Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"Related areas of the men's rights include" possibly duplicates See-also

Should we remove it? 97.113.232.137 (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Article is unbalanced - "Violence" is given too much weight

The article is unbalanced because "Violence" is given too much weight. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I made some suggested edits. More material in this section could be pruned. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

This section may again require some pruning because I moved the information on violence from another section that didn't fit into the section and it does appear a bit bloated. We should keep mention of the VAWA as a concrete example of discriminatory law. Stargnoc (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Alimony

The article previously had:

Men in Britain tend to become wealthier after a divorce, earning 25% more, while divorced mothers are three times more likely to live in poverty than divorced fathers.^[1]

However, this didn't fit in with the section at all—it's a random fact with no context and didn't support anything. I moved it here in case it could be used at a future point. 72.87.188.69 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

More pertinent to divorce than alimony. I found a better place to put it, but this source is great. Am adding it in! Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really pertinent to anything, doesn't seem true and would definitely need more than one source to verify it (I'd say at least three) Also it seems quite biased (especially given the lack of context) which would be against wikipedias policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.251.159 (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Updated Citations

I the reproduce rights section it asks who refers to a court case as roe vs. wade for men. I just listend to a Tom Leykis show a couple days ago and they use this terminology for the case. I am looking for it on youtube, but there are a lot and I don't remember the exact name. So the source might be tom leykis or the lawyer he was talking to.Phoenixlanding (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As a university lecturer writing/lecturing on both men's rights and feminism on courses covering employment and trade unionism, I have been through this article to add references to academic journal articles and books by 'experts' wherever my expertise permits. I agree that a great deal more could be done to improve the article and expand many of the sections - there is a great deal of informed debate "out there" and this article would benefit from input from more people. When I have time, I will return to the article and attempt to expand/improve more sections. In the meantime, I hope the many references that I've added will help people seeking reliable sources to support the points made in the article. Best wishes, Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Hallam University Lecturer / Composer / Writer 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr Rory you gave your address I give our SIF phone number which will guide you to an expert on mens right (91) 9243473704 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.30.9 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed a mis-cited piece of information at the tail end of the "Health" Section - it cited an email released by NOW but the source did not support what the author had written. Above that, in circumcision I changed "identity" to genitals as circumcision effects the genitals directly, and our identities =\= our bodily integrity. LikaTika (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Under the "education" section, I added a citation needed tag to the claim of skewed sex ratios at med schools. This also appears to be incorrect, based on my own research. LikaTika (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing Wikipedia policy, it appears that this article needs a "It relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications." tag. WP:Primary More than 1/3 of the sources here appear to be from a small group of about four people actively involved in Men's Rights. LikaTika (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe in men's rights

I believe in men's right. Not all men are the same, we such always give them the benefit of the doubt. We can jump into conclusions. I believe, as a woman, that if we want respect and understanding, we too should be that way with our spouses..WHY??? Is it that we, women, can take advantage of the law and not the men? I would vote for equality, if that's what we want. We protest and jump like crazy if you treat us different than men, but for some reason we can't be treated the same by our legal system. Men, sometimes, have more respect than we do...and not put everything on the woman.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.5.4 (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, I would also say it's not just legal, but socially and personally. Men are asked to change, rethink, be more considerate, do this more... If a woman were asked the same by the media, social strata and government, there would be an uproar. 173.33.142.104 (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos

The real problem

The real problem is people refusing to allow Men's Rights to become an issue of importance. This article is of low importance to this project, while Women's Rights is high. If you look in gender equality, it is defined as "Human Rights -- Especially Women's". All throught this discussion, and any media you care to mention, there is a definate mockery made of male's feeling they have rights. In addition, often there are reasons given that objection to degradations, humilations and abuses is wrong on the part of the recipient male(s) and how these reasons actually make the transgression just. It would not work if it was applied in the reverse. These issues are not debate table topics, nor are rights an issue for who can make the best point. Men and women should have equal opportunities, facilities and respect accorded to them. Women's Rights were needed to balance the overwhelmingly biased support of men in the early 20th century, why would we subject men and worse, boys, to what women and girls cannot tolerate. A majority of the current male population was not even a part of the culture that gave rise to these biases in the past, why should they be subjected to the punishments? Is it so hard to realize things are in a state of inequality? 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos

"Men's rights" will never be an issue of importance for the same reasons as "White Pride" has never become an issue of importance. Everyone knows that "White Pride" is a cover-up for racists. And everyone knows that "Men's Rights" is a cover up for misogynists. You gender runs the world, yet you keep asking for more. And people know what you are really campaigning for. SantaClaus86 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

SantaClaus86, that is a complete abandonment of logic. If someone can say they're proud to be black, Asian, etcetera, without being called hateful, why should you not be able to say the same for people of European descent? How come it's fine for a woman to say "All men are assholes"--with people laughing and nodding in agreement, but if a man said "All women are whores", he'd be sued into oblivion?

If you can say that "Men's Rights is a cover up for misogynists", then I can say that Women's Rights is a cover up for misandry. In fact, I already have more supporting evidence, because of your apparent contempt for men in the comment I'm responding to. Stop being part of the problem. 70.52.210.242 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

To all posters above: Wikipedia is not a forum - these kinds of comments are about the subject in general are an inappropriate use of wikipedia's talk-space. Talk pages such as this one are to be used ONLY for discussion of how to improve teh article's content nothing else.
Secondly, 70.52.210.242, comments like yours which speculate on the gender and the motivations of another poster are inappropriate conduct as they fail to assume good faith and are both uncivil and a personal attack alone one of these problems is very serious together they are an urgent problem further personal attacks will not be tolerated--Cailil ^talk 13:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow.. pot calling the kettle black? Any particular reason you specifically went after 70.52.210.242 who did no more than reverse the gender roles of the comments made by SantaClaus86? Comments which themselves conflate men's rights with neo-nazi white power groups and women haters? I don't think assuming good faith extends to tolerance of clear gender based attacks.--Cybermud (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

~~ I agree with Cybermund, I also think Cailil should respond Paragoalie (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick trip to Cailil's talk page provides his de facto response: "This user is a member of the Feminism Task Force." Flagrant bias does nothing to further this discussion. Cutty2k (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I have added a POV tag to this article. These articles are difficult to write but in my view there is work to be done to bring this one back into line, and away from advocacy and unencyclopedic tone and content. Some sections are fine, but in others Weasel words such as "point out" are used.

A few other examples

"only with special attention and consideration to the less recognised role of men and boys."
"The numbers of male teachers is even more alarming"
"And powerful feminist groups may not allow recognition, on the need to narrow this divide. They feel that such apathy may lead to future generations of males becoming less educated, and hence less gainfully employed."
"Allegations of rape can devastate a males life."
"In some societies there is legislated discrimination against males in provision of social security."
"Media and feminist vigilantism against allegedly cruel husbands, is currently encouraged in India"

These problems are compounded by much non-cited material, which may or may not be original research and lack of attribution. Some of the above would likely be fine if they were reported as the (sourced) opinion of men's rights activists. --Slp1 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that above list is definately of concern to men's rights. It addresses actions against Men which need changing. Feminism took the exact same stance, yet you would censor male usage of them? This then becomes another point for your list:

"The facts of the concerns of male rights are not allowed to be voiced, as it seems to be the opinion of some that -current- issues are not 'encyclopedic'. 173.33.142.104 (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Crayos

Since the issue is that there are no facts sited, it is much the same as it was with early feminism, instead of looking for published stats and articles that will not exist yet. For example, do you really need a citation for things everyone can see? Most medical billboards for diseases show women. Example: The ALS poster in front of the restroom at my gym, the new heart attack posters at my doctor's office, bowel problems, walking into a shoppers drugmart where the slogan is "Your health" it's three generations of women laying in the grass playing... You want the facts, do what the original women's right movement did, look around and point it out to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.142.104 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly makes this story not neutral point of view now? Jayhammers (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

cleaning-up this page

This page has become a complete mess. Please read WP:TALK - all new ~~posts~~ threads should be posted at the bottom of the page. I'm re-organizing the page chronologically and will be archiving old posts per WP:TALK--Cailil ^talk 00:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:TALK states that we should "start new topics at the bottom of the page," not new posts. Indeed properly threaded new posts can occur in any section of a Talk page. Blackworm (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who tags.

As in a number of articles, this article makes extensive use of what can be termed "weasel words". This ends up detracting from the validity of the article. There needs to be a move against using terms such as:

"Some people say..."
"Some argue..."
"Contrary to many..."
"Research has shown..."
"...is claimed to be..."
"...is thought to be..."
"It is believed that..."
"It is rumored that..."
"Some feel that..."
"Critics/experts say that..."
"It is claimed..."
"It has been reported that..."
"It is generally considered that..."

I added some ^[who?] tags to places in which this was evident.

Rmosler | ● 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________

How can one report on subjective topics without the use of the above words and terms?

This is not a "math" topic wherein one can logically assume, within reason, that one plus one equals two? Obbop (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Read about weasel words. It boils down to "Who, when, where?". More explicitly, using the cited examples:

"Some people say..." (Who are these people? Where/when did they say so?)
"Some argue..." (Same as above. Who? When? Where?)
"Contrary to many..." (Who are the many? Where did they contradict it?)
"Research has shown..." (Who did the research? Where/when was it published?)
"...is claimed to be..." (Who made the claim? Where? When?)
"...is thought to be..." (Who/when/where?)
"It is believed that..." (Who/when/where?)
"It is rumored that..." (Who/when/where?)
"Some feel that..." (Who/when/where?)
"Critics/experts say that..." (Which critics, in what context, where published?)
"It is claimed..." (Who/when/where?)
"It has been reported that..." (Who/when/where?)
"It is generally considered that..." (Who/when/where?)

It doesn't have to be maths, but it should be more reliable than "Someone somewhere said…". Jokl (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Jokl. You do not understand. This is how "Men's Rights Activists" operate. There is absolutely nothing to support their ridiculous claim that men are somehow 'oppressed' or 'discriminated against' in this world. It's the same strategy that "White Pride" racists use to argue that whites are somehow 'oppressed.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by SantaClaus86 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

~ Santa, your comments make it apparent that there is indeed issues relating to Men's Rights. I am Male, I find your comments both inappropriate and offense. You yourself are attempting to oppress and discriminate Men's opinions. Paragoalie (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Minister for Men

The content removed by myself and by User:Blackworm was reinstated twice by IP 82.12.250.107. Both users removing the content explained. Rv 1 "A blog is not a reliable source, also this section is much too long for this issue (WP:UNDUE) given that this is a general article on men's rights. Probably needs more work."; Rv 2 "rmv section on Minister for men- See WP:DUE also while lines are sourced there are issues with the sources (blogs) as well as the linking of sources to form an essay style synthesis". Both users have explained that the removals are based on policy - specifically WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and I raised a concern relating to WP:NOR (specifically WP:SYN). Please be aware that reinstating disputed material without discussion or consensus is considered disruptive editing--Cailil ^talk 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that deleting material that you don't like, and then threatening other editors with phrases like "disruptive editing" is a power ploy used by those who want to force their version onto others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberation3 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

False rape

This section could use some clean-up. Because there is a section to link to it would probably be better just to summarize some of the statistics and mention that part of men's rights activists issue with false rape allegations is that there is large disparity between the punishment for making a false allegation and the punishment just for being accused of rape, and that most false rape allegations are not even prosecuted. The linked section should mention this too.Jayhammers (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Conscription

Put the conscription section back, not sure why it was removed. It probably needs work but conscription's effect specifically on men must be included in the article; a link to the conscription article would be insufficient in showing men's rights activists' issues with conscription.Jayhammers (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed opinion from this section, specifically that the ERA was defeated because of fear of loss of privilege, and the editoralizing/opinion only line: "While it might be considered positive that women are kept from the front lines by not being required to register for the draft nor being allowed in front line combat, it can be argued as to whether or not that is a privilege." Let's stick to the facts here. LikaTika (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased?

This article is clearly biased and reads more as a rant/position article than as an encyclopedia entry.

You're not supposed to advocate for an entry last i checked. Commenter37051 (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article demonstrates the views of men's rights activists.Jayhammers (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, the mens rights movement is right, all feminist of all "diffrent groups" are out to inprison, enslave and even murder all males of this century, I knew I wasn't crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.51.214 (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone posted this on the actual article itself but it belongs here

User:82.6.72.118 posted this on the article, but it blasts the editors of the page, so i've moved it here. maybe someone could consider it...

If the author of this article bothered to check HIS facts, he would find that women are frequently given much harsher sentencing for commiting the same violent crimes as males, as it is seen as acceptable for males to be violent, but not for women to be violent. Also, a black male is 600 times more likely to commit crime, so 600 times more black males should be in prison than any other group, but this is not the case. If you analyse the percentages of convicted men handed custodial sentences compared to convicted women, you find that women are more frequently jailed for crimes that the vast majority of men escape a custodial sentence. Again, this is because it is seen as "less acceptable" for women to commit the same crimes as men. Punishment should fit the crime, not the gender.

but it seems racist too...

D e v r i t 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll believe the findings of the University of Georgia scientific study over the ramblings of a random internet user. Black people are more likely to receive harsher sentences than whites, men are more likely to receive harsher sentences than women, and black men receive the harshest sentences of all, for the same crimes.Jayhammers (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Prison Rape

There should probably be a section on prison rape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.254.220 (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Intro references

I was asked by editor Aronoel for reliable sources for my update to introductory text of the article. I left it as:

"The term men's rights refers to freedoms and rights of boys and men. This term is specifically related to focusing on rights which are protected for girls and women, yet inadequately protected for boys and men, and fall within the broader context of human rights. In essence, this term refers to human rights and dignity for men.

Men's Rights also relates to the roles of men in contemporary society. Gender roles are within the mens's movement primarily considered as resulting life situations for men and women and secondarily also as causes to life situations. Men's Rights focuses on allowing a broad set of dignified roles or outcomes for men during their lives.

Traditionally, the roles for men were largely influenced by the ability for men exclusively to provide protection and sustenance to his partner and offspring and the considered and in a reproductive biological sense actual expendability of an individual man but not the individual woman. These circumstances has undergone change. Mens roles are also considered related to beliefs about the physical and mental attributes of men and women and to some extent the actual attributes of men and women. Many of the traditional beliefs, however, have become controversial during the last decades. The actual abilities of men and women of today in comparison to the past has also changed aswell as the society in which men and women live. The changes are considered due to technological, intellectual, social, legal and religious influences.

Groups, movements and loosely connected individuals over the internet have emerged in an effort to clearly identify and establish what the past, current and new roles of men are and should be. To achieve dignified roles the Men's Rights Movement is concerned with legal and societal rights. This has occured primarily in Western cultures. This includes addressing disparity in conviction, sentencing, custody, matrimonial and alimony laws, as well as the discrimination and degrading of males in society at large, including in education, the work place and in the media."

I would like to make an argument to the consensus of editors for material not backed by sources. I am myself since long interested in mens rights and convey only what I experience to be consensus. I list below some sources to the statements. Please request or add what more sources could be, should be or must be had.

Controversiality mental abilities: By established examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_Nyborg

Controvsiality physical abilities: women run better?: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15064423

85.226.7.214 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest in this article. Unfortunately, material that is not backed by sources cannot be included on Wikipedia. I think you'll find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Also, I'm not sure if I understand what the connection the links you provided have with the material you wrote for the introduction. They could possibly be used to back up the sentence "Some people have controversially argued that men and women have different mental abilities," or something to that effect, although I don't know if that would be relevant to the introduction in this article about Men's rights. I hope that this helps you understand why your version of the introduction as it is cannot be included in this page. --Aronoel (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources are always important but are only strictly required when the content is controversial and I see very little in the introduction that could not be easily sourced or is all that controversial. Wouldn't be surprised to see a "sourced" claim get put in their that feminists fight for men's rights (and liberation) given the army of editors saying as much in the feminism article though. Also, sources are not required in the intro if the content is sourced in the body of that article per WP:MOS (not sure if this applies here since I haven't looked at the article for a while.)--Cybermud (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cybermud, I looked through the article and I didn't see any sources for what the anonymous editor wants to add. Some of the anonymous editor's intro probably doesn't need citations, such as the sentence "To achieve dignified roles the Men's Rights Movement is concerned with legal and societal rights." (though this point is explained better in the current version's lead.) But I think the whole third paragraph seems very much to be original research. However, I have to admit I'm having some trouble understanding this editor's intro because there seems to be a language issue. But if it's something that's very accepted and should be included here, then I would think it wouldn't be very hard to find sources to backing it up as a widely accepted fact.--Aronoel (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Pay gap

"Furthermore, 2004 Census Bureau data shows that "a part-time working woman makes $1.10 for every dollar made by her male counterpart."[84] In contrast, economists' research conducted in the 1990s found that, even after accounting for parenthood status, education, job title, and other factors, there was still a significant income disparity in men's favor (Blau and Kahn 1997, Wood et al. 1993)."

Is it right to show an older research as it was made to refute a newer one? I think this paragraph reflect that...

The entire history section is irrelevant to Men's rights and should be removed

All part of the ongoing effort to transform this article into an anti men's rights, feminist screed.--75.134.142.69 (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed subject heading: Discrimination against men in Development Aid

Hey all, One area that I think you have not written about yet, which is a major issue in developing countries, is the fact that development aid is so largely skewed in favor of women (in many cases justifiably so, in others not). There are a wide range of services provided to poor women which are not provided to poor men, usually under the rubric that women are "vulnerable" or "marginalized". Men of course, can never be "vulnerable". Decisions about aid allocation are done by first world men and women in remote capitals, often with little knowledge of the situation on the ground except the reports that they get from local staff, which may or may not be factual.

A recent example was how the WFP created "women only" food distribution points in Haiti after the earthquake, because a few men allegedly grabbed food from women/ elderly. This kind of sanctioned discrimination needs to be raised. Another example is how in developing countries that are post-conflict, a disproportionate amount of aid is given for "female ex combatants", when in reality the vast, vast majority of ex-combatants are men. The money allocated for female ex-combatants was/is disproportionate to the number of female ex-combatants.

There are many examples of this which could be raised, but would require research. Please help me!Liberation3 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed New Subject: International Law and Anti-Discrimination legislation

Another subject, is that when men feel that they are being discriminated against, I am not aware of any law that they can appeal to. Women have done very well to get laws which address discrimination against them, but men have hardly any law to turn to. A key example is CEDAW, which protects women from discrimination, but there is no CEDAM. I recently knew of a case where men were clearly being discriminated against by a local law, but I could not think of any way to legally challenge it, because there is no international law protecting men from discrimination.

Or do any editors know of some such legislation? In the USA, the ERA would probably have protected men, but as we know it was not passed!

Please help me find sources! Liberation3 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed New Subject: Women's control of Gender studies/ women's studies

This is one of the main problems in gender for men- women control the entire discourse about gender, especially in academia. The fact that it is even defined as "women's studies" is instructive in itself (again the same trend of gynocentricity or men's invisibility).

Although gender issues affect both men and women, the subject is often called "women's studies" and the people who study it are usually women, and professors are all women. Not to mention that all the theories developed by feminists over the years are extremely biased and gynocentric. These theories are the basis for the women's studies programs. It will be difficult for men to impact the gender debate without playing a role in these subjects, as both students and professors.

Please help me find sources! Liberation3 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberation3 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Forced reproduction - consent for sex is not consent for reproduction

This whole section has no place on Wikipedia. It contains no citations and is clearly just a rant. --69.158.27.180 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend adding info from the article It's Ten O'Clock: Do you know where your sperm are? from Divorce Litigation, Volume 11 No. 1. For example:

S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). In that case, the father testified that he went to a party at the mother's house. He had been drinking for several hours before he arrived, and had in fact gotten sick on the way to her house. At the mother's house, the father continued to drink, and the last think he remembered was getting sick again and his brother putting him in bed at the mother's house. The next morning, the father awoke in that same bed with only his shirt on. The father did not remember having sex with the mother, and he did not knowingly and purposely have sex with her.

The father's brother testified as to the same facts. A friend of both the mother testified as to the same facts, plus the fact that about two months after the party, the mother said she had sex with the father while he was "passed out" and that it saved her a trip to the sperm bank. Another friend testified that the mother had said she had sex with the father, "and he wasn't even aware of it."

A physician testified that it is possible for a man who is intoxicated to the point of losing consciousness may nevertheless have an erection and ejaculate; they are not conscious, voluntary activities.

The father argued that because he did not have sex voluntarily with the mother, he was not liable for child support. The court disposed of the argument, comparing it to the arguments made in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.: the wrongful conduct of the mother in causing conception did not obviate the father's support obligation. The court also compared the father's argument to the arguments put forth in the statutory rape cases, concluding that the "rape" of the father could not preclude a finding of liability for support.

The dissent would have held the father liable for child support, but would have deviated from the presumptive child support guidelines because "the mother's sexual conduct was reprehensible and is a misdemeanor. Because of the mother's inappropriate conduct, the trial court should have deviated from the guidelines." 695 So. 2d at 1191.

The lesson one can take from Frisard is simple: a man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up when he voluntarily engages in a sexual act. The lesson one must take from S.F. v. T.M., however, is somewhat troubling: a man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up even when he unknowingly and involuntarily engages in a sexual act. Instead of comparing the father's predicament with the mother's predicament in Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031), where a mother was relieved of her child support obligation because she was raped, the court imposed a child support obligation because of the fact of paternity. This can only be termed a strict liability theory of sperm.

-Doriah1112 —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

One should also consider that sex does not even need to be involved. Simple theft of sperm through fraudulently withdrawing from a sperm bank can result in child support obligations. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392045/Man-ordered-pay-100-000-children-ex-wife-tricks-clinic-using-frozen-sperm.html User:Kratch 11 Oct 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

Circumcision

The circumcision section might include information on the psychological effects of trauma resulting from circumcision pain. For example: http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Ramos and Boyle (2001) investigated the psychological effects associated with medical and ritual "operation tuli" circumcision procedures in the Philippines. Some 1577 boys aged 11 to 16 years (1072 boys circumcised under medical procedures; 505 subjected to ritual circumcision) were surveyed to see if genital cutting led to the development of PTSD. Interestingly, Mezey and Robbins (2001) estimated the incidence of PTSD as 1.0% to 7.8% in the general British population where circumcision is not very prevalent. On the other hand, using the PTSD-I questionnaire (Watson et al., 1991) in a predominantly circumcised population, Ramos and Boyle observed an incidence of PTSD of almost 70% among boys subjected to ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical circumcision (with local anaesthetic). Long-term follow-up would be needed to gauge the extent to which PTSD persists over the lifespan of these circumcised boys.

-Doriah1112 —Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Edited The people who concentrate on men's rights and men's identity believe that most of the medical reasons are insufficient or inappropriate for modifying male genitals without consent.^[2]^[3]^[4] to Prominent medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have stated that there is no reason for routine neonatal circumcision.^[5] as it cited nonreliable sources, and was poorly written. LikaTika (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

major problems

I just took out major sections of the article for violating WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V/WP:RS issues. I'm happy to discuss any individual point with anyone who is interested, but please do not restore the removed text without discussion. Kevin (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

^ "Why divorce makes women the poorer sex". Retrieved 2009-02-03.
^ Cite error: The named reference circumcision.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ http://www.circumstitions.com/Rights.html
^ http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/smith/
^ http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

[1] "Why divorce makes women the poorer sex". Retrieved 2009-02-03.

[circumcision.org-2] Cite error: The named reference circumcision.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] ttp://www.circumstitions.com/Rights.html

[4] ttp://www.cirp.org/library/legal/smith/

[aappublications.org-5] ttp://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]