Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Men's rights movement" in English language version.
As historians Sigrid Augeneder and Gabriella Hauch explain, legally removing women from traditional male jobs constituted one facet of the return to a 'healthy order' (gesunde Ordnung) in the postwar period. Hauch discusses the somewhat comical 'League for Men's Rights' founded in the 1920s to "protect the endangered existence of men.
Men's rights proponents are particularly active online
Indeed, the premise of all men's rights literature is that men are not privileged relative to women [...] Having denied that men are privileged relative to women, this movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who believe that society has become a bastion of female privilege and male degradation.[Emphasis in original]
Other men's rights advocacy groups use family conflict research to justify demands [...] to eliminate laws defining marital rape as a crime
In contradistinction to profeminism, however, the men's rights perspective addresses specific legal and cultural factors that put men at a disadvantage. The movement is made up of a variety of formal and informal groups that differ in their approaches and issues; Men's rights advocates, for example, target sex-specific military conscription and judicial practices that discriminate against men in child custody cases.
It is there that 7 February has been declared International Men's Day by the men's rights groups, celebrated in Kansas City in 1994 as a day for campaigning against the legal recognition of 'marital rape' [...]
Most [men's rights movement] activists were white, middle-class males who felt threatened by what they viewed as a culture of entitlement for women and minorities.
no relationship will work if these rules are enforced.
[T]he MRA movement [is] less commonly referred to as MRM: 'Men's Rights Movement'
[T]he explicitly political men's rights movement is concerned with achieving concrete policy changes that favor men and that are designed to roll back gains made by the feminist movement such as protections won by advocates of those affected by sexual violence and intimate partner violence.
The concept of recuperative masculinity politics was developed by Lingard and Douglas (1999) to refer to both mythopoetic (Biddulph 1995, 2010; Bly 1990) and men's rights politics (Farrell 1993). Both of these rejected the move to a more equal gender order and more equal gender regimes in all of the major institutions of society (e.g. the family, schools, universities, workplaces) sought by feminists and most evident in the political and policy impacts in the 1980s and 1990s from second-wave feminism of the 1970s. 'Recuperative' was used to specifically indicate the ways in which these politics reinforced, defended and wished to recoup the patriarchal gender order and institutional gender regimes.
Another example of contractual model rhetoric is in the language of the Men's Rights movement. As a countermovement to the feminist movement, it has concentrated on areas generally thought of as family law—especially divorce and child custody laws. The movement charges that maternal preference in child custody decisions is an example of gender prejudice, with men the ones who are systematically disadvantaged [...] Men's Rights groups [...] have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement [...] Similarly, along with the appeal to 'equal rights for fathers' [...] the Men's Rights movement also uses a rhetoric of children's 'needs' [...] The needs rhetoric helps offset charges that their rights language is motivated by self-interest alone.
The men's rights movement is distinct from other explorations of masculinity insofar as the movement itself is fundamentally situated in opposition to feminist theory and activism.
The tendency of family courts to award child custody to mothers rather than fathers is interpreted by fathers' rights groups as a case of discrimination against men due to the absence of any analysis of gender formations in society and their relationships.
Several authors have observed that men's rights groups claim that the family law system and the Family Court are biased against men, despite the lack of supporting empirical research.Also available through HeinOnline.
Another example of contractual model rhetoric is in the language of the Men's Rights movement. As a countermovement to the feminist movement, it has concentrated on areas generally thought of as family law—especially divorce and child custody laws. The movement charges that maternal preference in child custody decisions is an example of gender prejudice, with men the ones who are systematically disadvantaged [...] Men's Rights groups [...] have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement [...] Similarly, along with the appeal to 'equal rights for fathers' [...] the Men's Rights movement also uses a rhetoric of children's 'needs' [...] The needs rhetoric helps offset charges that their rights language is motivated by self-interest alone.
Several authors have observed that men's rights groups claim that the family law system and the Family Court are biased against men, despite the lack of supporting empirical research.Also available through HeinOnline.
Research has highlighted that it is usually disaffected fathers and men's rights groups, who have masked their own claims behind the rhetoric of the rights of the child to know and be cared for by both parents.
A 'League for Men's Rights' was founded today to protect men against Austrian feminism, which has grown rapidly since the war.
Another example of contractual model rhetoric is in the language of the Men's Rights movement. As a countermovement to the feminist movement, it has concentrated on areas generally thought of as family law—especially divorce and child custody laws. The movement charges that maternal preference in child custody decisions is an example of gender prejudice, with men the ones who are systematically disadvantaged [...] Men's Rights groups [...] have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement [...] Similarly, along with the appeal to 'equal rights for fathers' [...] the Men's Rights movement also uses a rhetoric of children's 'needs' [...] The needs rhetoric helps offset charges that their rights language is motivated by self-interest alone.
The All India Harassed Husbands Association protested last week at the law. 'It gives such grossly disproportionate rights to women that men won't want to get married,' said member Akhil Gupta
The concept of recuperative masculinity politics was developed by Lingard and Douglas (1999) to refer to both mythopoetic (Biddulph 1995, 2010; Bly 1990) and men's rights politics (Farrell 1993). Both of these rejected the move to a more equal gender order and more equal gender regimes in all of the major institutions of society (e.g. the family, schools, universities, workplaces) sought by feminists and most evident in the political and policy impacts in the 1980s and 1990s from second-wave feminism of the 1970s. 'Recuperative' was used to specifically indicate the ways in which these politics reinforced, defended and wished to recoup the patriarchal gender order and institutional gender regimes.
The men's rights movement is distinct from other explorations of masculinity insofar as the movement itself is fundamentally situated in opposition to feminist theory and activism.
no relationship will work if these rules are enforced.
A 'League for Men's Rights' was founded today to protect men against Austrian feminism, which has grown rapidly since the war.
The men's rights movement is distinct from other explorations of masculinity insofar as the movement itself is fundamentally situated in opposition to feminist theory and activism.
