Revision as of 21:04, 19 May 2013 editCSDarrow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,671 edits →Use of Weasel Words.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:11, 19 May 2013 edit undoCarptrash (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers41,413 edits →Use of Weasel Words.: which are you?Next edit → | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
::It must be a joke to suggest that "sociologists" is a ] but "profeminist sociologists" isn't. Please do not quote out of context: ] says that "They may disguise a biased view". Surely you see that the statements are attributed to Messner and Kimmel and that citing ] as a reason for your edits doesn't make any sense. --] (]) 20:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | ::It must be a joke to suggest that "sociologists" is a ] but "profeminist sociologists" isn't. Please do not quote out of context: ] says that "They may disguise a biased view". Surely you see that the statements are attributed to Messner and Kimmel and that citing ] as a reason for your edits doesn't make any sense. --] (]) 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 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 ]. If you disagree then got to ]. ] (]) 21:04, 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 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 ]. If you disagree then got to ]. ] (]) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::And I think, no, better make that "feel", that it is only you and your ] 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. ] (]) 21:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:11, 19 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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
Gender studies Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||
|
Sociology: Social Movements Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
Archives |
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)
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 .". 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 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. 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. Carptrash (talk) 21:11, 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 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. CSDarrow (talk) 21:04, 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)