rights movement there are all sorts of descriptions, ones used by "scholars" no less, that would not be false. We could say that the MRM is a countermovement to feminism, a reaction to feminism, a response to feminism, a rebellion against feminism, etc. And, by the way, were we addressing the subject of AIDS, we also wouldn't say "It is considered to be a caused by the HIV virus" would we? Rather, we would say that "AIDS is caused by the HIV virus" or, to more explicitly bring in outside authority, "AIDS has been determined to be caused by the HIV virus." That's because "is considered to be" also brings in a degree of subjectivity to the statement.

Your second example is closer to our situation and, to be honest, it isn't all that obviously unacceptable to me. However, in the case of Holocaust denial we are almost invariably dealing with clear-cut antisemitism and scholars and editors should call a spade a spade. In the case of the MRM, I think that both scholarly and popular literature will reflect that we are not dealing with the same degree of monolithic hatred. Moreover, unlike Holocaust denial, standard issue MRM causes don't reflect a flat-out denial of historical fact.

What I see in the present "It is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement" wording, are editors taking the most negative description of the movement that they could "get away with" (saving the even less acceptable "misogynist" for a segment of the movement later in the lead) and then framing it in the least subjective manner that they could "get away with": "It is considered to be". I don't particularly like "backlash" in lead, but at least in should be framed in the more NPOV "many scholars and other observers have described it as a backlash . . . " Badmintonhist (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a question (in my capacity as an administrator), principally for Slp1 or Sonicyouth86, although any editor is welcome to answer. Hasn't there already been a discussion about the wording of this sentence on this page?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, there has, in the sections entitled "Backlash" and "Conflicting paradigms in the social sciences, sex/gender differences studies, and politics". Reviewing them, I see that I am repeating myself, and that there does not seem to be any consensus to change the current wording. Based on that, I will cease responding here, except to reiterate that if sources (rather than the personal opinions of editors) can be found to support proposed changes, then I am open to further discussion.Slp1 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[maddison-1] Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia" (PDF). Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies. 4 (2): 39–52.

[FOOTNOTEClatterbaugh199777,_88-2] Clatterbaugh 1997, pp. 77, 88.

[Beasley2005-3] Chris Beasley (20 May 2005). Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. SAGE Publications. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-7619-6979-2. Retrieved 6 May 2013.

[Walsh1997-4] Kimmel, Michael; Kaufman, Michael (1997). "Weekend Warriors". In Mary R.Walsh (ed.). Women, Men and Gender. Yale University Press. p. 407. ISBN 978-0-300-06938-9.

[FOOTNOTEMenzies2007[httpbooksgooglecabooksidASc568aunFoCpgPA71_71]-5] Menzies 2007, p. 71.

[Theorizing_masculinities-6] Brod, Harry; Kaufman, Michael, eds. (1994). Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-8039-4903-4.

[Pease_2000_140-7] Pease, Bob (2000). Recreating men: postmodern masculinity politics. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-7619-6205-2.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]