Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 29 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Men's movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Gender studies Start‑class

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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Sociology: Social Movements Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

"Men's liberation" section POV issue

The Men's movement#Men's liberation section is written very negatively and with an obvious gender feminism slant. It's clear that no one sympathetic to men's liberation has had any input there. This section has serious WP:NPOV problems as a result. I actually agree with what it says, but it's blatantly unencyclopedic to write something this totally oppositional here. (There are plenty of politicians I think are moronic, dangerous jackasses, but I'm not allowed to push that point of view in articles about them here, by way of comparison.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Advocacy relating to child support

Under Men's_movement#Advocacy (distinguished the subsection) I am wondering if this list is extensive enough. For example, I see a commonly written about concern with men's inability to abandon a pregnancy, something which females have agency to do due to exclusive rights to abortion, adoption and abandonment choices. Ideas like both parents (and not just women via consenting to keep pregnancy) having to opt-in to have to support. Shouldn't advocacy regarding child support and procreation consent fairness also be included? Ranze (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

The "Men's and fathers' rights movements" section has been tagged as unsourced since July 2010. I removed the unsourced claims and replaced them with content from the MRM and FRM articles. Feel free to expand the section with more references. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

SPLC commentary

The Southern Poverty Law Center's, (SPLC), Intelligence Reports have been declared a reliable sources for Misplaced Pages, so I have been repeated informed. These Intelligence reports have been used by law enforcement and cited by academics. Their commentary on the Men Movement includes,

• The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women.

• The common denominator is their resentment of feminism and of females in general.

• Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women.

It is not for us to second guess sources but merely record what they say. Clearly this material is significant investigative work and should be included in the page.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I also found this "While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many." - but often the second part is quoted, but not the first - e.g. that some of these websites may document legitimate complaints. However, I fear the addition of this section above is a bit pointy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What is more important in this context is that Goldwag wrote about the men's rights movement and to some extent the fathers' rights movement, not the men's movement as a whole including the profeminist and mythopoetic men's movement. The SPLC commentary belongs in the mrm article, not here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of Weasel Words.

RE: "Sociologists Michael Messner and Michael Flood have argued that the term "movement" is problematic..."

The use of the unqualified term 'sociologist' infers an arms length and expert commentary. Michael Messner and Michael Flood are undeniably from a particular school of thought, in particular they are pro-feminists. Without further qualification the term 'sociologist' becomes a Weasel word. To quote WP:WEASEL, " may disguise a biased view.". Messner, Flood and Kimmel are pro-feminists and where appropriate this should be mentioned. CSDarrow (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you somehow suggesting that to be "pro-feminist" is to have a prejudice against MRM? Gee. it certainly can be shown that the other way seems to be accurate enough, but I'm not sure that the above statement is true. Perhaps you could start a list of academics who have no personal views about anything at all and then we could draw all our references from that list? Carptrash (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It must be a joke to suggest that "sociologists" is a weasel word but "profeminist sociologists" isn't. Please do not quote out of context: Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions says that "They may disguise a biased view". Surely you see that the statements are attributed to Messner and Kimmel and that citing Misplaced Pages:WEASEL#Unsupported_attributions as a reason for your edits doesn't make any sense. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly I am not in the habit of joking and secondly I should inform you it is customary to actually read a post before you respond to it. If by chance you did read it, then it seems you are incapable of seeing that a sociologist from a diametrically opposed school of thought might be commenting from a 'biased' point of view. At present the entry is misleading the reader as it disguises a biased view, see WP:WEASEL. If you disagree then got to WP:DRN. If Academia, Schools of Thought and Bias are outside of your experience, then please move onto less weighty Misplaced Pages entries.

CSDarrow (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And I think, no, better make that "feel", that it is only you and your red linked buddies who insist that feminism and the MRM are " diametrically opposed school(s) of thought." Get a grip, get a life, get laid, get whatever you need to pop your eyes open. I once discovered a note written in a book (pub. ca, 1925) that said, "The writer of this book was either an old man whose mind closed years ago or a young man whose mind never opened." I'm beginning to fear that i know which you are. And then we get pointed to an article, Schools of Thought that is being looked at as being "Not notable" and is completely unsourced. Rather revealing, would you not say, if that's the best you can do? Carptrash (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Then Carptrash you will be invited to participate in the DRN discussion. I am sure you will have much of worth to contribute to it. CSDarrow (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove parts of your comments after other editors addressed them. No, WP:WEASEL and Misplaced Pages:WEASEL#Unsupported_attributions, i.e. the subsection where the "may disguise a biased view" part is mentioned, does not apply here because the statement is attributed to Messner and Flood and because "sociologists" is in no more a weasel word than "profeminist sociologist". If you think that someone is "biased" as you suggest that Messner and Flood are, then you can attribute the POV per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is a moot point because the opinions are attributed. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If they were merely sociologists I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be a weasel/misleading word. Their expertise might well be of note, just as a physicist's opinion on the cosmos might be. However they are profeminist sociologists and are commenting on a movement of which they are members, they are in strong philosophical disagreement with certain elements of that movement. A sociologist's opinion on the Democratic Party would be of interest, but my evaluation of that opinion would be colored very differently if I was to learn that sociologist was also a Republican Senator with strong anti-Liberal views. There is nothing wrong with being profeminist, diversity of opinion is important, especially on Misplaced Pages. However to accurately represent their views it should be either "profeminist" or "profeminist sociologists". Else the reader is being misled. CSDarrow (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

William L. Shirer did not think much of the Nazis, does that mean we have to call him an anti-Nazi journalist every thime we reference Rise and Fall of the Third Reich? And so it goes, over and over. A source is either usable or not. The idea of adding qualifiers and editor's opinions of what writers (etc) might or might not believe is (opinion) absurd. Carptrash (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop wasting peoples time. CSDarrow (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not much of an answer. And how much of other editor's time have you wasted here with your . . . . . .....stuff? Carptrash (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Michael Messner and Michael Flood being pro-feminist would make them biased about the use of the word movement. Since they are part of the movement (as pro-feminist men), I guess one could argue that they would be biased towards the term, but in fact they seem to be arguing against the term, so I don't really see how there is a bias at work here. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be the phrase "..consists of members of what they argue is a privileged group.". I have no problem with the word 'movement'. CSDarrow (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So you don't view males, especially white ones (the backbone of the movement in the USA) to be a "privileged group"? Or you do but you just don't want everyone else to know? Here is another secret Everyone else already knows it. Carptrash (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Go and tell these men they are privileged. CSDarrow (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that most if not all of those men/boys are/were where they are/were to help keep even more privileged men where they are. And for every picture you drag out there are pictures of women in just as bad or worse circumstances. A lot of these guys were soldiers. I seem to recognize some Bataan Death March survivors. Who was it that got them in those positions? Men who were even more privileged than them, mostly. Carptrash (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No you state Men are privileged, it is the MRM who is trying to do something for these men. You can obviously read, write and have a computer; as such you are one of the most privileged people on this planet. Many of these men gave their lives and worked under appalling conditions to give you that privilege. You may not care about these men but others do. A less trusting person than myself might consider you gender a bigot. Stop trying to derail this thread and go else where. CSDarrow (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"as such you are one of the most privileged people on this planet." This is not news to me since I am a white male. The men you showed can only be free when every person in the world is free. Soldiers in Nam were not fighting to keep me free. Soldiers in the Philippines were not fighting to keep me free. They were, in both cases, there to oppress the locals who wanted to be free. Sure. drag out more sad pictures, but do try and understand the stories behind them. Carptrash (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I find your dismissive and disrespectful attitude to these issues distasteful. Go elsewhere. CSDarrow (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And what have you done to earn respect? What does your beloved movement plan to do to improve the lot of the soldier? and the miner? and the homeless? You introduced those men via your pictures. What are your plans for them? If I am dismissive it is because you have yet to offer anything of value, anything worth retaining. Carptrash (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, it is your opinion that Messner and Flood are "biased". Even we play along and assume (against all logic) that they are biased, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would apply. The statement in the article is attributed to Messner and Flood so it's been taken care of and you can stop beleaguering a moot point.

Try your appeal to emotion on editors who are unfamiliar with the strands of the men's movement and don't know that it was the profeminist men's movement, not the men's rights movement, that participated in the civil rights, the student, gay rights, and antiwar movements. Or, better yet, stop with the pictures of dying soldiers and barely veiled insults that editors are "bigots" and start editing constructively. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My 'opinion' of Messner and Flood is not an opinion it is fact, and as such is incapable of being biased. The rest of your post is extraordinary by even your standards. CSDarrow (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"is not an opinion it is fact, and as such is incapable of being biased. " It seems to me that this is a pretty good summation of the MRM's view about themselves in general and probably would make a pretty good addition to the lede. Carptrash (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact being that Flood and Messner are profeminists. This is an argument of fact not opinion. CSDarrow (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Already, I think everyone could be a bit more civil here. Secondly, I think the issue is one of WP:UNDUE - e.g. yes, Flood makes the word movement a problematique, but we haven't put any thing else in to counter balance this critique - for example, the fact that he nonetheless titles his article Men's movement, or the fact that there are umpteen articles and books and so on that use this same formulation. So to be fair here, we should balance the critique with stats on actual usage, or other scholars who just call it a movement and move on with their lives.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile I eagerly await Clarance's "facts" about what the MRM is doing for soldiers. miners and the poor. Make that "poor men." Carptrash (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Carptrash, just a side note - you have made it clear that you don't like the people affiliated with this movement (e.g. "sniveling wimps"). As such, you should seriously consider recusing yourself from making future edits in article space here per our neutrality guidelines Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. I'm not at all convinced that you can contribute to this article in a neutral fashion given your publicly expressed views on the topic and subjects of these articles. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, if we go by your logic, all participants in this discussion would have to recuse themselves. You yourself have expressed some rather strong views on one strand of the larger men's movement. Multiple editors disagreed with your belief that the men's rights movement article should reflect that "discrimination against men is real" and that the men's rights movement does anything to redress discrimination based on ethnicity and sexual orientation. Please be more careful before declaring someone "biased" and advising them to recuse themselves, especially when you are involved. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is quite different - my perception there is based on multiple, documented sources and books written about discrimination faced by men. Now whether that discrimination is noted or still listed as "perceived" b/c Men's rights movement is now about a movement and not about Men's rights (as it used to be) is a content issue. I am still neutral on the topic overall, I am certainly not a fanboy of the movement and you won't find me haunting their forums, but I also don't subscribe to the SPLC view of the movement - I think any articles we write about these people should walk a fine line and remain NPOV. I came into this because I saw that the lede was non-neutrally formulated in my view. That is quite different from an editor calling the subjects of an article "sniveling wimps". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Obi, for your concern and words of wisdom. It’s really okay, I just have to remember to NOT come here to edit after leaving a men’s website where, “Someone outta rape the cunt” is offered as a way of dealing with gender issues. I’m sure that I can remember to not do that now that you have pointed out the error of my ways. In any case my actual editing in the article (as opposed to on the talk page) has pretty much been limited to tracking down sources and then removing content that is referenced to that source when it appears that for some unexplained reason the editor seems to have completely missed the point of what was written. Or, as A.S. Byatt said about the Hollywood version of one of her books, “They just used the parts that I didn’t write.” I look forward to your contributions. Perhaps you can help Darrow out by explaining to us what the MRM is going to do for soldiers, miners and poor men because there is a lot that needs to be done for them. Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not - so I'm going to assume not. And yes, if you've just been reading some vile blog, coming here right after to edit is probably not a good idea. Turn it around -suppose I was reading another vile blog, and then showed up here immediately after to rampage against the Feminism article to correct all of the supposed "inaccuracies" and "POVs" in that one? Listen, we all have opinions - I doubt many of those editing articles on Ku Klux Klan are sitting on the fence - but in order to write a good, neutral, encyclopedic article, we have to nonetheless try to check our POV at the door - and I've just seen several comments by you in talk here and elsewhere that put your heart on your sleeve, as it were - which suggests that you might be a little to close and a little too irritated by these fellows. Saying things like "Soldiers in the Philippines were not fighting to keep me free." is an offensive lashing out of the worst kind - especially given that probably tens of thousands of American troops, and hundreds of thousands of Filipino citizens, were killed during that terrible conflict.

Re: being too close, a similar thing happened recently with a user who was mixed up in the Qworty episode (having been trolled/harassed by same) - he was mad as hell and ready to bring down fire and brimstone on the bio article, but other editors cautioned him to avoid editing for exactly this reason - being too close and feeling something too personally is itself a (mild) form of COI. It's not wrong to feel strongly about anything, but it makes it hard to see, from your own perspective, when those feelings have influenced your own logic and lead to Cognitive bias and esp Confirmation bias.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand. Obiwankenobi, above you say: "yes, Flood makes the word movement a problematique, but we haven't put any thing else in to counter balance this critique"and "So to be fair here, we should balance the critique with stats on actual usage, or other scholars who just call it a movement and move on with their lives". What you have said here suggests some misunderstandings about the NPOV policy. There is only a need to counter balance critiques if there are reliable secondary sources making those points. As NPOV states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" Do you have any reliable sources to propose? If there aren't reliable sources making some "counter balancing" comments, then there is nothing to include. We absolutely do not collect stats on actual usage etc to counterbalance points- this would be a classic example of original research. Slp1 (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

sorry, what I meant was, how many sources that discuss the men's movement problematize the word "movement"? If 99 sources just call it the men's movement and then discuss, and only 1 says "well, I don't like the word "movement"', then we have a WP:UNDUE problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it could be undue in some circumstances, but it is still a kind of original research. One of the issues that led to problems with the Shakespeare authorship question article is that only a few highly quality sources say explicitly "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare" (even though it is clearly the mainstream view) whereas lots of fringe theorists publish their theories widely. They never got discounted because most scholars didn't want to waste their time refuting what they considered rubbish. So counts of this sort would be original research and misrepresent the mainstream view to boot.

Having said that, you would have a point if the article said in WP's voice that "The term "movement" is problematic because...". That might be inappropriate because it's true many scholarly articles discuss the movement without making this point. But that's not the text we are discussing here. The current text clearly attributes the viewpoint to some very prominent scholars in the area. Per WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". We don't know what the majority view is, because only a few talk about this topic, but it is at the very least a significant minority view and worth an (attributed) sentence here. If there are other scholarly viewpoints published on this issue, then they can be added too. It would be great to find themSlp1 (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To repeat the original intent of this section. The use of the unqualified term 'sociologist' infers an arms length and expert commentary. Michael Messner and Michael Flood are undeniably from a particular school of thought, in particular they are pro-feminists. Without further qualification the term 'sociologist' misleads the reader, it's that simple. CSDarrow (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

mensactivism.org in External Links.

Binkersnet: MANN: Men's Activist News Network is a news aggregation site for Men's Right sites. I can't think of a better entry for this section. It's Mission statement clearly is not that of a hate site by any reasonable definition.

The SPLC also says that the Fathers Rights and Men's Rights movement are the same movements, they aren't terribly well informed on these issues. It has also been roundly criticized for the way it categorizes Hate Sites and Movements by some very credible sources. But more importantly there is no mention that news.mensactivism.org is a hate site. They do criticize them for criticizing “the myth that women are less violent than men.”. This 'myth' has also been challenged by some academics and other very credible sources, eg Straus. In short their opinion is well within the realm of reasonable disagreement.

I have never found burden of proof switching arguments convincing, so please don't try them on me. Before you revert again please answer with more substance than you've managed before.

CSDarrow (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women. The attention I pay to men's rights is the minimal amount required to keep track of bias in this article. More than that I could not care less. When I looked up the domain mensactivism.org I noticed right away that the SPLC says they publish falsehoods about female-initiated domestic violence. Why would Misplaced Pages ever want to host a link which purposely gives out false information? Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As the WP:Burden remains unanswered , the external link to mensactivism.org will continue to be kept from the article. There is no special privilege that this or that organization has to a link hosted on Misplaced Pages, no "right" to a link pointing at their website. I think we need to protect the reader from false information, from fringe positions puffed up to falsely represent the conclusions of mainstream research. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your response is horrific. CSDarrow (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My evaluation of the situation at present is as follows

The "Men's Movement" is an umbrella term for a broad group of organizations, with some of the organizations being are at ideological odds with others. The Men's Rights Movement is within this umbrella term. The External Links Section of the Men's Movement page links readers to further information. The site Men's Activist News Network was representing the Men's Rights Movement within this list and is a news aggregation site. Atm there is no link representing the Men's Rights Movement

This site has been continuously removed from this list, in particular by Binksternet. The reasoning being atm "that the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) says they publish falsehoods about female-initiated domestic violence". see Here. In particular the SPLC says the site asserts that:- 'women attack men just as much as men attack women', which they claim is a falsehood.

I would make the following points:-

• The view that men and women equally initiate domestic violence is a contentious issue, with credible people on both sides of the debate. Differing views here are within the realm of reasonable disagreement. Examples of support are Sociologist Murray Straus and numerous papers in the Journal of Partner Abuse, (pub by Springer).

• The site Men's Activist News Network by any measure is a reasonable site as is evidenced by the page outlining its philosophy .

• The SPLC does not have especial expertise in Gender Issues and should not dictate to Misplaced Pages what is true or proper.

• There is not a general policy that a link on Wikepedia must have verifiably true information.

• Due to Men's Activist News Network's broad and reasonable coverage of Men's Rights issues it seems a particularly appropriate link for this section.

As such I feel the site Men's Activist News Network should not be removed from this the External Links Section

Given the above, I would consider the next removal of Men's Activist News Network from the External Links list as declaring an impasse, and I will take the above argument to DRN. People will be expected to explain themselves there.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason we're still linking Men's News Daily? I know it used to be an active MRM site, but now it's just a conservative-themed "citizen journalism" site with ads. I can't find a single article on there related to anything about gender, MRM, or feminism. They must have kicked all the MRM folks out. Kaldari (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never understood why it is there. CSDarrow (talk)

I am removing Men's News Daily.

I am also removing Mensactivism.org because of WP:ELNO where it says we should not link to "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material..." The news items carried by Mensactivism.org include ones that give false information about female-initiated domestic violence, per SPLC. That is authoritative enough for me, more so than arguing the "facts" with another editor. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Who is the ultimate arbiter of the truth -- Binksternet? The SPLC? I think not. As CSDarrow noted above, there is serious scholarly/academic debate about these issues (see the references he posted above, as well as this recent study from Germany which found that in relationships women are more likely than their partners commit violence than men.) Memills (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One scholar bucking the mainstream does not make for "serious" academic debate. Instead, this indicates a minor viewpoint which is accorded the proper weight in the article, relative to mainstream sources. Very little should be made of the one scholar who found against the mainstream. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of both links. Neither EL improves a reader's encyclopedic understanding of the subject. They are organizations which provide specific examples of the movement, which are not appropriate ELs in a general article such as this. ThemFromSpace 23:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

MensActivism.org is an information source, not an organization. Given the above, I see no reason not to include it -- it is where interested folks might go to find more information related to issues of concern to the MRM -- the very purpose of this subsection. There is no requirement that *all* of the information presented at any particular external source is ultimately found to be accurate, particularly when there is serious scholarly debate about the issue(s). Memills (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's best to only link directly to pages which inprove a reader's encyclopedic understanding of the subject in a way that can't be done through regular editing. Examples of good ELs are websites which host their own copyrighted photos that capture an aspect of the article we can't show in our own photos, pages with lots of statistics that are unwieldy in an article, and lengthy essays or news articles which aid the reader's understanding. Official websites are almost always ok to link to. It is usually not ok to link to homepages of large sites such as mensactivism.org unless the article is about that webpage or the organization behind it. If there is a specific page within the mensactivism that contains encyclopedic information we can link there, but there is no benefit in linking to the homepage. ThemFromSpace 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Unassessed sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• Unassessed social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles