Talk:Men's rights movement - Wikipedia
5 people in discussion
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Some content around Men's rights movement was split from this article and then remerged. Some of the history of this split can be found here. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Men's rights. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Men's rights at the Reference desk. |
 | Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions: |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Under the first few sentences, it states "As a part of the manosphere," however, the manosphere is described as promoting masculinity and misogyny, however, under my experience, the movement has been largely quite the opposite. Many times, misogyny inside of the community, at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society. I would like to know if this is a misunderstanding on whomever added that sentence, or a misunderstanding from me of what the male rights community truly is. I personally believe that this could be fixed by a simple "Some view this as a part of the manosphere." thus being neutral, but still getting both views into the text. Cheeseburger3 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Note: Under further, closer inspection of the article, multiple paragraphs, most of which use the words manosphere, also follow this narrative, further hinting towards either a sole individual making multiple edits or a misunderstanding on my part. Cheeseburger3 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. First-hand experience is not generally usable as that is considered original research. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we do not publish original research.
- This article has many sources for the connection between the MRM and misogyny. The article currently cites several reliable source (which are also independent sources) which have identified misogyny as a disproportionately prominent trait. Likewise, many reliable sources link the MRM and the manosphere, although the term "manosphere" is much newer than the MRM. Those sources are linked in footnotes throughout the article, and those sources are what we use to inform the article.
- Grayfell (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
- That's all well and good but the whole article id designed to discredit the movement
- Which is why all the negative points are put up front t0 dissuade the reader
- Usually the article states a series of facts, and then has a separate section under the title "Criticisms"
- Montalban (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Montalban It is not designed to discredit the movement but summarises reliable sources. Having a criticism section is discouraged. See WP:CRITICISM.
- If you see any problems, you are free to edit as long as they use reliable sources, is neutral and follows any other relevant policy. Panamitsu (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- There are many sources that highlight misandry as a common trait in Feminist circles. Why isn't that in the first sentence in the feminism artcile. To be frank, this is malicious. You will ask me for sources and once provided, you will claim they aren't credible. Who determines what sources are credible? This is why wikipedia has a massive bias issue. 47.230.49.22 (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @47.230.49.22 Where are your sources? Predicting future events is often inadvisable because the predictions can be incorrect. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Many times, misogyny inside of the community, "at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society".
As well as a questionable opinion, might not this non-NPOV be aimed at down-playing the true level of misogyny and forced masculinity within this right-wing movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
10: SPLC does not say that some branches of MRM are not hateful. It says that some branches use legitimate grievances to draw new members in, without meaningfully addressing said grievances; "instead directing followers to blame women [...] for everything". (To quickly locate the relevant passage, search for the word "legitimate" in the source.)
11 very clearly considers MRM hateful. Not sure how it can be argued it ties to the sentence is is linked to. 91.26.88.218 (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Same guy who made the topic.
- After commenting, it occurred to me that 11 might have been meant for the first part of the sentence it's linked to. However, it does not (as far as I can tell) come from the SLPC, so, while fine as a source, it seems a bit awkwardly placed. 91.26.88.218 (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the mid-1970s, this movement began to focus on the oppression of men and less on the effects of sexism on women. This shift was influenced by author Warren Farrell and his book The Myth of Male Power. He emphasized how male gender roles disadvantaged men by forbidding them from being seen as caring or having emotion. The Myth of Male Power physically couldn't have done it in 70s because it was written in 1993 year. Farrell is indeed mentioned in the source, but not that way:
In 1971, educator Warren Farrell helped form the National Task Force on the Masculine Mystique within the National Organization for Women, an idea which quickly spread toover fifty local NOW chapters and provided a framework for the further development of the men’s movement. Farrell’s more lasting contribution to the growth of men’s awareness of their culturally limited options was his influential 1975 book The Liberated Man: Beyond Masculinity, which quickly assumed for men the place occupied in women’s liberation by Betty Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique. Its publication sparked the beginning of a separate men’s literature concerned with offering theories of and solutions to male oppression. Two viewpoints characterized this body of writing: acceptance of feminist criticism of masculine status and behaviors, and calls for the restoration of ‘‘traditional’’ masculine social roles. Among the more important works produced at this time were Herb Goldberg’s antifeminist The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege (1976), and the anthologies The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role (1976) and For Men against Sexism: A Book of Readings (1977).
I delete the sentence from the article. Reprarina (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Article says "Others cite the discredited parental alienation syndrome (PAS) or parental alienation as a reason to grant custody to fathers; they claim that mothers alienate children from their fathers and make false accusations of abuse in order to seek revenge against fathers." This does not reflect an accurate description of parental alienation, nor has parental alienation been discredited. In fact, there is a good deal of scientific research to support the concept of parental alienation being valid. 76.171.164.140 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply