Talk:Men's rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Men's rights article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Men's rights? 3 NPOV January 2006 4 Father's rights v Masculism v "masculist" 5 Men's movement is now introduction to this 6 Merge proposal - from Fathers' rights 7 Reverts 2006-01-23 Discussion 8 Better than 9 Pro-feminist men 10 No, Ma'am 11 Blatent and disingenious POV vandalism 12 Notice of reversion coming up 13 Why is this artical being overhauled by a feminist. 14 Men's rights are still in the Dark Ages 15 Editing policy / conflict of interest / clarification requested Men's rights 16 statement characterizing feminism 17 Same sex marriage - Dubious tags 17.1 Initial comment 17.2 Lengthy response 17.3 Reply (two parts) 17.4 Further response 17.5 Replies 18 Same Sex Marriage - either source the section or it stays out 19 Tagged for needing to be Globalized 20 Three quotes in "Same Sex Marriage" section 21 comments on returning 22 Reverts 23 Response to lengthy post above 24 Non verifyable source 25 Criticism: Violence - distortions 26 Same sex marriage 27 Fact tag in Media portrayal section 28 Health Issues - Revert 29 Sabotage!

[edit] Archives

/Archive 1 - through March 2006

[edit] Men's rights?

I'm a man and I find this laughable to say the least. Discrimination against men is extremely rare (or perhaps non-existent), compared to discrimination against women. Women's rights is a valid term, this is not. There is not one society that discriminates against men. There are many that discriminate against women. Feel free to debate me, but I will win the argument, because you will not be able to back up your claims. Revolución 04:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether I or others agree with you or not is irrelevant; talk pages are used to discuss issues with the article. Some would perceive your statement above to be incorrect and these people have created a seperate movement -- this is factual. Whether their claims are legitimate or not is for the article to discuss in an NPOV manner -- talk pages are not soapboxes. Thanks

I am not sure but atleast in India following ways men are discuriminated against

1. women pay less taxes at the same salary levels
2. Women can adopt children men cannot
3. Women can legally force a man to marry her under the threat of Rape laws.
4. Women have special Buses and trains , men do not 
5. Women get free legal aid without economic criteria , Men do not 
6. Women's Adultery is not crim Men's Adultery is 
& these are just some of the ways in which men are dicsriminated againt Dysprosia 09:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Regarding the legitimacy of Men's Rights:

Where 75% of divorces are filed by women, and in 85% of these cases men get nothing more than a child support order out of it, this is a prima facie case for men's rights. I suggest that male feminists do not hold an NPOV with respect the the issue of "Men's Rights", and therefore should not be permitted to edit this topic. If feminist men can define "Men's Rights", then "Mens Rights" would necessarily be only what feminists define it to be. If it were deemed that "feminist men" hold NPOV with respect to Men's Rights, then perhaps Republicans should be able to define Democrats in Wikipedia.

Therefore, only legitimate established members of the men's rights movement should be able to edit the men's rights section. davidrusher

[edit] NPOV January 2006

{{POV}}

I frequently feel that the NPOV tag is used as a sort of drive-by vandalism, so I plan to stick around through this one, and initially I got here through a redirect so perhaps I am a off-base. That being said, if one is going to assert the existence of a "men's rights" or "men's movement" analogous to the feminist movement, this article misses on a few key points. Among the major flavors I see which should be addressed are

• Daddy rights: issues of special concern to men, mostly around divorce and family law
  
• Gay rights movement: including the huge gains made by men regarding civil liberties for homosexuals
  
• Pro-feminist men: who support the feminist movement but wish to do so from a masculine position
  
• Mythopoetic men: such as the Jungian archetype folks and readers of Robert Bly's Iron John
  

This article seems almost entirely about #1 with a vague nod toward #3, but completely ignoring :other areas which might be considered part of the broader "men's movement" over the last 20 or so :years. Comments? Rorybowman 05:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions:

• "Daddy Rights" is another word for father's rights. Links in the MRM sections can point to FR.

• "Gay Rights" is not a part of the MRM and conflicts with it directly. GR's are very feminist men. :This could be mentioned in the MRM discussion, with pointers to the GR section.

• "Pro-feminism" or "feminist men", as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, is an anachronism and again not part of the MRM. FM's are usually not particularly interested in MR, rather, they are more focused on destroying the MRM, or trying to reshape it to become a subset of feminism. Pro-feminist men are usually folks who work in government collecting child support, or as feminist psychologists (as Warren Farrell once was); or as attorneys representing female clients, and are frequently younger men in or just out of college, where they are programmed to "be" feminist men. This category should be in the wiki-feminism section, with pointers to it in the MRM section.

• "Mythopoetic men" are not a part of the MRM. Mythopoetics are men who are trying to find their :own masculine identities in a feminist world. They are not interested in "rights". MPM writings :tend to be philosophical exercises in Socratism or existentialism, and often end up placing men as :passive objects at the fringe feminist culture -- which is why MPM's often end up beating drums in :the woods, and other nostalgic male-like activities. MPM could be mentioned in this section, but :Wiki should have a seperate section for MPM where MPM's can fill it out according to their :understandings.

I point out here that one of the reasons why feminism consists of so many conjoined but wildly :opposing viewpoints( many think it is about equality, when in fact the majority of feminist :strains are against it), is that radical feminists went to great lengths to project the image of :equality, when in fact they are largely doing everything except equality. It is therefore :important to keep the different incompatible strains of "male thinking" separated according to the :"species" of the thinking and purpose.

I point out here that one of the reasons why feminism consists of so many conjoined but wildly :opposing viewpoints (many think it is about equality, when in fact the majority of feminist :strains are against it), is that radical feminists went to great lengths to project the image of :equality, when in fact they are largely doing everything except equality. It is therefore :important to keep the different incompatible strains of "male thinking" separated according to the :"species" of the thinking and purpose.

I hope folks understand why it is important to keep these various incongruous groups of men :clearly defined and separated. Where the MRM and feminist movements are so strikingly :incompatible, it is inappropriate to pretend that various forks of feminism are somehow a part of the MRM. -- davidrusher 02:45, 26 January 2007

[edit] Father's rights v Masculism v "masculist"

So what is exactly the difference between the advocates of father's rights (FR) and masculism? Is it the purely family law focus of father's rights? Do the FR folk want to insert themselves into abortion? Is any father who asserts he should have more say in something that vaguelly involves the law an FR activist? I'm not seeing a clear distinction or explanation here, and think that such clarification would help with NPOV appreciably. Rorybowman 03:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading both articles, masculism appears a more scholarly movement whereas fathers' rights has been more a reaction to feminism and the changing demands on men to engage with their children (the private sphere). Related but not the same. The fathers' rights article needs a fair bit of work.

Probably all of Fathers' rights, Masculism, Mythopoetic, Pro-feminism (referring to men) could be related to each other better. -- Paul foord 05:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

under the section on The Movements Structure it states "The men's rights movement is often equated with the masculist movement, but although there is some overlap, large parts of both movements strongly dispute this equation." I expect the same for father's rights and masculism. -- Paul foord 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul! It was when I started to look into the structure section that I started to run into serious questions about where the line fell. Although Warren Farrell has famously claimed to be a feminist and a masculist, a Google search on masculist brings up a number of clearly anti-feminist and misogynistic views more in line with pater familias. Checking out the article on masculist the only substantive reference was Bax, whose "masculist" work such as Fraud of Feminism is clearly misogynistic, which I found when I tried to find links to his work to add to the Bax bio page. My choice of the top-article phrase about "legal forms which unnaturally favor women" (emphasis mine) is because most of the Google hits for masculist clearly do indicate a strong sense of biological difference, most notably this fellow. My concern is not that there are a few man-haters who call themselves feminists (which there are, to the annoyance of most who call themselves feminists) as that the phrase "masculist" and "masculism" has little use as a distinction from "father's rights" and the distinction it does have is mostly toward either obscuring or trying to distance the real differences on abortion and other civil rights issues. At this point in usage it seems to me that "father's rights" (which some would argue includes veto power regarding abortion) and "masculist" are used differently. Here in the United States similar issues are usually expressed in a sort of linguistic code with phrases such as "ethnic pride" (for the general use) and "White pride" (for racist usage). It seems to me good to clarify the family law focus versus the gender role focus (which also tends to be against gay rights) in an article on men's rights.

Should the article just admit that the phrase "men's rights" is hopelessly vague and point to the more distinctive branches such as civil rights, gay rights and father's rights. I first got here from an ill-advised redirect from men's movement, for example. Decreasing this section's prominence to favor more specific articles may be the better part of valor. What do you think? Rorybowman 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the legitimacy of Men's Rights:

See my posting above under the "Mens Rights?" topic. Feminists do everything they can to erase the issue of men's rights from this planet (they actually nearly succeeded in removing the word "Misandry" from Webster's Dictionary -- an issue I argued and won with Webster's).

With Respect to Warren Farrell: Warren is a friend of mine, and I have been to various conventions and events with him. Warren was VP of New York N.O.W. for some years. His job was to do relationship counseling according to feminist psychological standards, which means blaming all disagreement on the male, and letting the woman run everything. As he put it, his payback was to have pretty feminist women lined up at his doorstep for a date, and all the work he could handle. But he could no longer stand the psychological malpractice feminists demanded, so he changed sides and wrote "The Myth of Male Power". Warren is not a masculist or a feminist (both imply innate biases according to the gender of the speaker). Warren stands for equality between men and women, which is what the legitimate Men's Movement stands for.

I strongly oppose permitting anyone holding feminist perspectives to edit or shape the Men's Rights section. Feminists do not hold NPOV with respect to Mens Rights, and therefore cannot accurately describe the movement as it truly exists.

As regards "masculism" and men's or father's rights: Both these issues necessarily rise from a male perspective. But masculism (which includes many inegalitarian beliefs) falls into radicalism not supported by the legitimate men's movement. Masculism is every bit as radical as is feminism. Both perspectives boil down to gender war. The legitimate men's movement is an equalitarian movement, that has in my 20 years of very active involvement worked for true equality between men and women, is neither masculist or feminist. By and large, the men's movement has largely worked to protect or defend marriage, albeit during the early years, the approaches they used were reactively defensive and did not come across as being related to protecting marriage. A slogan I came up with in the mid-80's became the standard slogan of the MRM. "We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family" is perhaps the most accurate description of what the men's and father's rights movement is all about. I hope this clears up a lot of misunderstanding about the MRM for those who are obviously struggling with what this movement is all about. --davidrusher 07:18, 25 January 2007

[edit] Men's movement is now introduction to this

Paul foord 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul! The men's movement article is a very nice framing. How does the subject of this article men's rights differ from father's rights? Is this article a general discussion of the legal rights of men? The extension of human rights or civil rights to a wider category of men? The philosophical extension of those in democratic thought such as Thomas Paine's essay Rights of Man? Certainly the move away from men's rights being the family law rights of father's is a great improvement, but should this article be phased out and content moved more into the separate articles on masculism, father's rights, etcetera? Rorybowman 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

General men's movement intro stuff here should probably go to men's movement, material related to the 4 streams either to there or the specific article. This page should probably then be made a redirect to Fathers' rights but only after that article is pared down/broken up/sorted out. -- Paul foord 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I might be able to help out here.

How it actually works out there: Most men are not interesting in men's or fathers rights until they are hit with divorce or paternity fraud/rape. Then they are extremely interested in it. Not all men are fathers, and therefore those men are not interested in father's rights. Sll fathers are interested in men's rights after being hit with divorce or paternity/rape. However, father's tend to think of their interests as being "father's rights", not "men's rights". So, these issues are muddled in the minds of many men out there.

However, for the purposes of pure classification, we can say that father's rights is technically a subset of men's rights. All fathers are men, but not all men are fathers.

To prevent duplicity in these two categories, I suggest keeping the fathers rights section limited to issues of child custody (divorce|illegitimacy|procreational rights|child abuse), move all sections not directly related to "father's rights" into the men's rights category, and refer these topics into the appropriate men's rights topics. --Davidrusher 02:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal - from Fathers' rights

This is a better article, and Fathers' rights are intrinsic to men's rights. During merge a number of the extended discussipons in the Father's rights article should be moved, for example, the extended discussion on UK law to Fathers' rights movement in the UK where it is appropriate. -- Paul foord 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Against: These issues are not general MEN's issues, but specific FATHER issues. Whether masculist or merely a matter of family law, these men are working on behalf of biological fathers, not of men generally. This is trebly the case in issues of custody and abortion. To conflate the limited interests of fathers with the general issue of men is confusing, and arguably deceptive. While a rhetorical coup for its proponents (just ask any anti-feminist woman about "women's rights") I think it is imprecise. Fathers' rights is the more precise term and should be retained as more specific. Rorybowman 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge: Men's rights is civil law. Father's rights is family law. — Dzonatas 01:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not all men are father's. Men's rights and father's rights are separate issues. Perhaps provide a link from one article to the other as the issues are arguable related, but do not merge.

Removed' merge recommendation as concluded in discussion. -- Paul foord 12:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree these sections should not be merged. --Davidrusher 02:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts 2006-01-23 Discussion

I just reverted a few deletions of criticisms and references made by two Ohio IP addresses (which I had mistakenly read as a single IP at the time of revert). My rationale is that this set of edits effectively removed criticisms of the movement and references to alternative views of the movement, which seem to merit discussion. The usual custom on this article has been increase the range of views rather than cut them, which seems more in accordance with an NPOV survey of the subject. - Rorybowman 15:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better than

There was a part of this article, that out of the blue said "The man is better than the woman. Always!" just like that. I deleted that section. It had no place at then end of the topic and was clearly put there by some feemenist that wanted to make fun the the topic. Men's studies are a valid topic, men's rights are too. 16:51, 27 March 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.209.35.250 (talk • contribs).

Or perhaps somebody who actually thinks that men are better than women? 14:29, 2 April 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.56.20 (talk • contribs).

Better in what? I like the "Sledgehammer-Teacup" dichotomy. Men ARE better than women in certain fields, just as women ARE better than men in certain fields(on average, of course...). Robinson0120 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-feminist men

Men who support feminism are generally not advocates of men's rights and should not be referred to in this article as being members of the men's rights movement. They support feminism, clearly not the men's rights movement. NiceguyC 13.47, 16 April 2006 (GMT)

May I just point out that both movements are not absolutely incompatible. It is possible to support, say, for example, equality for women, whilst also supporting equality for men as well. Dysprosia 13:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Equality for women equals equality for men. Either you support equality of the sexes or you don't. "Equality for men" as distinct from "equality for women" makes no sense. Most if not all men's rights advocates support equality; in contrast, the "pro-feminist men's movement," as distinct from simply the many men who support feminism, focuses on blaming men for subjugating women and ridiculing men for claiming that any discrimination against men exists. As such, it is not part of the men's rights movement; quite the opposite, it is a force against the men's rights movement. It should definitely not be listed as part of it, and in fact as it stands the article contradicts itself by pointing out the criticisms this group of so-called "pro-feminist men" have of the men's rights movement. Blackworm 12:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

---

There are many pro-feminist men in the men's rights movement. However, they do not represent the men's movement any more than someone who only opposes lynching is a civil rights advocate.

Most men alive today were raised steeped in feminism. They have no interest in men's or father's rights. When they are hit with a divorce, or a paternity suit by some woman who said she was on the pill, they get very interested in men's rights. But it takes them a long time to extricate themselves from feminist beliefs burned into their heads. I call these guys "recovering feminists". There are also many women who fit this description as well (most of them are second wives). There are also a good number of feminist men who troll the men's movement in an attempt to neuter it politically. These are usually men who in some way earn a living within the divorce industry. These guys are usually easy to spot because they lobby for perspectives that are obviously antithetical to equal rights, or they sound like they want equal rights but always end up blaming everything on men.

My opinion on compatibility: feminism (which includes feminist men) and men's rights are incompatible at the root level. While there are a couple of relatively small strains of feminism, such as egalitarian (equalitarian) feminism that advocate for true bi-directional equality, feminism at the root level is not equalitarian. If you look at what N.O.W. advocates, or the perspectives seen in wiki feminism section, there is literally nothing that is male-inclusive. Most everything is "vagina centered" and calls for social structures that operate exclusively of men. Yet, equalitarian feminists continue to battle over a word that is inequalitarian on its face, perhaps in the belief they can displace the entitled feminists that actually run the feminist movement.

If anything, equalitarian and "backlash" feminism are misnomers. By definition, feminism connotes "female centric" perspectives. So, "backlash" or "equalitarian" feminists are not actually feminists -- they are individuals who advocate for rebalancing men's and women's rights. It is interesting that, in contrast, the men's rights movement calls for equal rights, not inegalitarian "male centric" policies. By and large, the Men's movement and "equalitarian feminists" are upon full analysis, the legitimate marriage movement: men's advocates oppose irresponsible divorce and strengthening of the marriage contract.

In the larger sense: forty years of entitled feminism moved the pendulum well outside all reasonable boundaries of equality, particularly with respect to marriage and civil rights law. The men's rights movement is the "other shoe" coming down -- a movement working to pull the pendulum back where it should have been all along.

I hope this gives a better understanding to a situation that is extremely messy.

--Davidrusher 03:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say it like this but your opinion does not matter. Your statement is neither neutral nor is it verifiable. Wikipedia Talk pages are not for original research or personal perspectives.--Cailil 19:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

True, Cailil, but since Usher is a major proponent of the men's rights movement, he could simply add some material to the article and then source himself... Robinson0120 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I refer you to WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:POVPUSH. No matter how expert any one of us is we cannot just cite ourselves such work must be verifiabile and must not be seen as a violation of the No Orginal research policy. Being a proponent of men's rights does not neccessarily mean his work conforms to Wikipedia standards. The above point of view is contestable and, in its present form, unverifiable (specifiaclly: By and large, the Men's movement and "equalitarian feminists" are upon full analysis, the legitimate marriage movement: men's advocates oppose irresponsible divorce and strengthening of the marriage contract.). Please bear in mind that talk pages are subject to the same rules as articles.--Cailil 15:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

---

All: My statements are NPOV with respect to MRM. That is the only standard that can be applied. Additional background provided to provide a better understanding of what the MRM is, what it is not, and how the feminist diaspora works to bury the MRM movement or pretend that male perspectives on social issues are somehow invalid.

The MRM is not a large movement with a large body of published writers from which to draw from. There are only a handful of universities that even have a mens' studies course. Go to your local library and try to find more than 3 books by legitimate MRM writers in it. Therefore, there will not be a lot of individuals either interested in, or qualified to describe the MRM.

For those who might think the MRM section has sections that are undercited, unverified, or perhaps written from an NPOV perspective, I suggest that the MRM section cannot be held to a higher standard that the many paragraphs of uncited drivel in wikipedia::feminism. For example, the following Wiki section contains a huge collection of very broad statements and observations that are not cited. In fact, there are only 2 cites for the whole section. (Please note that below feminists who believe in "equality between men and women" are but one aspect of "feminism", whereas the MRM is entirely devoted to equality):

(quote)

Feminism in many forms

Some feminist theories question basic assumptions about gender, gender difference and sexuality, including the category of "woman" itself as a holistic concept, and some question the male/female dichotomy, offering instead a multiplicity of genders. Still other feminist theories take for granted the concept of "woman" and provide specific analyses and critiques of gender inequality, and most feminist social movements promote women's rights, interests and issues. Several subtypes of feminist ideology have developed over the years. Early feminists and primary feminist movements are often called the first-wave feminists, and feminists after about 1960 the second-wave feminists. More recently, some younger feminists have identified themselves as third-wave feminists while the second-wave feminists are still active.

In her book A Fearful Freedom: Women's Flight from Equality, Wendy Kaminer identifies another conflict between forms of feminism: the conflict between what she calls "egalitarian" and "protectionist" feminism. She sees egalitarian feminism as promoting equality between women and men through the granting of equal rights. Protectionist feminists prefer to focus on legal protections for women, such as employment laws and divorce laws that protect women, sometimes advocating restricting men's rights, such as free speech (specifically, the right to produce and consume pornography). Though the book predates third-wave feminism, Kaminer identifies both protectionist and egalitarian currents within first-wave feminism and second-wave feminism.

Some radical feminists, such as Mary Daly, Charlotte Bunch and Marilyn Frye, have advocated separatism—a complete separation of male and female in society and culture— others question not only the relationship between men and women, but the very meaning of "man" and "woman" as well (see Queer theory). Some argue that gender roles, gender identity and sexuality are themselves social constructs (see also heteronormativity). For these feminists, feminism is a primary means to human liberation (i.e., the liberation of men as well as women).

Most— certainly not all— feminists are women. There are exclusively male organizations sympathetic to the feminist view who believe the dominant model of manhood or masculinity is oppressive to women and limiting for men.[17]

While many ideas are held in common between its various forms, there is debate about feminism concerning which of them should be labelled or considered part of the philosophy."

(end quote)

If any editor feels the MRM section should be held to a higher standard that the section on feminism, and every word documented to the nth degree, perhaps that editor is serving the interests of feminists in keeping the MRM section devoid of shape or definition? I would note to the editors that if feminists are permitted to interfere with this section, this will certainly become an issue for the MRM to take on, because Wikipedia should not allow feminists to force their POV on the MRM. -- davidrusher 08:58, 25 January 2007

[edit] No, Ma'am

What about the group "No Ma'am" from the American television show Married With Children? VarunRajendran 04:39, 30 April 2006

Please don't make light of a serious subject in attempting to ignore or dismiss its validity by ridiculing or deriding it. Anyway, that so-called men's group on that particular sitcom is not at all the same as the groups/movement being discussed in this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.100.126 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 29 December 2006.

[edit] Blatent and disingenious POV vandalism

FAr too much of this (especially the violence section) is introduced by "critics say..." far roo much ids contested, unreferanced, and projective.

Before I go in slashing, and perhaps many of the "(for example-long drawn out unsubstantiated referance)" might be footnoted and cited. The vandalism and intelectual dishonesty is clear to me.

At this point I can only pray that the offenders subscribe to "watch this site" and will repair this, before the validity challanges start slapping up. I have no qualms about editing large chunks that clearly serve as projection and redefinition.

This chunk is a blatent illistration;

"Further they cite statistics suggesting that of reported assaults by a partner, men are more likely to call the police, press charges, and keep them than women (Schwartz, 1987; Rouse et.al; 1988; Kincaid; 1982). More still the National Institute of Justice Report on Intimate Violence states that: Men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant. These findings, combined with those presented in the previous bullet, provide further evidence that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates.

Further, critics accuse men's rights advocates of defending male abuse, often by alleging it is justified due to a perceived "unfairness" men face, and even rallying behind abusers. For example, a spokesman for The Men’s Confraternity, after a Perth man gassed to death his three children and himself in 1998 after his visitation was shortened by Family Court, voiced (perpetrator was) probably a decent, hard-working man who was pushed too far by the Family Court. Critics allege men's rights advocates attribute the violence they concede men do to outside forces and then pre-emptively accuse women who allege abuse by men of lying and scheming. Critics also claim, in regards to abuse women and children allege against men, alarmist exaggeration of false accusations by men's rights advocates and voice they then do not apply the same standards to the numbers of male (by female) victims men's rights activists claim exist. Critics contend that this attitude also does existing male victims of domestic abuse a disservice.

I did correct some spelling typos and weasle insinuations.--CaptDMO 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)CaptDMO

The problem is the entire article needs clean-up, citations, and context. Look at this-

From employment:

“They also assert sexual harassment policies are de facto directed against the male style of inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace, while ignoring the female style of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace (eg: wearing sexually revealing clothing, offering sexual favours in exchange for promotion or raises, etc.).”

Alright who in particular, where are the complaints and do all the complaints fairly represent what all MRAs feel?

“They express anger towards the fact that a man telling a joke or simply referring to a co-worker by a nickname is grounds for dismissal and/or lawsuits.”

Who in the MRM and what are the examples they cite? I get that it is worded as “assert”, but then you can’t expect the criticisms section to be of such higher standard.

About Sexual harassment polices being directed at men. Things like this are repeated big time amongs a lot of the MRM blogs and sites. Indeed it made it big time in Thomas Ellis book "Rantings of a single male" Rhythmic01 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

“Advocates frequently cite statistical evidence to support their claims of discrimination against men.”

What particular MRAs?

The most frequently cited statistics are:

Then there are bullet-points of what the cited statistics are for, yet no actual statistics/sources or who actually provided them or conducted the studies.

I have them for two. I can add them into the main article.

• in recent years, girls have tended to perform better at all educational levels

http://165.224.221.98/programs/quarterly/vol_2/2_2/q6-1.asp

• Suicide rates are dramatically higher for men and boys of all age groups.

http://health.utah.gov/opha/publications/hsu/9903suicide.pdf

Rhythmic01 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated but shouldn't we verify if that is considered original research? NeoApsara 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by original reseach? Rhythmic01 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Incarceration-

“Though America is home to less than 5% of the world’s population (est. 298 million of 6.5 billion people), America incarcerates almost 40% of the world’s inmate population (about 2.1 million v. 5.5 million prisoners). Therefore, America imprisons over 800% more men than the world imprisons men. About 95% of prisoners are men.”

This is really just a statement that fits in some incarceration in the United States section? What are they trying to say? That too many men are in jail and we need to let them go? That we should put more women in jail to even it out and be fair? Shouldn’t there be a citation or link actually explaining the context or contention that is held with this?NeoApsara 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this one here however, I don't understand what the above has to do with mens rights. It really should be either redone to make the point and context clear or just be taken off the page completly.

For now, I'll take it off because I just don't know what to do with it. It will remain here on the talk page were somebody to better contextualize it though. NeoApsara 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

--Davidrusher 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the critics section is a mess. Feminists typically cite things in ways that are convenient to their perspective: claiming that men's advocates are "alarmist" does not represent the facts of the issue. The few documented studies on false domestic abuse allegations document the fact that at least 40% of them are false. So, men's advocates are not being alarmist. If one wants to talk about alarmism, the U.N. Secretary General's report on Violence Against Women was unanimously rejected by the Third Committee after an article I wrote proved that their central claim that "70% of women in India are beaten or raped" was pure fiction. You can see relevant articles on this at: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/12/domestic-violence-rumor-mill-runs-the-united-nations/ http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/19/feminist-takeover-of-the-un-is-an-issue-of-national-security/ http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20061204.php

The biggest problem we will face maintaining a men's rights section is to keep it on topic, and not a reflections of what the army of women's studies advocates wants it to look like.

[edit] Notice of reversion coming up

This article has had a large number of edits by one person in the past 3 days. Essentially, the effect has been to push an advertisement in the middle of the page, and to do some really odd formatting. I'm reverting those changes, back to the version by Yakuman on 3 September 2006. -- ArglebargleIV 03:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this artical being overhauled by a feminist.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on wikipedia!!! Someone should look into this!!! Mjal 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no restriction that you have to subscribe to a certain point of view just to edit an article -- that would be ridiculous. Getting editors with different points of views helps to attain NPOV, not detract from it. Dysprosia 10:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be some restrictions as to who can edit what, or some way to authenticate the POV of the editor. Allowing feminists (who do not have an NPOV) to edit the core of the men's rights section would be tantamount to allowing the KKK to edit the core of wiki holocaust section. We should not permit historical revisionists to redefine history or reality: however, their POV should be permitted in the critics section. --Davidrusher 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Restricting which editors are allowed to edit a given article, based on "authenticating the POV of the editor" (whatever that means) or some other criteria, is a not an existing policy. Please do not make proposals for new policies on article talk pages: see Wikipedia:How to create policy, and post at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- John Broughton ^☎☎ 02:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Men's rights are still in the Dark Ages

The article illustrates the illogical garbage passing for "criticism" of Men's Rights:

In defense of women (all emphasis mine):

"In the majority of these cases [of women physically assaulting men], the women act in response to physical or psychological provocations or threats."

But not a defense for men (again, emphasis mine):

"Further, critics accuse men's rights advocates of defending male abuse, [...], and even rallying behind abusers. [...] Critics allege men's rights advocates attribute the violence they concede men do to outside forces [...]"

Outside forces, like psychological provocations?

The fact is that the double-standard is so ingrained in our society that the average person wouldn't even see the contradiction and the hypocrisy. I recommend adding a rebuttal after these two paragraphs that points out this very contradiction. Blackworm 12:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The first is a quote from a creator of the CTS spoken in context of intimate partner violence, which nobody here is responsible for outside of the extent of retrieving the quote for it's relevence to the article. The second is a characterization of a group's POV from a Wiki editor. Hardly a reflection of "society", "hypocrisy", or in context a "contradition" as it was written by an individual and somebody who didn't even speak the first quote. But, since it is uncited, I'm deleting it.NeoApsara 20:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you should leave it in, as it describes precisely the kinds of criticisms levelled at the men's movement. It should just be pointed out that critics of the men's rights movement fall trap to the very double-standard the men's movement tries to expose. Yes, the same people do excuse or minimize abuse perpetrated by females (the first quote) by claiming things like "psychological provocations" while refusing to accept such an explanation in the case of male-perpetrated violence. Some of the websites linked to from the article do exactly that. Furthermore, the critics as well as the author of the CTS quoted freely admit that such "psychological provocations" were not a part of the CTS study, and so their assertions on the subject are pure conjecture and non-expert personal opinion, and should be labelled as such. In any case, this page has clearly been hijacked by anti-men's rights people, likely female feminists, as others on this talk page allege. Blackworm 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

True Mjal 03:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing policy / conflict of interest / clarification requested Men's rights

All, I am a wiki newbie, so please forgive me if my skills are not great. I am an internet automation person for a major ISP, but this is all new to me.

I added myself as a co-founder of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, and this was redacted as a conflict of interest. Since my relationship with ACFC as a co-founder and national secretary for the first five years of its existence is a historical fact, I do not see how this is somehow a conflict of interest. During this time period, I organized the three largest protests in the history of the men's movement. I do not see anything in the spam or conflict of interest definitions that would lead to this conclusion.

I have uploaded a photo taken at the ACFC founding held at the National Press Club. I am on the far left: http://www.dadsnow.org//images/acfc-founding-pressclub.jpg

My photo is in all my articles. Compare my photo there to the press club photo and you will see I am, in fact, a co-founder of ACFC. http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/19/feminist-takeover-of-the-un-is-an-issue-of-national-security/

Therefore, I request that the redaction from the history section be reversed. I also request my blog link as a major writer be restored. You can ask anybody in the movement who is moving mountains, and most all will mention my work.

Please note: the men's movement is not large, like that of feminism. There are not many movers and shakers. And, unlike feminism, there is not a huge cadre of college-level activists who would nominate others on wikipedia. --Davidrusher 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I restored the blog link, but I don't understand what you mean by "redaction from the history section..." Hope you learn a lot/add a lot to Wikipedia! Robinson0120 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr Usher the reason links to your blog were original delted are probably explained here Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, the policy goes: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Perhaps an RfC would be appropriate in regard to this?--Cailil 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] statement characterizing feminism

>The majority of the feminist movement holds that heterosexual marriage is unimportant and easily substituted by divorce, welfare, child support, and other artificial supports.

This statement is extremely subjective opinion -not far from slander- unprovable, and is entirely inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Commonly known as "putting words in other people's mouth's", it is watering down the credibility of the whole page on which it appears. Jvol 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and as pointed out by others above this article is of poor encyclopedic quality. There is too much POV and opinion here. If this article does not conform to Wikipedia standards its accuracy will have to be disputed.--Cailil 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same sex marriage - Dubious tags

[edit] Initial comment

As it stands the section on same sex marriage looks like original research. I'm concerned that it reads like an essay and its content is disputable. Are there any sources for this information? I've given this section some time and more thought {{I'm totally disputing it}} on grounds of WP:POVPUSH, WP:SYNT, WP:V, and WP:NONSENSE. It's not accurate in any way shape or form it presents an Editor's POV not 1 verifiable source and reads like a blog/essay. I've deleted the following for WP:NONSENSE, WP:NPOV and WP:V: "Feminist strategists realized it would place women in the position to control all aspects of reproduction, life, politics, and marriage." - if you want this reintroduced without reliable, independent refernece please RfC this article as I consider this to be a piece of particularly irresponsible writing for wikipedia--Cailil 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy response

Proof:

The discussion in the SSM topic describes the actual effect that SSM would have on heterosexual men with respect to marriage: Female-female and children would be legitimate families supported by government, and men would be forced to fund it without having any rights whatsoever. This is the (obvious) effect of permitting same sex marriages or civil unions (the only difference between the two is whether or not a church blessed it and what you prefer to call it). SSM gives women the right to opt-out of heterosexual marriage, keep their incomes, get two or more additional child support incomes, backed up by various government subsidies. The economic advantages of women marrying each other are intuitively obvious. There is no question here that this is the case.

I first broke this issue in 2002, and ended up being called by various leading conservatives (such as Family Research Council -- Peter Sprigg and Bridget Maher) to advise them on this issue. It seems none of these people had figured out the secular meaning of SSM: they were approaching it purely from an religious/historical perspective. I ended up advising the ADF and CCF, who are fighting gay marriage, and since that time they have not lost a case. It seems that once courts see how SSM creates a very unequal landscape vis-a-vis the vast majority of heterosexual men, they reject SSM on equal protections basis alone.

It is a fact that the legitimate men's movement largely opposes SSM. There are some who don't realize the importance of SSM as a MRM issue. The only men who support SSM in my experience are feminist men, who are not legitimate participants in the MRM (Note: a feminist male cannot be seen as a legitimate member of the MRM. The MRM opposes the majority of modern feminist political objectives. Suggesting that a feminist man is somehow part of the MRM is like suggesting that one could work for an abortion center and be a pro-life activist at the same time.)

Since I first broke this issue, others both in and out of the movement have said pretty much the same things, and in particular, pointed out that protecting heterosexual marriage is strongly connected to protecting "fatherhood" and the natural right of men to participate in marriage and the rearing of their children.

see: http://www.newswithviews.com/Baskerville/stephen1.htm http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2004/usher022404.htm http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david36.htm http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dusher110705.htm http://glennsacks.com/blog/index.php?tag=gay-marriage

As to the overview about feminists adopting this approach, this is something that took place over many years, and is not related in any one feminist work. The single most powerful feminist quote the points to this realization is a featured quote by Sheila Cronan in the National NOW Times in January, 1988: "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." Feminists are very good at spinning things and hiding their political goals. If you read between the lines, they are telling all normal women that they must "identify themselves" as being lesbians, even if they are not, and that they must support the feminist lesbian political goal of SSM, or they cannot even identify themselves as being a part of the feminist movement.

Now, clear your head of what has been programmed into it during your years of upbringing in a feminist society, and read this N.O.W. statement on lesbian marriage, from a Men's Rights NPOV, and tell me that NOW is not out to destroy fatherhood and the rights of men. Please note here that N.O.W. focuses on "lesbian rights", and GLBT is brought in as a secondary issue. http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/marr-rep.html

Now, I am not suggesting that Wikipedia::Men's Rights::Same Sex Marriage should be defined by myself alone. Since there are so few real writers and thinkers in the Men's movement, and where myself, Steve Baskerville, and Glenn Sacks hold the same view, this position must be accepted as being the valid position of the MRM unless some other legitimate leader of the men's movement suggests this section is somehow incorrect. Certainly, what I added is not in conflict with Baskerville or Sacks. Farrell has not weighed in on SSM (and he won't because he is not interested in the issue).

I can understand why some Wiki Editors might have difficulty coming to grips with this. Gender issues is a very tricky field, and most of us were brought up to "think feminist". It will take time for the Editors to see that the MRM is small but very real, and right on the money, after you take the time to understand the wisdom and understanding that has taken the leaders of this movement many years to come to grips with.

I request that all dubious tags be removed. There is nothing dubious about what is in the SSM section. You may cite the articles listed above if you wish to add them (however, since I have written some of these articles, I feel uncomfortable about doing the cites).

--davidrusher

[edit] Reply (two parts)

Mr Usher the men's movement is wider than the USA and also wider than your POV - I will remind you that it is your opinion that the men's movement is (philosophically) opposed to the women's movement - your statement that pro-feminists cannot be legitimate participants in the men's movement is not necessarily fact. I'm not entering a debate on that or any of the topics you raised for this reason: unless information can be cited and/or referenced from multiple reliable and notable published sources it is not encyclopedic I refer you to WP:RS. I cannot cite the above sources with good Wiki Concience because I believe they contravene Wikipedia Guidelines on Using online sources; as they are partisan they are not secondary sources - just primary ones. WP:V is about notable, objective, peer-reviewed sources.

I am sympathetic to your position because, as you correctly pointed out, there are not many MRM writers - however, I would point out to you that you're restricting your selection to North America which is bad for the article. I would propose a compromise; that a section summarizing MRM in America be created for the views shared by yourself, Glenn Sacks & Steve Baskerville. However, I completely dispute the comments on Same Sex Marriage therefore I recommend you RfC this article for outside encyclopedic opinion on that material's re-inclusion (I would abide by an RfC's consensus opinion, which ever way it went). I apologize if you found my dubious tags aggressive but unless you reference a statement on wikipedia someone will eventually question it--Cailil 20:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW in your above comment you use Feminism#Feminism_in_many_forms: this IS an example of bad writing (the final 3 paragraphs are WP:SYNT and POV) - thank you for pointing it out to me--Cailil 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further response

I insist the section on SSM be restored. The deletion of this entire section is a clear cut case of feminist censorship and a violation of wiki standards. Cailil is citing the SSM section as being "nonsense", which is precisely the attitude of feminists towards MRM perspectives on social issues. Where SSM is such a major contemporary social issue, and where my analysis (which is the most advanced and widely accepted in the MRM)is so obviously sensible in terms of direct impact to normal men, I suggest that Cailil is acting as a feminist censor.

By Cailil's standards, the majority of the feminist excerpt from Wiki cited in this discussion is nonsense, and should have been deleted. Much of feminism is attitude and spin reshaping the world to meet feminist agitprop. Where Wiki so gladly repeats their nonsense without challenging it, I suggest that Wiki is not in a position to censor any well-founded analysis that defines the position of the legitimate MRM on SSM (or any other issue, for that matter).

Cailil cites no reason for believing the section on SSM is not accurate. Unless he can cite one legitimate MRM who says otherwise, and where I am considered the leading person on this issue in the MRM, Cailil is on very weak grounds to simply wipe the whole section out. I have cited 2 MRMs who oppose SSM (their reasons for opposing it are not as deeply analytical as my analysis of the structural change SSM would inflict on the vast majority of normal men). I do not know any gay men who are active participants in the MRM (there are plenty of gay men who are involved in the gay rights movement -- which as I have already proved, is not connected to the legitimate MRM in any way). Cailil removed this section without citing one valid reason for doing so. This is an infliction of either his POV, his feminist bias, his immature understanding of MRM, or a combination of all three.

MRM World View on SSM: Cailil claims this section is invalid because I did not cite any international MRMs in supporting the position. While I only cited things by U.S. authors, it is quite clear that what I added is, in fact, the world view of MRMs in other countries (none of whom support SSM, some who take no position, while all MRMs who take positions on SSM do oppose it heartily.

On Pro-feminist men: Cailil claims it is "my view" that feminist men are not part of the legitimate MRM. My posting was, in fact, a correct statement. Feminist men do NOT take part in MRM, but rather, they heavily criticize it (if they do anything at all). If Cailil can cite one feminist male who is a major mover and shaker in the men's movement, then I will rest my case. If pro-feminist men want to place their comments in the critics section, they are more than welcome to.

I WILL NOT permit feminists to censor or otherwise emasculate the men's movement into being what feminists want it to be. I am reverting this section to restore it as before. If Cailil wants to have this section modified or deleted, then he should escalate this for review.

In the meantime, since it is obvious that we have at least one feminist (Cailil) who is misusing Wiki standards to force a feminist world perspective on the MRM, and where he is attempting to prevent a real definition of the movement on Wiki by attempting to "single me out" and somehow being unqualified to present a credible overview of the movement, I will do an article about this over the weekend, and publish it on at least a dozen major websites. I will invite all major MRM's to fix the wikipedia MRM page. Apparently at least one of the folks editing this section need an education from MRM's. This is our section, and no feminists will be allowed to mess it up. I request that Cailil's editing privileges be revoked. He has proven himself to be a feminist censor, not a balanced editor. --davidrusher

[edit] Replies

Hi David, You might want to look at this piece of Wikipedia policy "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." It is up to you to provide the kind of reliable sources that are accepted on WP if you want the paragraphs included. John, below and on your talk page, makes other good points that it would be good to abide by when you edit on Wikipedia. You don't own this article, for example, and rude remarks and personal attacks are never acceptable, since we are always to assume good faith with each other. I have found WP a fascinating forum for learning about how to resolve conflicts and disagreements peaceably. I hope that you will be able to join in the community effort to build a encyclopedia in a collaborative and respectful fashion. Slp1 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Usher I did not delete the same sex marriage section - please check the history. I will refer you to the no personal attacks policies. I am going to take your advice and RfC this article and talk page. I see nothing incredible about what I have said and nothing unresonable. I am not in the position of having to prove anything I have not added to the article - I am questioning uncited material and I stand over my decision to do so. I will not be engaging with you or this page until outside editors have looked at it and given their judgements by which I state once more I will abide.--Cailil 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to the RfC. The content as currently written has no sources and is contested. Those grounds alone are enough to have it removed. If you add sources to the disputed content, I'll reconsider my opinion on it.-75.179.159.240 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I was going to try to stay neutral on this, but I don't think I'm going to be able to do that. When what I consider to be a legitimate cause (in this case, the social disparities faced by men) have found themselves unfortunately represented by idiot hate-mongers such as this, I have to speak up.

This source states, "Same sex marriage is a feminist devise of the late 1970s intentionally designed to end structural economic problems faced by single-mothers and to finally make men irrelevant..Same sex marriage is unconstitutional where women's choice would create two distinct classes of 'marriage', based on sex, one chattel to the other." This is effectively arguing that heterosexual marriage depends on preventing women from having economic alternatives. Wow. Personally, I prefer to promote marriage based on love, mutual respect, and willful commitment. Having argued that heterosexual marriage is maintained through economic servitude, the article goes on to say that same sex marriage should not be permitted - basically arguing that marriage is not only grounded on economic servitude, but that the only question up for debate is who will be in servitude to whom. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this article was a mockery and attack against the Men's Rights movement itself characterizing men as purely shallow and Machiavellian. In that such a hate-filled rag claims to defend issues that I support (again, speaking of addressing social disparities men experience), I find it deeply offensive. This does not represent me. I can't remain neutral and dispassionate about this kind of excrement. As such, I think I'm ethically obligated to retract my comments on this RfC.-75.179.159.240 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to the RfC, and it appears clear to me that Cailil's analysis and actions have been overwhelmingly correct while davidrusher is pushing a POV. In the context of men's rights, consider also the possible claim that if a woman has the right to marry a man, so should a man have the equal right to marry a man. Either way, I do not believe SSM is sufficiently relevant to topic so should not be included in this article. If it is in the future, I believe that editors would find far more sources showing that equal marriage rights for same-sex couples would be more often viewed as a positive right for men's rights advocates. It makes no sense that it would augment men's rights to disallow same-sex couples from marrying legally. Ryvr 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same Sex Marriage - either source the section or it stays out

I have reviewed the deleted section (deleted by this edit). Unless the section is completely rewritten to include sources, it should stay removed. As if was, it read like a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

By "include sources", I don't mean listing them on this talk page, or having them in the external links or references section -- I mean using WP:FOOT to provide a cite to support each and every sentence. Yes, that could be a lot of work. This is a controversial subject; if we can't add valid, supported statements to the article, it's better to leave information out all together.

And by "include sources", I means sources that meet WP:RS criteria. Such criteria is significantly stronger than that for external links (see WP:EL). A link to a prominent men's support group website may well be acceptable in the EL section but still is totally unacceptable to support a sentence in the article, because the website is self-published information.

As an example, here is my evaluation of the five sources sited in the section above:

• http://www.newswithviews.com/Baskerville/stephen1.htm - self-published
• http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2004/usher022404.htm - blog
• http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david36.htm - self-published
• http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dusher110705.htm - opinion piece
• http://glennsacks.com/blog/index.php?tag=gay-marriage - blog

I also want to be perfectly clear that an "expert" is a person who has published repeatedly in academic, peer-reviewed publications. A sourced statement by an expert can generally be added to an article without qualification if the statement is in the expert's field of authority, regardless of the source. On the other hand, a "prominent critic" or "prominent commentator" or "activist", on the other hand, is certainly worth quoting on a particular line of argument ("X says that the trend in parent custody cases is Y"), but cannot legitimately be quoted as the source of a fact ("The trend in parent custody cases is Y"). So the above five sources could be used in a "Critics say" sentence, but not to establish neutral facts. (And to anticipate the ridiculous: a section consisting solely of "activists say" and "critics say" and "one prominent commentator says" sentences is NOT acceptable; Wikipedia is not a soapbox to air individual views, even if those views are well-sourced.) If there is nothing in a national newspaper or national magazine or an academic publication about the relationship of same-sex marriage and men's rights, then the section stays out of the article.

If you want to see what a fully-source-supported article looks like, please see Jimmy Wales or Citizendium. -- John Broughton ^☎☎ 01:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A section on same-sex marriage has been reintroduced, including a few referenced statements. However, this version continues to have many of the same flaws as its predecessor in that statements of "fact" are made without citation or sourcing. It appears to be Original Research. The referenced statements from feminists seem to fall into the area of using a synthesis of published material in order to advance a position which is also not allowed in a Wikipedia article. I am not going to delete the section at present, to give the editor who introduced it a chance to find Wikipedia-acceptable reliable sources as discussed by John above. But this needs to happen very quickly, as I believe editors are encouraged to be quick with the delete key when it comes to removing material that does not follow WP policy. It should also be noted that there is a desperate dearth of citations for the whole of this article, not just this section. Slp1 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged for needing to be Globalized

I would like to point out one further problem with this page - its information and view point is not global. It does not mention any of the Men's rights issues or facts from Europe (particularly the Uk & Ireland). Notably the singer Sir Bob Geldof is a very prominent men's activist on this side of the Atlantic, although he does not conform exactly to the men's rights paradigm set-out, here he is for the gender reform of divorce laws (to make parenting gender neutral). He would not be part of Davidrusher's "legitimate marriage" type of men's rights activist but he warrants inclusion as do men's rights activists from every other political and geographical position. The page also needs to present verifiable information of Men's rights in Asia and Africa. Until such time as this happens I'm tagging the whole article with{{Globalize}}--Cailil 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three quotes in "Same Sex Marriage" section

So the three quotes in the Same Sex Marriage section show that those women, and one could argue feminists as a whole, are against marriage. Does that equate to being for same sex marriage? Or does it equate to using the SSM debate to destroy marriage? Seems like an opinion to me - do we have any references to support either of those? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguing 'feminists as a whole' is silly unless you can prove that. There are extremist man-hating feminists, just as there are extremist women-hating men's rights activists. Concentrate on the sane majority instead. They very often work for the same things, but are stirred up by the extremists grinding their sexist axes. If you present the extremists as majority, you are helping them Bards 13:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments on returning

Mr Usher I am returning to this article a little time and some reflection. First I apologize if you feel I have singled you out - it was not my intention to do so, I do not dispute your position in the American Men's Movement or the good faith in which you posted the disputed material. I'm sorry you feel that I am censoring you but I have in fact only deleted one line, an act that I stand over. It is not my wish or that of any of the other editors here, to make you feel unwelcome or under fire. John Broughton has expressed clearly why editors have questioned the notability of the disputed posts - I stand by his remarks and my earlier position. None of us have any personal motivations for questioning the post(s) in question. Nobody is excluded from editing any Wikipedia article as long as their posts are verifiable and reliable but most of all consensus. Your editing work would be valuable in feminist articles as long as it WP:V and WP:RS. I must reiterate the point that I have not nor will I delete any long sections of this article without consensus approval - you have my word on that. For the record I am not the anonymous user IP 129.67.43.240 (I live, work and post from Ireland, this address is in Oxford University, England). BTW I could refer to Michael Kimmel, Ph.D. from NOMAS (The National Organization For Men Against Sexism) as a pro-feminist man in the Men's Rights movement - he is also a leading Men's studies scholar.--Cailil 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

It appears that Davidrusher has chosen to issue a call for meatpuppets to come and edit this article. I've reverted several such edits and will continue to do so without prejudice to their content. "Recruiting" people from outside the community to come and edit an article to support a specific POV is a clear policy violation and will not be tolerated. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Regarding My Call to the Men's Movement

I stated above that I would have to call for men's rights leaders to help fix this section (since one or two editors have displayed tremendous feminist POV bias). WP:SOCK|meatpuppets does not appear in WP search, but it sure sounds derogatory, and since it does not exist, I cannot respond to it. Some editors have been attempting to portray me as the only person who holds these views, and that my views are somehow invalid because I am not a University Professor for a Womens Studies program. When editors play the game of attempting to isolate me, I have no choice but to call for leaders of the movement to come fix the Wiki definition of their movement (which is so thin and biased as to be a complete misrepresentation of this movement). The SSM section is but a small part of the problems of Wiki::Men's Rights.

<legal threat removed by Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn>

I issued a responsible call to the movement, which you may read here: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/call-for-short-papers-from-men%e2%80%99s-rights-leaders-save-men%e2%80%99s-rights-in-wikipedia/

You will see that I was quite clear in limiting the call to "Leaders" of the MRM, and requested that others not cause an editing frenzy. My response is the entirely reasonable thing to do given the treatment I have recieved by two editors here.

Regarding mis-assessment of my citations:

• http://www.newswithviews.com/Baskerville/stephen1.htm - self-published NWV is an independent publication widely read by Conservatives. Baskerville has no involvment in the running or ownership of the publication
• http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2004/usher022404.htm - blog This was my first article on the subject. Similar articles with the same points are published at

Why Civil Unions Are Unconstitutional, Too (http://www.reaganwing.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&page_id=214) and Fathers Forced From Families Fuel Hyper-Feminist Family (http://members.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3503). The Reagan Wing is an independently run publication for Young Republicans. Human Events is a well known political publication.

• http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david36.htm - self-published NWV is an independent publication and BI have no involvment in the running or ownership of the publication'
• http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dusher110705.htm - opinion piece Even peer-reviewed articles are opinion. The Reality Check is an independent publication run by the New Media Alliance. I have no control or ownership in this publication.
• http://glennsacks.com/blog/index.php?tag=gay-marriage - blog Correct, this is a blog. Glenn Sacks is identified in Wikipedia::Men's Rights as a Significant writer. I do not offer this as a cite on Wikipedia, but to prove the point that I am not the only individual in the MRM who agrees with me on the SSM issue. In this regard the editor must recognize the meaning of the writing, as there is no question as to who wrote it.

WP::RS specifically permits what I entered, and I cite in detail:

• Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content. [I have been a well-known leader of the men's movement for nearly 20 years, and served for 5 years each on the executive boards of the National Congress for Fathers and Children, and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, both of which were/are the leading organizations at the time.]

• Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics. [ I am writing solely in my field of expertise].

• Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view. [I have no reason to be biased against the men's movement. My works are NPOV with respect to the MRM.]

• Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature). [All except one of the links I provided are external links to independent online publications over which I have no control or membership. These are major online publications.]

• Replicability—The conclusions of the source can be reached using the information available and there is no indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially, this criterion asks if there are any leaps of faith in the source. [The editor has alleged no thinking gaps in the analysis. The editor simply wishes to reject the section point-blank].

• Declaration of sources—A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method. [Studies and/or reports are not involved here and are not applicable].

• Corroboration—The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination. [Steve Baskerville operates fully independently, and publishes in peer-reviewed publications].

• Recognition by other reliable sources—A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. Sources which have been attacked, or have rarely or never been cited, may be more suspect. [My articles about gay marriage are all over the internet. There are only one or two attacks on them by well-known radical feminists, none of which factually refute the conclusions.]

• Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability. [SSM is a very new and fast-changing subject. There are no historical sources for this analysis, because the issue is so new with respect to the MRM. This section suggests that a lack of historical sources does not constitute a case for disclusion, however, it may be reasonable to caveat the section pending further research.]

Self-published sources

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. [only one of my cites comes from my blog. All the others are by completely independent news sources that publish my work].

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. [ Again, I am a about as professional as men's rights activists get. My works are published in Town Hall, Eagle Forum, Reality Check, Human Events, The American Conservative Union, and many other independent places.].

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is: [No doubts here]

• relevant to the self-publisher's notability; [I have worked directly with Family Research Council, the ADF, and the CCF. If you call Peter Sprigg at FRC he will verify this]
• not contentious; [nobody here contests the logic or analysis on factual grounds]
• not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; [I get no fame, glory, or monetary compensation for doing this]
• about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject; [The section is entirely on-topic]

The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all. [I am quoted in Time Magazine, been on many syndicated radio shows including Lars Larson, have been published in many recognized publications, and am on the Steering Committee of RADAR www.mediaradar.org . This Men's Rights Movement is comprised predominantly of activists, not academics who publish articles from Ivory Towers. As such, the Movement can truly only be commented on, and defined by, its own leaders. To suggest otherwise is to permit feminists sole authority to define what they want the Men's Movement to be. I would point out that my leading articles about the U.N. Secretary General Report on Violence Against Women caused the U.N. Third Committee to unanimously reject the report (http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david39.htm), and my articles about the PBS Special "Breaking the Silence", were instrumental in pressuring PBS to withdraw the documentary and fund the filming of a replacement on their own tab. See: http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/display.php?id=14 and http://www.mediaradar.org/BTS_articles_news.php. I make these points to prove that my analyses are factual, on target, and have been instrumental in changing inappropriate thinking by major media and international bodies, who are operating on invalid published studies and reports generated by feminist organizations.]

Types of source material

Main article: Wikipedia:No original research [The section on SSM is a plain-clothes, simple, methodical logical analysis of well-known primary and secondary sources in identifying the political goals of radical feminism, and the true reason why N.O.W. invested the majority of its resources to forcing SSM on America]

Three classes of sources exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia:

• A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. [I am a primary source because I have personally witnessed many events that I write about. I do not see a rule disallowing analyzing primary evidence of the state of affairs with regard to SSM. I cite other primary sources in this section -- esp feminist writers and N.O.W.]

• Secondary—The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources. [Even if you wish to classify either my work, the work of other MRM's, or the work of feminists as secondary sources, they are still equally valid].

WP::FOOT: I will add tags to this section using the above cites, however, I will not use the Sacks cite as this is a blog. I will do this in the next day or so.

Undue burdens placed on Men's Rights editors?

I again point to wiki::feminism. There are many paragraphs containing very broad statements that are completely uncited. Nothing in the feminism section is challenged, but the entire critics section is.

For example: section on feminist history is vastly inaccurate (My grandmother Florence Wyman Richardson (Usher) was a major player in the suffrage movement, and I have all her notes and clippings on my possession. My family is full of historians (I do not do it professionally). My grandfather, Roland G. Usher, wrote a standard work on the High Commission, and served as an advisor to Churchill during WWI, because he predicted WWI in his landmark book "Pan Germanism" (which is still published today). See: http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/PanGer/PanGerTC.htm. I am not my grandfather, but I do have his ability to research, write, and make conclusions that are quite accurate even in the face of conventional wisdom.

Quote:

Feminism as an organized movement appeared in the late 19th century in a number of countries, and agitation for votes for women became increasingly visible and vocal at the beginning of the twentieth century. After the granting of suffrage, women's movements turned to other issues of social reform and equality. The two world wars changed much of the world and with it the perception of women's work outside the home. After the Second World War, feminism entered a second stage or wave with campaigns for reproductive rights and removal of discrimination, and the United Nations created an office to represent women's rights. Since then feminism has continued to reinvent and redefine itself to adapt to a changing world and a diversity of cultures

The section above is nonsense, and not one editor has challenged it (despite its lack of cites). Historically, the word "feminism" first appeared in a French publication in 1898. At this time, it referenced "feminine qualities" and had no political meaning. It was not a word that was used by suffragettes (you will NOT find any old documents using that word). My grandmother did not even use that word around the house or ever think of herself as being a feminist up until the time of her death in 1977, according to my father. The word "feminism" did not become well known in the American lexicon until the late 1940s or early 1950s, and had no political meaning until then. Suffragettes wanted the right to vote, and nothing more. Yet, contemporary feminists pretend they invented the suffragette movement, and use that to imply that suffragettes were full-blown feminists and supporters of abortion (Sanger), which they were not.

As regards the editor's requirement "Wikipedia is not a soapbox to air individual views, even if those views are well-sourced.) If there is nothing in a national newspaper or national magazine or an academic publication about the relationship of same-sex marriage and men's rights, then the section stays out of the article":

The traditional media, which is largely controlled by feminists, does not publish articles by men's rights authors unless they are merely complaining about the demise of fatherhood. They refuse to publish any articles that work to achieve equal rights for men. In 1908, you wouldn't find anything published demanding equal voting or other rights for blacks. Yet my grandmother, who founded the Equal Suffrage Association in St. Louis (and is on a plaque in Jefferson City), resigned the ESA after the board refused to include black women in the suffragette movement. By the arbitrary standard this editor requests, black civil rights could never have defined their movement in wikipedia: it would have merely been a reflection of conventional wisdom of the day.

My analysis is not merely "my view": it is widely held by the legitimate men's movement, and is the primary reason why it strongly opposes SSM.

If Wiki editors are not going to challenge points of great historical import that are clearly exercised in feminist historical revisionism, and are not going to challenge any of the other many other false and/or feminist assertions in that section, wiki editors have no right to hold me or anyone else to an arbritrary standard as required "WP:FOOT to provide a cite to support each and every sentence" that backs up every last idea to a standard of articles published by peer-reviewed professionals.

Secondly, the men's movement, which has no federal funding, and does not have large numbers of government-sponsored activists working as professors in universities. There are not even one handful of "professionals" in this movement. To require such a standard is to intentionally abort the entire men's movement.

Validity of point regarding political reason why feminists launched the gay marriage initiative:

While this peer-reviewed article is focused on the replacement of marriage by government and feminist enterprises, Baskerville iterates the strong connection between heterosexual marriage, fatherhood, and subsequently the creation of equal civil rights for men.

From: The Real Danger of Same-Sex Marriage, By Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. The Family in America, vol. 20, nos. 5-6, May-June 2006 http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2005.6.htm?search=baskerville&opt=EXACT

In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that, politically speaking, the most important function of marriage is to create paternity. Other benefits are rightly claimed for marriage by its advocates. But in the end, the central one is this, to establish fatherhood.[19] Once this is understood, everything else about the current problems of marriage and the family falls into place. And once this is understood, the vitiating problem with same-sex marriage becomes clear. Marriage turns a man from a sperm donor into a parent and thus creates paternal authority, allowing a man to exercise the authority over children that otherwise would be exercised by the mother alone. Feminists understand this when they renounce marriage as an institution of “patriarchy.”[20] Among some conservatives, it has become almost a cliché that marriage exists foremost to civilize men and control their promiscuity.[21] If so, it performs this role as part of a larger function: to protect the father-child bond and with it the intact family. This point, potentially the strongest in their case, is overlooked by some traditionalists who argue that marriage undergirds civilization. For it is the presence of the father that creates both the intact family and, by the same measure, the civil institution itself. Thomas Hobbes attributed to married fatherhood a central role in the process of moving from the state of nature into civic life. In nature, Hobbes argued, “the dominion is in the mother”: Block quote ..... Once marriage becomes detached from procreation, therefore, the entire system of domestic and social stability that marriage exists to foster unravels.[27] Marriage then is no longer an autonomous and self-renewing institution, mediating the generational interface between public and private, and therefore limiting government power. Instead, it becomes merely a prize in the competition for power and one to be passed out by the very state it once served to control, a form of government patronage handed out to favored groups based on their relative power, like jobs or contracts. This is precisely what has now happened. It is the meaning of Josephson’s claim and that of gay groups that access to marriage constitutes a badge of “citizenship” and mark of “equality.” (Ironically but tellingly, as Josephson points out, “Feminist political and legal theorists have critiqued the institution of heterosexual marriage,” with its inclusion of fatherhood, “as harmful to women’s status as citizens.”)[28] With this kind of marriage, the family no longer even renews itself naturally — its unique advantage over the state, according to Chesterton — since it cannot produce children of its own, but must take them from others. .... Because it demonstrates irrefutable limits to gender interchangeability, the role of marriage in establishing paternity is a central feminist grievance and marriage itself a feminist target. “Kinship laws still establish married men’s paternity through marriage, not through their biological relationship with children,” observes Josephson, echoing Hobbes. “By this means, women are equated with nature and their relationship to children is biological, whereas men’s relationship to children is established politically through the law of marriage.” Josephson emphasizes that the “political” nature of paternity constitutes the central feminist objection to marriage: “While it is true that men who are not married are declared fathers through paternity procedures in child support laws, which may entail paternity tests, the marital relation is still retained in paternity law: the existence of a legal marriage contract trumps biological paternity. The marriage contract creates fathers as political beings; moreover, marriage still functions to control women’s sexuality for the purposes of ensuring a politically controlled genealogy.”[63] .... While Shell uses the gender-neutral “parents,” this function of marriage to protect the parent-child bond is far more important for fathers than for mothers. Margaret Mead once pointed out that the weakest link in the family chain is always the father; motherhood is an indisputable biological fact, whereas fatherhood is a social construct.[18] The social institution that creates fatherhood is marriage.

My analysis is about SSM is nothing exceptional or surprising (although one editor suggests it is). It takes the elements discussed above, and merely connects the dots logically regarding the structural effect that SSM will have on the social rights of heterosexual men. There is NO QUESTION that women file the vast majority of divorces, or that they get custody of children in the vast majority of cases, that heterosexual marriage rates have subsequently declined substantially while divorce rates climbed precipitously, or that the vast majority of divorced men end up with nothing more than a child support order. And, there is no logical way to refute my analysis that SSM between two women will create a family structure that has at least six sources of income, wherein men have no rights but heavy economic responsibilities.

Any editor is welcome to call me at my home phone number 314 991-1959 evenings to discuss any further issues. I regret having to take a hard line, and to have to respond in detail to each and every absurd reason for rejection of the SSM section, but I will do so and continue to do so in the future. I do expect that Wiki will live by its standards, and let this movement define itself, absent POV vandalism by feminists. And, I will hold Wiki to it.

davidrusher

• David, it may be a drag, but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are pretty clear that editors can't "connect the dots logically" in their articles. See WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I've seen Cailil working on other articles, and I can promise you that he/she is committed to making a top quality encyclopedia and willing to work with you to record any reliably sourced opinions fairly. If you two are deadlocked, however, there are a bunch of options, listed under dispute resolution. Let me know, TheronJ 15:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to lengthy post above

All of that is great, Mr. Rusher! What would help other editors to evaluate your additions to the article is if you would use the sources you mentioned (or others) when you add to the article. For instance, instead of adding something like

“

Feminist strategists realized it would place women in the position to control all aspects of reproduction, life, politics, and marriage.

”

You should add your text and include a reference - in this case, preferrably a reference to feminists who say just that. Then other editors can evaluate the source and what you've written and either leave it as is or can challenge the specific addition and cite.

As it is, you've added (sometimes lengthy) portions of text with no or very few citations, so all we other editors have to go on is your word. While I'm sure your word is good, WP:V requires something to back it up.

Secondly, adding lengthy responses here on the talk page can be helpful, but a much better use of your time would be to add those reference to the acual text in he article unless further explanation is needed or a question arises on the talk page.

Thanks again for your contributions -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the section as it reads in the history on the grounds that it is uncited. I second SatyrTN's thoughts. --DavidShankBone 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non verifyable source

Orman, 1998 is an incomplete reference to the source.

The quote appears to be taken from this webpage:

http://www.xyonline.net/husbandbattering.shtml

The website references another website as the source of Orman, 1998 (http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman/feminism/Domestic_Violence/controversy.html). This website does not exist.

Afp2258 14:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism: Violence - distortions

This statement ( “Indeed, not only have the data and conclusions offered by both sides been attacked, but so have the individual scholars and authors.”) does not support the characterization (he was aware of how research data and conclusions have been mis-represented by both sides of the debate); rather, it suggests they have been attacked by both sides - exactly what the quote says - not "misrepresented" and therefore comes across as a misrepresentation/straw man argument. I went to the link and, on the contrary, Richard Gelless says that, “there are as many male victims of violence as female” is a “significant distortion of [his] research data” which I added to the paragraph for accuracy. Please, for consistency, include a statement by Mr. Gelles that holds feminists/whomever “misuse” the conclusions, or change the characterization. This article is sloppy and uncited enough.NeoApsara 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi NeoApsara. You're absolutely right about that line. There is a synopsis of Gelles remarks on the Minnesotta Center for Violence and abuse website. The article on this webpage is written by Gelles - it is critique of "factoids" about domestic violence from both sides. The article was originally published in University of Rhode Island Family Violence Research Program in 1995. The full quote states that "the [political] right of center" who clim: Women are as Violence as are Men, and Women Initiate Violence as Often as do Men [...] conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men. I'm editing the article, as you suggested, to reflect this position.--Cailil 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever added in the following paragraph under this section: "The truth is that both feminist and men's rights organisations are fighting for a fairer and more equal society, and for the most part, they don't fight against each other. Men may be fighting sexist social structures which the feminists have played no part in, and women may be fighting sexist structures which the men's rights activists have no part in. While they may disagree vehemently on certain issues, it is this discourse which generates progress." - this sounds like opinion; please provide references. --Adzze 08:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed this paragraph.--Adzze 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same sex marriage

The following has been commented out and moved here so that it can be cleaned up.

Leading men's rights activists largely oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions. Male activists in the LGBT social movements strongly support same-sex marriage. Gay activists are largely not recognized as members of the men's movement for this reason, and no major organizations representing the Men's movement are actively involved in support of gay rights or same-sex marriage.

"Leading men's rights activists" is weasel words. Which leading men's rights activists? Source them. "largely oppose" absolutely needs a source (and remember, the source shouldn't be to one or two leading men's rights activists, it needs to be a reliable source which specifically states that leading men's rights activists largely oppose.. "Gay activists are largely not recognized as members of the men's movement for this reason" Not recognized by whom specifically? Needs a source. "no major organizations representing the Men's movement are actively involved in support of gay rights or same-sex marriage." needs a source -75.179.159.240 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That piece has already been debated - the consensus was that it should be removed if it can't be sourced. Its been here almost a month without any sources and longer since I tagged it as dubious so I'm removing that content. If any wants to discuss its reinclusion please read the above (very lengthly) debate on the content's inclusion.--Cailil 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag in Media portrayal section

I've added a fact tag to Media portrayal. I know Glen Sacks campaigns about this but can anyone supply a more WP:RS source than his website?--Cailil 13:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health Issues - Revert

NeoApsara, you have put health issues back in (with a misleading edit summary). This edit is POV and cites a disreputable source. Beyond that, it does not fit in with the heading "health issues". Would you kindly explain why you feel it should remain and why you don't think it's POV? 207.112.77.252 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabotage!

This article is being sabotaged by anti-male crusaders. The criticisms are peppered, rather than in the appropriate areas:

"Critics also accuse men's right advocates of ignoring, trivializing, and/or defending male violence. In response, some men's rights advocates say they "don't disagree that some men rape"[citation needed],".

First, no men's rights organization ignores, trivializes, or defends male violence. This is clear POV. Men's rights organization complain that too little attention is paid when a man is the victim. Let's lose the POV semantics and stay on topic.

Second, on citing feminist sources: masculists are not quoted or referenced in the feminist articles on Wikipedia. I suggest we do the same here.

This article requires major clean-up. Let's put everything in the right place and fix the language. Let's lose the man-bashing/men's rights bashing and the anti-male innuendo. I won't proceed further until I have a bit of comment from the community. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diddlyop (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC).