Talk:Men's movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies |
| This WikiProject is aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with gender studies, and at removing systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. |
| Click here for details |
Contents |
[edit] Men's Liberation and Rights
It seems to me that all of these groups could equally claim to be working for "men's liberation" and "men's rights" so I wonder if doesn't make more sense to simplify language for the non-feminist, non-mytho groups just as Masculist and Father's rights. Is "men's rights" in the UK and Australia really conceived as only applying to biological fathers? Does anyone who uses the "masculist" label really think that only they are working to liberate men? It seems to me that "masculist" and "father's rights" are much more precise terms, although certainly "masculist" is much less common. Rorybowman 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Masculist and Men's liberation appear to be quite separate, despite their earlier conflation in the article. See XYonline Men's movements An outline and assessment of the men's movement, from Community Quarterly, Special issue: Masculinities, No. 46, June, 1998, (note does not mention masculism). -- Paul foord 12:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moved a statement
An unregistered user added the following to the article. It's unsourced and very slanted. I don't know whether it's possible to state some part of this in a more encyclopedic manner. Durova 18:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abusive bullies
"There are men who simply join men's groups as they see men as naturally violent and abusive. So they think a man's group would automatically support abuse, domestic abuse and violence. Such men will often label non violent men with offensive terms. Numerous so called men's groups are simply voice boxes of hooligans, and bullies. Many men's groups do not represent men but simply represent abusive men, but such men normally dehumanize non violent men, so do not even recognize that they are not speaking for all men. It is a fact that some men, simply join these groups to draw attention to themselves. Often seeing this in the same way that extreme right wing parties often attract attention seeking men and women who want to appear extreme. It is damaging to men and women, thAt such abusive men think they speak for all men."
[edit] why is the first paragraph pro-feminist men??
what happened to that policy of non-bias? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] This is Wikipedia
This is Wikipedia. We TRY to have NPOV but that doesn't mean that the editors will cooperate. Smith Jones 22:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
