Men’s Rights Movement
The men’s rights movement (MRM) consists of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on general social issues and specific government services which they claim adversely impact, or in some cases structurally discriminate against, men. Common topics debated within the men’s rights movement include family law, parenting, reproduction, suicide, domestic violence against men, circumcision, education, conscription, social safety nets, and health policies. Some scholars have described the men’s rights movement or parts of the movement as a backlash against feminism.
The men’s right movement branched off from the men’s liberation movement in the early 1970s, with both groups comprising a part of the larger men’s movement.
Claims and activities associated with the men’s rights movement have been criticized and labeled hateful and violent. In 2018, while noting “some corners of the men’s rights movement focused on legitimate grievances,” the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized some men’s rights groups as being part of a hate ideology under the umbrella of “male supremacy“. The movement and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynistic, and the disadvantage some men feel is argued as often being due to loss of entitlement and privilege.
The term “men’s rights” was used at least as early as February 1856 when it appeared in Putnam’s Magazine.
Three loosely connected men’s rights organizations formed in Austria in the interwar period. The League for Men’s Rights was founded in 1926 with the goal of “combatting all excesses of women’s emancipation”. In 1927, the Justitia League for Family Law Reform and the Aequitas World’s League for the Rights of Men split from the League of Men’s Rights. The three men’s rights groups opposed women’s entry into the labor market and what they saw as the corrosive influence of the women’s movement on social and legal institutions. They criticized marriage and family laws, especially the requirement to pay spousal and child support to former wives and illegitimate children, and supported the use of blood tests to determine paternity. Justitia and Aequitas issued their own short-lived journals Men’s Rightists Newspaper and Self-Defense where they expressed their views that were heavily influenced by the works of Heinrich Schurtz, Otto Weininger, and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels. The organizations ceased to exist before 1939.
In the 1980s and 1990s, men’s rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the patriarchal gender order in the family, schools and the workplace. Some men’s rights activists view men as an oppressed group and believe that society and men have been “feminized” by the women’s movement. Sarah Maddison, an Australian author, has said that Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg “argue that, for most men, power is an illusion, and that women are the true power holders in society through their roles as the primary carers and nurturers of children”.
One of the first major men’s rights organizations was the Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements, founded by Richard Doyle in 1971, from which the Men’s Rights Association spun off in 1973. Free Men Inc. was founded in 1977 in Columbia, Maryland, spawning several chapters over the following years, which eventually merged to form the National Coalition of Free Men (now known as the National Coalition for Men). Men’s Rights, Inc. was also formed in 1977. Fathers and Families was formed in 1994. In the United Kingdom, a men’s rights group calling itself the UK Men’s Movement began to organize in the early 1990s. The Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) was founded in 2005, and in 2010 claimed to have over 30,000 members.
The men’s rights movement has become more vocal and more organized since the development of the internet. The manosphere emerged and men’s rights websites and forums have proliferated on the internet. Activists mostly organize online. The most popular men’s rights site is A Voice for Men. Other sites dedicated to men’s rights issues are the Fathers Rights Foundation, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and subreddits like /r/MensRights. Men’s rights proponents often use the red pill and blue pill metaphor from a scene in The Matrix to identify each other online and in reference to the moment they came to believe that men are oppressed. There tends to be much hostility between the different subgroups. Critics say that r/TheRedpill is a subreddit dedicated to men’s rights. However, others from within the subreddit claim they focus on personal and interpersonal improvement. Some critics, outside the subreddit, say r/TheRedPill does not really care for the men’s rights movement and that MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) are men who have no patience for either /r/TheRedPill or men’s rights.
Fringe political parties focusing on men’s rights have been formed including, but not limited to, the Australian Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting), the Israeli Man’s Rights in the Family Party, and the Justice for Men and Boys party in the UK.
Most men’s rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, heterosexual men. Prominent advocates include Warren Farrell, Herb Goldberg, Richard Doyle, and Asa Baber. Several women have emerged as leading voices of the MRM, including Helen Smith, Christina Hoff Sommers and Erin Pizzey.
Relation to feminism
Many scholars consider the men’s rights movement a backlash or counter movement to feminism. Bob Lingard and Peter Douglas suggest that the conservative wing of the men’s rights movement, rather than the men’s rights position in general, is an antifeminist backlash. Masculinities scholar Jonathan A. Allan described the men’s rights movement as a reactionary movement that is defined by its opposition to women and feminism but has not yet formulated its own theories and methodologies outside of antifeminism. Scholar Michael Messner notes that the early men’s rights movement “appropriates the symmetrical language of sex roles” first used by feminists, which implies a false balance of institutional power between men and women.
The men’s rights movement generally incorporates points of view that reject feminist and profeminist ideas. Men’s rights activists have said that they believe feminism has radicalized its objective and harmed men. They believe that rights have been taken away from men and that men are victims of feminism and ‘feminizing’ influences in society. They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women. Men’s rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism is interested in men’s problems, and some men’s rights activists have viewed the women’s movement as a plot to deliberately conceal discrimination against men and promote gynocentrism.
Men’s rights proponents are concerned with a wide variety of matters, some of which have spawned their own groups or movements, such as the fathers’ rights movement, concerned specifically with divorce and child custody issues. Some, if not all, men’s rights issues stem from gender roles and, according to sociologist Allan Johnson, patriarchy.
Men’s rights activists seek to expand the rights of unwed fathers in case of their child’s adoption. Warren Farrell argues that in failing to inform the father of a pregnancy, an expectant mother deprives an adopted child of a relationship with the biological father. He proposes that women be legally required to make every reasonable effort to notify the father of her pregnancy within four to five days. In response, philosopher James P. Sterba agrees that, for moral reasons, a woman should inform the father of the pregnancy and adoption, but this should not be imposed as a legal requirement as it might result in undue pressure, for example, to have an abortion.
Men’s rights organizations such as Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) say that women misuse legislation meant to protect them from dowry death and bride burnings. SIFF is a men’s rights organization in India that focuses on abuse of anti-dowry laws against men. SIFF has campaigned to abolish Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalizes cruelty by husbands (and the husband’s family) in pursuit of dowry or for driving a wife to suicide. SIFF states anti-dowry laws are regularly being abused to settle petty disputes in marriage and that they regularly receive calls from many men who allege their wives have used false dowry claims to imprison them.
Family law is an area of deep concern among men’s rights groups. Men’s rights adherents argue that the legal system and family courts discriminate against men, especially in regards to child custody after divorce. They believe that men do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse and use statistics on custody awards as evidence of judicial bias against men. Men’s rights advocates seek to change the legal climate for men through changes in family law, for example by lobbying for laws that make joint custody the default custody arrangement except in cases where one parent is unfit or unwilling to parent. They appropriated the feminist rhetoric of “rights” and “equality” in their discourse, framing child custody as a matter of basic civil rights as opposed to children’s rights. Some men’s rights activists argue that the lack of contact with their children makes fathers less willing to pay child support. Others cite parental alienation syndrome (PAS) as a reason to grant custody to fathers. Scholarly consensus has rejected PAS as an empirically-supported syndrome.
Family law scholars state that father’s rights proponents fail to credit feminism as being the revolutionary social force to bring awareness of fathers’ equally important parental roles. Scholars and critics assert that empirical research does not support the notion of a judicial bias against men and that men’s rights advocates distort statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men do not seek custody. 90% of custody disputes are agreed upon without family court involvement and studies have found fair assessment in child custody decisions and that legal appointees are more likely to award custody to parents with interpersonally sensitive traits such as warmth and compassion regardless of gender.
Academics critique the rhetorical framing of custody decisions, stating that men’s rights advocates appeal for “equal rights” without ever specifying the legal rights they believe have been violated. Scholars and critics assert that the men’s rights rhetoric of children’s “needs” that accompanies their plea for fathers’ rights is merely to deflect criticism that they are motivated by self-interest and masks men’s rights advocates’ own claims. Deborah Rhode argues that contrary to the claims of some men’s rights activists, research shows that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents. Michael Flood argues that the father’s rights movement seems to prioritize re-establishing paternal authority over actual involvement with the children, and that they prioritize formal principles of equality over positive parenting and well-being of the children.
Lundy Bancroft states that family courts repeatedly fail to protect battered women and their children by frequently granting joint or sole custody to abusive fathers.
Observers have noted that the ‘intactivist’ movement, an anti-circumcision movement, has some overlap with the men’s rights movement. Most men’s rights activists object to routine neonatal circumcision and say that female genital mutilation has received more attention than male circumcision.
The controversy around non-consensual circumcision of children for non-therapeutic reasons is not exclusive to the men’s rights movement, and involves concerns of feminists and medical ethics. Some doctors and academics have argued that circumcision is a violation of the right to health and bodily integrity, while others have disagreed.
Warren Farrell claims there are criminal defenses that are only available to women. N. Quintin Woolf has argued that the over-representation of men as both murderers and the victims of murder is evidence that men are being harmed by outmoded cultural attitudes. Professor Sonja B. Starr research suggests that after controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, “men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do,” and “[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.”
Men’s rights groups in the United States began organizing in opposition to divorce reform and custody issues around the 1960s. Up until this time, husbands held legal power and control over wives and children. The men involved in the early organization claimed that family and divorce law discriminated against them and favored their wives. Men’s rights leader Rich Doyle likened divorce courts to slaughterhouses, considering their judgements unsympathetic and unreasonable.
Men’s rights adherents say that men are consciously or unconsciously opting out of marriage and engaging in a “marriage strike” as a result of a perceived lack of benefits in marriage, and the emotional and financial consequences of divorce, including alimony, child custody and support. Men’s rights activists have argued that divorce and custody laws violate men’s individual rights to equal protection. Law professor Gwendolyn Leachman writes that this sort of framing “downplays the systemic biases that women face that justify protective divorce and custody laws”.
Across several countries (including the US and the UK), men file less than a third of opposite-sex divorce cases, and women file over two thirds.
Men’s rights groups describe domestic violence committed by women against men as a problem that goes ignored and under-reported, in part because men are reluctant to label themselves as victims. They say that women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men in relationships and that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical. They cite controversial family conflict research by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles as evidence of gender symmetry. Men’s rights advocates argue that judicial systems too easily accept false allegations of domestic violence by women against male partners. Men’s rights advocates have been critics of legal, policy and practical protections for abused women, campaigning for domestic violence shelters for battered men and for the legal system to be educated about women’s violence against men.
In response to such claims, family violence scholar Richard Gelles published an article entitled “Domestic Violence: Not An Even Playing Field” and accused the men’s rights movement of distorting his research findings on men’s and women’s violence to promote a misogynistic agenda. Domestic violence scholars and advocates have rejected the flawed research cited by men’s rights activists and dispute their claims that such violence is gender symmetrical, suggesting that their focus on women’s violence stems from a political agenda to minimize the severity of the problem of men’s violence against women and children and to undermine services to abused women. Men’s rights groups have lobbied to block state funding to battered women’s shelters, despite the high rates of intimate partner femicide justifying greater funding.
Men’s rights adherents describe the education of boys as being in crisis, with boys having reduced educational achievement and motivation compared to girls. Advocates blame the influence of feminism on education for what they believe is discrimination against and systematic oppression of boys in the education system. They critique what they describe as the “feminization” of education, stating that the predominance of female teachers, a focus on girls’ needs, as well as a curricula and assessment methods that supposedly favour girls, have proved repressive and restrictive to men and boys.
Another study has also found gender differences in academic achievement not being reliably linked to gender policies, and that female academic achievement is greater than boys’ in 70% of studied countries around the world. However, this is contradicted in Australia by ACARA’s independent NAPLAN findings that “Since their introduction, a subtle but consistent pattern of gender differences in performance on the NAPLAN tests has emerged, with boys regularly outperforming girls in numeracy, and girls consistently outperforming boys in the reading, writing, spelling, and grammar and punctuation components”. To further add to the confusion with other evidence presented, there has been an obvious, unexplained and significant drop in the number of boys at university in most countries. Australia, for example, has seen a drop from 61% to 46% since 1974. Similar trends have been observed in the UK, which is thought to be influenced primarily by teacher policies and attitudes.
Men’s rights groups call for increased recognition of masculinity, greater numbers of male role models, more competitive sports, and the increased responsibilities for boys in the school setting. They have also advocated clearer school routines, more traditional school structures, including gender-segregated classrooms, and stricter discipline.
Critics suggest that men’s rights groups view boys as a homogeneous group sharing common experiences of schooling and that they fail to account for how responses to educational approaches may differ by age, disability, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and class.
In Australia, men’s rights discourse has influenced government policy documents. Compared to Australia, less impact has been noted in the United Kingdom, where feminists have historically had less influence on educational policy. However, Mary Curnock Cook, the British Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) chief executive, argued that in Britain “despite the clear evidence and despite the press coverage, there is a deafening policy silence on the issue. Has the women’s movement now become so normalised that we cannot conceive of needing to take positive action to secure equal education outcomes for boys?”
The men’s rights movement rejects the concept that men are privileged relative to women. The movement is divided into two groups: those who consider men and women to be harmed equally by sexism, and those who view society as endorsing the degradation of men and upholding what they term “female privilege”.
Men’s rights groups have called for governmental structures to address issues specific to men and boys including education, health, work and marriage. Men’s rights groups in India have called for the creation of a Men’s Welfare Ministry and a National Commission for Men, or for the abolition of the National Commission for Women. In the United Kingdom, the creation of a Minister for Men analogous to the existing Minister for Women, has been proposed by David Amess, MP and Lord Northbourne, but was rejected by the government headed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. In the United States, Warren Farrell heads a commission focused on the creation of a White House Council on Boys and Men as a counterpart to the White House Council on Women and Girls, which was formed in March 2009.
Men’s rights groups view the health issues faced by men and their shorter life spans compared to women globally, as evidence of discrimination and oppression. They claim that feminism has led to women’s health issues being privileged at the expense of men’s. They highlight certain disparities in funding of men’s health issues as compared to women’s, noting that, for example, prostate cancer research receives less funding than breast-cancer research. David Benatar has argued that putting more money into health research on males may reduce the disparity between men’s and women’s life expectancy. However, women and minorities had typically been excluded from medical research until the 1990s. Vivianna Simon notes, “Most biomedical and clinical research has been based on the assumption that the male can serve as representative of the species.” Medical scholars warn that such false assumptions are still prevalent. Contrary to antifeminist assertions, empirical findings suggest that gender bias against females remains the norm in medicine. Farrell argues that industrialization raised the stress level of men while lowering the stress-level of women by pulling men away from the home and the family, and pushing women closer to home and family. He cites this an explanation why men are more likely to die from all 15 leading causes of death than women at all ages. He argues that the U.S. government having an Office of Research on Women’s Health but no Office of Research on Men’s Health, along with the U.S. federal government spending twice as much money on Women’s health, shows that society considers men more disposable than women.
Scholars have critiqued these claims, stating, as Michael Messner puts it, that the poorer health outcomes are the heavy costs paid by men “for conformity with the narrow definitions of masculinity that promise to bring them status and privilege” and that these costs fall disproportionately on men who are marginalized socially and economically. According to Michael Flood, men’s health would best be improved by “tackling destructive notions of manhood, an economic system which values profit and productivity over workers’ health, and the ignorance of service providers”, instead of blaming a feminist health movement. Genevieve Creighton & John L Oliffe have stated that men engage in positive health practices, such as reducing fat intake and alcohol, to conform to positive masculine ideals. Some have argued that biology contributes to the life-expectancy gap. For example, it has been found that females consistently outlive males among primates. Eunuchs, castrated before puberty, have shown to live with varying differences, more than other males, pointing to testosterone levels playing a role in the life-expectancy gap. Luy M. and Gast K. found that the female-male life expectancy gap is primarily due to higher mortality rates among specific sub-populations of men (e.g., gay, trans, racial minorities). They therefore state that social programs should be narrowly targeted to those sub-populations, rather than to men as a whole.
Men’s rights advocates argue that homelessness is a gendered issue. In Britain, most homeless people are male. A 2018 study focused on three Pennsylvania emergency departments found little difference in the number of men and women who self-reported as homeless; however, the study did not claim to reflect the homeless population in the United States as a whole. For information on the homeless population of the United States as a whole, see Homelessness in the United States.
Men’s rights activists argue research on differential prison terms for men and women provides evidence of discrimination against men. Farrell cites evidence that men receive harsher prison sentences and are more likely sentenced to death in the United States. He believes society considers women to be naturally more innocent and credible, and criticizes battered woman and infanticide defenses. He also criticizes conditions in men’s prisons and the lack of attention to prison male-to-male rape by authorities.
Men’s rights adherents have argued that sole military conscription of men is an example of discrimination against men.
In 1971, draft resisters in the United States initiated a class-action suit alleging that male-only conscription violated men’s rights to equal protection under the US constitution. When the case, Rostker v. Goldberg, reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men’s rights group and multiple feminist groups, including the National Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act, stating that “the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than ‘equity'”. The 2016 decision by Defense Secretary Ash Carter to make all combat positions open to women relaunched debate over whether or not women should be required to register for the Selective Service System. In the case National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, a district court ruled the male-only draft unconstitutional.
Men’s and fathers’ rights groups have said that there are high levels of mistaken paternity or “paternity fraud”, where men are parenting and/or financially supporting children who are not biologically their own. They hold biological views of fatherhood, emphasizing the imperative of the genetic foundation of paternity rather than social aspects of fatherhood. They state that men should not be forced to support children fathered by another man, and that men are harmed because a relationship is created between a man and non-biological children while denying the children and their biological father of that experience and knowledge of their genetic history. In addition, they say non-biological fathers are denied the resources to have their own biological children in another relationship.
Men’s rights activists support the use of nonconsensual paternity testing to reassure presumed fathers about the child’s paternity; men’s and fathers’ rights groups have called for compulsory paternity testing of all children. They have campaigned vigorously in support of men who have been shown by genetic testing not to be the biological father, but who are nevertheless required to be financially responsible for them. Prompted by these concerns, legislators in certain jurisdictions have supported this biological view and have passed laws providing relief from child support payments when a man is proved not to be the father. Australian men’s rights groups have opposed the recommendations of a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the National Health and Medical Research Council that would require the informed consent of both parents for paternity testing of young children, and laws that would make it illegal to obtain a sample for DNA testing without the individual’s informed consent. Sociologist Michael Gilding asserts that men’s rights activists have exaggerated the rate and extent of misattributed paternity, which he estimates at about 1–3%. He opposed unnecessary calls for mandatory paternity testing of all children.
False accusations against men
Men’s rights activists are significantly concerned with false accusations of rape and sexual assault, and desire to protect men from the negative consequences of false accusations.
Men’s rights proponents believe that the naming of the accused while providing the accuser (victim) with anonymity encourages abuse of this kind. Men’s rights advocates have also claimed that rape “has been used as a scam”. Studies from the United States, Australia, and the Britain have found the percentage of estimated false or unsubstantiated rape allegations to be around 2% to 8%. Quoting research including those by Eugene Kanin and the U.S. Air Force, they assert that 40–50% or more of rape allegations may be false.
To argue the issue of false accusations of rape, the categories of ‘false’ and ‘unsubstantiated’ are often conflated, such as the National Coalition for Men citing reports like the 1996 FBI summary that finds a rate of 8% for unsubstantiated forcible rape, which is four times higher than the average for all index crimes as a whole. Experts emphasize that verified false allegations are a distinct category from unsubstantiated allegations, and conflating the two is fallacious. These figures are widely debated due to the questionable methodology and small sample sizes – see the False accusation of rape page for wider survey estimates.
Criminalization of marital rape
Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by some men’s rights groups in the United Kingdom, the United States and India. The reasons for opposition include concerns about false allegations related to divorce proceedings, and the belief that sex within marriage is an irrevocable part of the institution of marriage. In India, there has been anxiety about relationships and the future of marriage that such laws have given women “grossly disproportional rights”. Virag Dhulia of the Save Indian Family Foundation, a men’s rights organization, has opposed recent efforts to criminalize marital rape in India, arguing that “no relationship will work if these rules are enforced”.
Critique of men’s rights rape discourse
Feminist scholars Lise Gotell and Emily Dutton argue that content on the manosphere reveals anti-feminist pro-rape arguments, including that sexual violence is a gender-neutral problem, feminists are responsible for erasing men’s experiences of victimization, false allegations are widespread, and that rape culture is a feminist-produced moral panic. They contend it is important to engage [this topic] as there is a real danger that MRA (Men’s Rights Activism) claims could come to define the popular conversation about sexual violence.
Main Article: Reproductive Rights
In 2006, the American National Center for Men backed a lawsuit known as Dubay v. Wells. The case concerned whether men should have the opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Supporters argued that this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive rights as women. The case and the appeal were dismissed, with the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stating that neither parent has the right to sever their financial responsibilities for a child and that “Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy”.
Social security and insurance
Men’s rights groups argue that women are given superior social security and tax benefits than men. Warren Farrell states that men in the United States pay more into social security, but in total, women receive more in benefits, and that discrimination against men in insurance and pensions have gone unrecognized.
Men’s rights activists point to higher suicide rates in men compared to women. In the United States for example, the male-to-female suicide death ratio varies, approximately, between 3:1 and 10:1. However, studies have found an over-representation of women in attempted or incomplete suicides and men in complete suicide. This phenomenon, described as the “gender paradox of suicide”, is argued to derive from a tendency for females to use less lethal methods and greater male access and use of lethal methods.
The men’s rights movement has been criticized for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies. The Southern Poverty Law Center has stated that while some of the websites, blogs and forums related to the movement “voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many”. After further research into the movement, the SPLC elaborated: “A thinly veiled desire for the domination of women and a conviction that the current system oppresses men in favor of women are the unifying tenets of the male supremacist worldview.” Other studies have pointed towards men’s rights groups in India trying to change or completely abolish important legal protections for women as a form of patriarchal anxiety as well as being hostile towards women.
Professor Ruth M. Mann of the University of Windsor in Canada suggests that men’s rights groups fuel an international rhetoric of hatred and victimization by disseminating misinformation via online forums and websites containing constantly-updated “diatribes against feminism, ex-wives, child support, shelters, and the family law and criminal justice systems”. According to Mann, these stories reignite their hatred and reinforce their beliefs that the system is biased against men and that feminism is responsible for a large scale and ongoing “cover-up” of men’s victimization. Mann says that although existing legislation in Canada acknowledges that men are also victims of domestic violence, men’s rights advocates demand government recognition that men are equally or more victimized by domestic violence, claims not supported by the data. Mann also states that in contrast to feminist groups, who have advocated for domestic violence services on behalf of other historically oppressed groups in addition to women, such as individuals impacted by poverty, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc., men’s rights groups have attempted to achieve their goals by actively opposing and attempting to dismantle services and supports put in place to protect abused women and children.
Domestic abuse expert Lundy Bancroft has called men’s rights “the abuser’s crusade” and said that the attitudes of the movement contribute to abuse of women.
Other researchers such as Michael Flood have accused the men’s rights movement, particularly the father’s rights groups in Australia, of endangering women, children, and even men who are at greater risk of abuse and violence. Flood states that the men’s rights/father’s rights groups in Australia pursues “equality with a vengeance” or equal policies with negative outcomes and motives in order to re-establish paternal authority over the well-being of children and women as well as positive parenting.
- Maddison, Sarah (1999). “Private Men, Public Anger: The Men’s Rights Movement in Australia”(PDF). Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies. 4 (2): 39–52. Archived from the original(PDF)on 2013-10-20.
- Doyle, Ciara (2004). “The Fathers’ Rights Movement: Extending Patriarchal Control Beyond the Marital Family”. In Herrman, Peter (ed.). Citizenship Revisited: Threats or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries. New York: Nova Publishers. pp. 61–62. ISBN978-1-59033-900-8.
- Flood, Michael (2005). “Men’s Collective Struggles for Gender Justice: The Case of Antiviolence Activism”. In Kimmel, Michael S.; Hearn, Jeff; Connell, Raewyn (eds.). Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. p. 459. ISBN978-0-7619-2369-5.
- Finocchiaro, Peter (March 29, 2011). “Is the men’s rights movement growing?”. Salon. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
- Messner, Michael (2000). Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 41. ISBN978-0-8039-5577-6.
- Solinger, Rickie (2013). Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 130. ISBN978-0-19-981141-0.
- Menzies, Robert (2007). “Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men’s “Rights” and Feminist “Wrongs” in Cyberspace”. In Boyd, Susan B (ed.). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN978-0-7748-1411-9.
- Dunphy, Richard (2000). Sexual Politics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 88. ISBN978-0-7486-1247-5.
- Mills, Martin (2003). “Shaping the boys’ agenda: the backlash blockbusters”. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 7 (1): 57–73. doi:10.1080/13603110210143644.
- Goldwag, Arthur (May 15, 2012). “Hatewatch: Intelligence report article provokes fury among Men’s Rights Activists”. splcenter.org/hatewatch. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved May 5, 2017.
- “Men’s rights movement: why it is so controversial?”. The Week. 19 February 2015. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
- “Male Supremacy”. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2018-06-19.
- Russell-Kraft, Stephanie (4 April 2018). “The Rise of Male Supremacist Groups”. The New Republic. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
- Ruzankina, E.A. (2010). “Men’s movements and male subjectivity”. Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. 49 (1): 8–16. doi:10.2753/aae1061-1959490101.
- Dragiewicz, Molly (2011). Equality with a Vengeance: Men’s Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash. Northeastern University Press. ISBN9781555537562.
- Hackman, Rose (September 5, 2016). “I didn’t choose to be straight, white and male’: are modern men the suffering sex?”. The Guardian. Retrieved September 8, 2016.
- Staff writer (February 1856). “A word for men’s rights”. Putnam’s Magazine. 7 (38): 208–214.[dead link]
- Malleier, Elisabeth (2003). “Der ‘Bund für Männerrechte’. Die Bewegung der ‘Männerrechtler’ im Wien der Zwischenkriegszeit”. Wiener Geschichtsblätter. 58 (3): 208–233.
- Wrussnig, Kerstin Christin (2009). ‘Wollen Sie ein Mann sein oder ein Weiberknecht?’ Zur Männerrechtsbewegung in Wien der Zwischenkriegszeit(PDF) (MA thesis). University of Vienna.
- “Men’s Rights League in Vienna”. The New York Times. 10 March 1926. p. 20. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
A ‘League for Men’s Rights’ was founded today to protect men against Austrian feminism, which has grown rapidly since the war.
- Healy, Maureen (2004). Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire: Total War and Everyday Life in World War I. Cambridge UP. p. 272. ISBN9780521831246.
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.
- Messner, Michael A. (June 1998). “The limits of “The Male Sex Role”: an analysis of the men’s liberation and men’s rights movements’ discourse”. Gender & Society. 12 (3): 255–276. doi:10.1177/0891243298012003002. JSTOR190285.Pdf.
- Newton 2004, p. 190–200.
- de Castella, Tom (2 May 2012). “Just who are men’s rights activists?”. BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 7 March 2015.
- Kimmel, Michael (2017). Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era. https://books.google.com/books?id=7WVGDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Angry+White+Men:+American+Masculinity+at+the+End+of+an+Era&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC0pKVlODbAhWxwFkKHZw3BTAQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=Angry%20White%20Men%3A%20American%20Masculinity%20at%20the%20End%20of%20an%20Era&f=false: The Nation Institute. ISBN9781568589626.
- Lingard, Bob; Mills, Martin; Weaver-Hightower, Marcus B. (2012). “Interrogating recuperative masculinity politics in schooling”. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 16 (4): 407–421. doi:10.1080/13603116.2011.555095.
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.
- Maddison, Sarah (1999). “Private Men, Public Anger: The Men’s Rights Movement in Australia”(PDF). Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies. 4 (2): 39–52. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2013-10-20.
- Pease, Bob; Camilleri, Peter (2001). “Feminism, masculinity and the human services”. Working with men in the human services. Crow’s Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. pp. 3–4. ISBN9781865084800.
- Kahn, Jack S. (2009). An introduction to masculinities. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 202. ISBN9781405181792.
- Williams, Gwyneth I. (2001). “Masculinity in context: an epilogue”. In Williams, Rhys H. (ed.). Promise keepers and the new masculinity: private lives and public morality. Lanham: Lexington Books. p. 107. ISBN9780739102305.
- Chris Beasley (2005). Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. p. 180. ISBN978-0-7619-6979-2. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
- Lee, Calinda N. (2003). “Fathers’ rights”. In Carroll, Bret E. (ed.). American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia. One. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. p. 167. ISBN9780761925408.
- Ashe 2007, p. 63.
- Pelak, Cynthia Fabrizio; Taylor, Verta; Whittier, Nancy (2006). “Gender movements”. In Saltzman Chafetz, Janet (ed.). Handbook of the sociology of gender. New York: Springer. p. 168. ISBN9780387362182.
- “Father’s Rights Groups Threaten Women’s Gains—And Their Safety”. Political Research Associates. Retrieved 2018-06-20.
- Dunphy 2000, pp. 142–143.
- Karnad, Raghu (3 December 2007). “Now, is that malevolence?”. Outlook magazine. Retrieved 28 March 2013.
- Polanki, Pallavi (17 July 2010). “Men Who Cry”. OPEN. Archived from the original on July 21, 2010. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
- Staff writer (October 8, 2008). “Members of men’s rights body meet”. The Times of India. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
- Ruxton, Sandy; van deer Gaag, Nikki (2013). “Men’s involvement in gender equality – European perspectives”. Gender & Development. 21(1): 161–175. doi:10.1080/13552074.2013.767522.
- Menzies 2007, p. 77.
- Flood 2007, p. 430–433.
- Berman, Judy (November 5, 2009). ““Men’s rights” groups go mainstream”. Salon. Retrieved March 21, 2013.
- Connell, R. W. (Spring 2005). “Change among the gatekeepers: men, masculinities, and gender equality in the global arena”(PDF). Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 30 (3): 1801–1825. CiteSeerX10.1.1.694.8027. doi:10.1086/427525. JSTOR10.1086/427525.
- Kimmel, Michael (2017). “White men as victims: The Men’s Rights Movement”. Angry white men: American masculinity as the end of an era (2nd ed.). New York: Nation Books. ISBN9781568589626.
- Chowdhury, Romit (2014). “Conditions of emergence: the formation of men’s rights groups in contemporary India”. Indian Journal of Gender Studies. 21 (1): 27–53. doi:10.1177/0971521513511199.
- Staff writer (February 19, 2015). “Men’s rights movement: why it is so controversial?”. The Week. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
- Katz, Jackson (2015). “Engaging men in prevention of violence against women”. In Johnson, Holly; Fisher, Bonnie; Jaquier, Véronique (eds.). Critical issues on violence against women: international perspectives and promising strategies. New York: Routledge. p. 237. ISBN9780415856249.
- Sharlet, Jeff (March 2015). “Are you man enough for the men’s rights movement?”. GQ. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
- Kelly, R. Todd (October 20, 2013). “The masculine mystique”. The Daily Beast. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
- Clark-Flory, Tracy (July 1, 2014). ““Feminism is a sexual strategy”: Inside the angry online men’s rights group “Red Pill““. Salon.com. Retrieved July 28, 2015.
- Rosin, Hanna (May 13, 2014). “Dad’s cay in court: The perception that family law is unfair to fathers is not exactly true”. Slate. Retrieved July 28, 2015.
- Love, Dylan (September 15, 2013). “Inside Red Pill, the weird new cult for men who don’t understand women”. Business Insider. Retrieved April 12, 2017.
- Crockett, Emily (September 21, 2016). “There’s a better way to talk about men’s rights activism — and it’s on Reddit”. Vox. Retrieved April 12, 2017.
- Sawer, Marian (2002). “In safe hands? Women in the 2001 election”. In Warhurst, John; Simms, Marian (eds.). 2001: The centenary election. St Lucia, Qld.: University of Queensland Press. p. 255. ISBN9780702233036.
- Weitz, Udo (26 December 2003). “Run-up to election shows Israelis are as fragmented as ever”. USA today. Retrieved 23 April 2013.
- Bennet, James (January 19, 2003). “Israeli parties clamor for votes in divided society”. The New York Times. New York: NYTC. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
- The Associated Press (January 2, 2003). “Israel’s fringe parties take root”. The Register-Guard. Eugene, Oregon. Retrieved 23 April2013.
- Gavanas, Anna (2004). “Introduction”. Fatherhood politics in the United States: masculinity, sexuality, race and marriage. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. p. 11. ISBN9780252028847.
Despite their claims of victimhood, men’s and fathers’ rights advocates are usually white, middle-class, heterosexual men who tend to overlook their institutional and socioeconomical advantages in work and the family…
- Cahill, Charlotte (2010). “Men’s movement”. In Chapman, Roger (ed.). Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 354–356. ISBN978-1-84972-713-6.
- Coston, Bethany M.; Kimmel, Michael (2013). “White men as the new victims: reverse discrimination cases and the men’s rights movement”. Nevada Law Journal. 13 (2): 368–385.
Where are the Men’s Rights guys when it comes to ‘other’ men? Men’s Rights is almost entirely a movement of angry, straight, white men.
- Mason, Christopher P. (2006). “Introduction”. Crossing into manhood: a men’s studies curriculum. Youngstown: Cambria Press. ISBN978-1-934043-30-1.
- Goldberg, Stephanie B. (February 1997). “In all its variations, the fathers’ rights movement is saying one thing…: Make Room for Daddy”. ABA Journal. 83 (2): 48–52. JSTOR27839422.View online.Also available via HeinOnline.
- Kimmel, Michael S. (2006). “From anxiety to anger since the 1990s: the “Self-Made Man” becomes “Angry White Man““. Manhood in America: a cultural history (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 302. ISBN9780195181135.
- “Christina Hoff Sommers can’t take a single line of criticism”. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2018-09-08.
- Blake, Mariah (August 11, 2014). “The men’s rights movement and the women who love it”. Mother Jones. Retrieved August 12, 2014.
- Williams, Rhys H. (1995). “Constructing the Public Good: Social Movements and Cultural Resources”. Social Problems. 42 (1): 134–135. CiteSeerX10.1.1.1016.677. doi:10.2307/3097008. JSTOR3097008.
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.
- Lingard, Bob; Douglas, Peter. Men engaging feminisms: pro-feminism, backlashes and schooling. p. 36.
While conservative elements of the men’s rights position overtly describe themselves as a ‘backlash’ to feminism, their more liberal counterpart’s self-proclaimed commitment to ‘the true equality of both sexes and to the liberation of both sexes from their traditional roles’ (Clatterbaugh 1997: 89) make it problematic to describe the men’s rights position in general as nothing more than a backlash against feminism.
- Allen, Jonathan A. (March 9, 2015). “Phallic Affect”. Men and Masculinities. 19: 22–41. doi:10.1177/1097184X15574338.
- Messner, Michael (1998). “The Limits of “The Male Sex Role”: An Analysis of the Men’s Liberation and Men’s Rights Movements’ Discourse”. Gender and Society. 12 (3): 255–276. doi:10.1177/0891243298012003002.
- Flood 2007, p. 430–433.
- Allen, Jonathan A. (March 9, 2015). “Phallic Affect”. Men and Masculinities. 19: 22–41. doi:10.1177/1097184X15574338.
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.
- Kimmel, Michael S. (1987). “Men’s Responses to Feminism at the Turn of the Century”. Gender & Society. 1 (3): 261–283. doi:10.1177/089124387001003003.
- Dunphy 2000, p. 88.
- Flood 2007, p. 418–422.
- Flood 2007, p. 21.
- Whitaker, Stephen (2001). “Gender Politics in Men’s Movements”(PDF). In Vannoy, Dana (ed.). Gender Mosaics: Social Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 343–351. ISBN978-0-19-532998-8.
- Flood 2007, p. 418–422.
- Messner 1997, p. 41–48.
- Johnson, Allan G. (2005). The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. p. 220. ISBN978-1592133833.
such problems are prominent in many men’s lives, but this is no organized male response to the patriarchal system whose dynamics produce much of men’s loss, suffering, and grief. Contrary to Bly’s claim, it is not a parallel to the women’s movement that is merely on a “different timetable.” It may be a response to genuine emotional and spiritual needs that are met by bringing men together to drum, chant, and share stories and feelings from their lives. It may help to heal some of the damage patriarchy does to men’s lives. But it is not a movement aimed at the system and the gender dynamics that actually cause that damage.
- Williams, Gwyneth (1 January 2002). “Fathers’ rights movement”. In Judith A. Baer (ed.). Historical and Multicultural Encyclopedia of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 83. ISBN978-0-313-30644-0.
- Farrell 2008, p. 79–80.
- Farrell 2008, p. 193–94.
- Ramesh, Randeep (December 13, 2007). “Dowry law making us the victims, says India’s men’s movement”. The Guardian. Retrieved March 27, 2015.
- “Men demand fair play”. Times of India. 20 November 2009. Retrieved 20 October 2011.
- “Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code”. indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2017-05-16.
- Buncombe, Andrew (March 2, 2011). “Dowry wars: The big issue that has India divided”. The Independent. Retrieved March 27, 2015.
- Chowdhury, Romit (2014). “Family, Femininity, Feminism: ‘Structure of Feeling’ in the Articulation of Men’s Rights”. In Nielsen, Kenneth Bo; Waldrop, Anne (eds.). Women, Gender and Everyday Social Transformation in India. London: Anthem Press. p. 189. ISBN978-1-78-308269-8.
- Gilani, Iftikhar (6 April 2010). “Shoaib Malik controversy to hit Pakistan-India relations”. Daily Times. Retrieved 20 October 2011.
- Dhillon, Amrit (24 December 2007). “Men say wives use India’s pro-women laws to torment them”. The Age. Retrieved 20 October 2011.
- Melville, Angela; Hunter, Rosemary (2001). “‘As everybody knows’: Countering myths of gender bias in family law”(PDF). Griffith Law Review. 10 (1): 124–138.
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.
- Messner 1997, pp. 41–48.
- Pease, Bob (2002). Men and gender relations. Croydon, Vic.: Tertiary Press. p. 36. ISBN978-0-86458-218-8.
- Crean, Susan M. (1988). In the name of the fathers: the story behind child custody. Toronto: Amanita. pp. 107–108. ISBN978-0-921299-04-2.
- Clatterbaugh 1997, p. 77.
- Williams, Gwyneth I.; Williams, Rhys H (1995). ““All We Want Is Equality”: Rhetorical Framing in the Fathers’ Rights Movement”. In Best, Joel (ed.). Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems (2nd ed.). New York: A. De Gruyter. pp. 201–202. ISBN978-0-202-30539-4.
- Coltrane, Scott; Hickman, Neal (1992). “The Rhetoric of Rights and Needs: Moral Discourse in the Reform of Child Custody and Child Support Laws”. Social Problems. 39 (4): 400–420. doi:10.2307/3097018. JSTOR3097018.
- Kamerman, SB; Kahn, AJ, eds. (1997). Family change and family policies in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 182. ISBN978-0-19-829025-4.
- Cabrera, NJ; Tamis-LeMonda, CS, eds. (2013). Handbook of father involvement: multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. p. 425. ISBN978-0-415-87867-8.
- Pepiton, J Alvis, Allen, Logid, Brianna, Lindsey, Kenneth, Gregory (March 2012). “Is Parental Alienation Disorder a Valid Concept? Not According to Scientific Evidence. A Review of Parental Alienation, DSM-5 and ICD-11 by William Bernet”. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 21 (2): 244–253. doi:10.1080/10538712.2011.628272.
- Mayeri, Serena (2015–2016). “Foundling Fathers: (Non-) Marriage and Parental Rights in the Age of Equality 125 Yale Law Journal 2015-2016”. Yale Law Journal. 125: 2292. Retrieved 2018-06-19.
- B., Melton, Gary; John, Petrila; G., Poythress, Norman; Christopher, Slobogin (2007). “Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers”. Scholar Commons.
- Brems, C.; Carssow, K. L.; Shook, C.; Sturgill, S.; Cannava, P. (1995-03-01). “Assessment of fairness in child custody decisions”. Child Abuse & Neglect. 19 (3): 345–353. doi:10.1016/s0145-2134(94)00135-9. ISSN0145-2134. PMID9278734.
- Williams, Gwyneth I.; Williams, Rhys H. (2003). “Framing in the fathers’ rights movement”. In Loseke, Donileen R.; Best, Joel (eds.). Social problems: constructionist readings. New York: de Gruyter. p. 96. ISBN978-0-202-30703-9.
- Ryrstedt, Eva (2003). “Joint decisions – a prerequisite or a drawback in joint parental responsibility?”. Australian Journal of Family Law. 17 (2): 155–206.
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.
- Rhode, DL (1997). Speaking of sex: the denial of gender inequality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. p. 194. ISBN978-0-674-83177-3.
- Flood, Michael (2012). “Separated fathers and the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement”. Journal of Family Studies. 18 (2–3): 235–245. doi:10.5172/jfs.2012.18.2-3.235.
- Bancroft, Lundy (2002). Why does he do that? : inside the minds of angry and controlling men. New York : Putnam’s Sons. ISBN9780399148446.
- Song, Sandra (16 November 2015). “We spoke to an Intactivist fighting for his foreskin”. Paper Magazine. Retrieved 8 November2016.
- Meyers, Rupert (21 December 2015). “Men’s Rights Activists are cave dwelling idiots”. GQ. Archived from the original on 20 October 2017. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
- Smith, Lydia (5 February 2015). “Why female genital mutilation is a very different issue to male circumcision”. International Business Times. Retrieved 8 November 2016.
- Strochlic, Nina (3 December 2013). “Anti-Cutters Slam New CDC Recommendations on Circumcision”. The Daily Beast. Retrieved 8 November 2016.
- Ross, Julianne (10 June 2014). “The 8 Biggest Lies Men’s Rights Activists Spread About Women”. Mic.com. Retrieved 3 November2016.
- Holt, Mytheos (6 July 2015). “Why I am not a men’s rights activist”. The Federalist. Retrieved 8 November 2016.
- Povenmire, R. (1998–1999). “Do Parents Have the Legal Authority to Consent to the Surgical Amputation of Normal, Healthy Tissue From Their Infant Children?: The Practice of Circumcision in the United States”. Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law. 7 (1): 87–123. PMID16526136.
- El-Salam, Seham Abd (2002–2003). “The Importance of Genital Mutilations to Gender Power Politics”. Al-Raida. 20 (99): 42.
Women’s defense of men’s right to bodily integrity and their work against MGM will not have a negative impact on their struggle against FGM.
- Denniston, George C. (1999). Male and female circumcision medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. p. 348. ISBN978-0-306-46131-6.
- Somerville, M. (2000). “Altering baby boys’ bodies: the ethics of infant male circumcision”. The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit. Toronto: Viking Press. ISBN978-0-670-89302-7.
- Green, James (2007). The Male Herbal: The Definitive Health Care Book for Men & Boys (2nd ed.). Berkeley, Calif.: Crossing Press. ISBN978-1-58091-175-7.
Circumcision: A Common Form of Disregard for Men’s Rights… Glick emphasizes that infants are persons with full civil rights, and therefore no one has the right to impose circumcision on them—not even parents.
- Earp, Brian D. (18 February 2014). “Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse? (blog)”. Practical Ethics. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford. Retrieved 19 June 2018.Pdf.Alternative pdf.
- Benatar M, Benatar D (2003). “Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision”. Am J Bioeth. 3 (2): 35–48. doi:10.1162/152651603766436216. PMID12859815.
- Clark PA, Eisenman J, Szapor S (December 2007). “Mandatory neonatal male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa: medical and ethical analysis”. Med. Sci. Monit. 13 (12): RA205–13. PMID18049444.
- Patrick K (December 2007). “Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? No”. BMJ. 335 (7631): 1181. doi:10.1136/bmj.39406.523762.AD. PMC2128676. PMID18063641.
- Brusa M, Barilan YM (October 2009). “Cultural circumcision in EU public hospitals—an ethical discussion”. Bioethics. 23 (8): 470–82. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00683.x. PMID19076127.
- Farrell, Warren (2001). “Women who kill too much and the courts that free them: the twelve “female-only” defenses”. The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are The Disposable Sex. New York: Berkley Books. ISBN9780425181447.
- Woolf, Quentin. “Our attitude to violence against men is out of date”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
- “Prof. Starr’s research shows large unexplained gender disparities in federal criminal cases”.
- “Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says”.
- “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases”.
- Zaher, Claudia (Summer 2002). “When a woman’s marital status determined her legal status: a research guide on the common law doctrine of coverture”. Law Library Journal. HeinOnline on behalf of the American Association of Law Libraries. 94 (3): 459–486.Pdf.
- Ashe 2007, p. 57.
- Messner 1997, p. 45.
- Sacks, Glenn; Thompson, Dianna (9 July 2002). “Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men’s Marriage Strike?”. ifeminists.com. Retrieved 15 July 2013.
- Smith, Helen (2013). “The Marriage Strike: why men don’t marry”. Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream-And Why It Matters. New York: Encounter Books. pp. 1–39. ISBN9781594036750.
- McElroy, Wendy (12 August 2003). “The Marriage Strike”. Fox News | Opinion. Retrieved 15 July 2013.
- Leachman, Gwendolyn (2013). “Legal framing”. In Sarat, Austin (ed.). Studies in law. Studies in Law, Politics and Society. 61. Bingley, West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Publishing. pp. 25–59. doi:10.1108/S1059-4337(2013)0000061005. ISBN9781781906194.
- Brinig, Margaret; Allen, Douglas W. (2000). “These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women”. American Law and Economics Review. 2 (1): 126–129. doi:10.1093/aler/2.1.126.
- “Divorces in England and Wales: 2012”. ons.gov.uk. Office for National Statistics. 2012.
- Miller, Susan L. (October 2005). Victims as offenders: the paradox of women’s violence in relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 16. ISBN978-0-8135-3671-2.
- Doward, Jamie (21 December 2003). “Battered men get their own refuge”. The Observer. London: GMG. ISSN0261-3077. OCLC60623878. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
- Miller, Susan L.; Lilley, Terry G.; Renzetti, Claire M.; Edleson, Jeffrey L. (2008). “Female perpetrators of intimate partner violence”. Encyclopedia of interpersonal violence. SAGE Publications. pp. 257–258. ISBN978-1-4129-1800-8.
- Dragiewicz, Molly (2011). “Sex differences”. Equality with a Vengeance: Men’s Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash. Boston: Northeastern University Press. pp. 84–85. ISBN9781555537395.
- Donileen R. Loseke; Richard J. Gelles; Mary M. Cavanaugh (2005). Current controversies on family violence. SAGE. p. 92. ISBN978-0-7619-2106-6. Retrieved 6 February 2012. excerpt: “Other men’s rights advocacy groups use family conflict research .. to eliminate laws defining marital rape as a crime (the Equal Justice Foundation: ww.ejfi.org)” note: EJFI is in Colorado
- Haugen, David M. (2005). Domestic violence: opposing viewpoints. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. p. 41. ISBN9780737722253.
- Menzies, Robert (2007). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. UBC Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN9780774840361.
- Meloy, Michelle L.; Miller, Susan L. (2011). The victimization of women: law, policies, and politics. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 34. ISBN978-0-19-976510-2.
- Ferraro, Kathleen J. (2006). Neither angels nor demons: women, crime, and victimization. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press. p. 270. ISBN978-1-55553-662-6.
- Menzies 2007, p. 85.
- Dragiewicz, Molly (2011). “Introduction / Booth v. Hvass“. Equality with a Vengeance: Men’s Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash. Boston: Northeastern University Press. pp. 3–4, 29. ISBN9781555537395.
- Kimmel, Michael (2010). Misframing Men: the Politics of Contemporary Masculinities. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press. p. 1. ISBN9780813547626.
- “Richard Gelles: oh so magnanimous, and dead wrong”. fathersmanifesto.net. Retrieved 2018-05-25.
- Potok, M; Schlatter S (Spring 2012). “Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women”. Intelligence Report. 145. Retrieved 2013-03-07.
- Flood, Michael (December 2012). “Separated fathers and the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement”. Journal of Family Studies. 18 (2–3): 235–345. doi:10.5172/jfs.2012.18.2-3.235.Pdf.
- Dobash, Russell P.; Dobash, R. Emerson; Wilson, Margo; Daly, Martin (February 1992). “The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence”. Social Problems. 39 (1): 71–91. doi:10.2307/3096914. JSTOR3096914.
- Kimmel, Michael S. (November 2002). “‘Gender symmetry’ in domestic violence: a substantive and methodological research review”. Violence Against Women. 8 (11): 1332–1363. doi:10.1177/107780102237407.Pdf.
- R Loseke, Donileen; Kurz, Demie (2005-01-01). Current Controversies on Family Violence. pp. 79–96. doi:10.4135/9781483328584.n5. ISBN9780761921066.
- Rahim Kanani (May 9, 2011). “The Need to Create a White House Council on Boys to Men”. Forbes. Retrieved 22 December2011.
- Mills, Martin; Francis, Becky; Skelton, Christine (8 June 2009). “Gender policies in Australia and the United Kingdom”. In Martino, Wayne; Kehler, Michael; Weaver-Hightower, Marcus B. (eds.). The problem with boys’ education: beyond the backlash. Taylor & Francis. pp. 38–55. ISBN978-1-56023-683-2.
- Press Association (5 January 2016). “Gender gap in UK degree subjects doubles in eight years, UCAS study finds”. The Guardian | Education. Retrieved 14 July 2017.
- Becky Francis; Christine Skelton (27 September 2005). Reassessing gender and achievement: questioning contemporary key debates. Psychology Press. pp. 18–19, 141. ISBN978-0-415-33324-5. Retrieved 26 December 2011.
- Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. (January–February 2015). “Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality”. Intelligence. 48: 137–151. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2014.11.006.
- Leder, Gilah C.; Forgasz, Helen J.; Jackson, Glenda (September 2014). “Mathematics, English and Gender Issues: Do Teachers Count?”. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 39 (9): 2. doi:10.14221/ajte.2014v39n9.3.Pdf.
- Parr, Nick (24 May 2015). “Who goes to university? The changing profile of our students”. The Conversation. Retrieved 14 July 2017.
- Clatterbaugh, Kenneth (1996). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: Men, women, and politics in modern society (Reissued 2nd. ed.). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p. 11. ISBN978-0813327013.
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.
- “What about tax, and father’s custody rights?”. The Times of India. May 17, 2011. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- “FHM: For Him Minister?”. BBC News. 2004-03-03. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- Cheryl, Wetzstein. “Guys got it made? Think again, say advocates”. Washington Times. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- “Indian husbands want protection from nagging wives |”. Reuters. November 20, 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- Manigandan KR (Aug 9, 2009). “Boys fight for freedom!”. Times of India. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- Kallenbach, Michael (2000-06-16). “Yesterday in Parliament”. The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
- Minister for Men. Hansard, UK Parliament. Retrieved November 24, 2011.
- Christian Haywood; Máirtín Mac an Ghaill (1 January 2003). Men and masculinities: theory, research, and social practice. Open University Press. pp. 134–5. ISBN978-0-335-20892-0. Retrieved 30 December 2011.
- Menzies 2007, p. 86.
- Zernike, Kate (1998-06-21). “Feminism Has Created Progress, But Man, Oh, Man, Look What Else”. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2011-12-30.
- Benatar, D (2012). The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 190. ISBN978-1118192306.
- Woods, Caira M.; Applebaum, Bethany; Green, Yvonne; Kallgren, Deborah L.; Kappeler, Evelyn (2015). “Women’s Health: 30 Years of Progress in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services”. Public Health Reports. 130 (2): 123–127. doi:10.1177/003335491513000204. ISSN0033-3549. PMC4315852. PMID25729100.
- Berlin, Jesse A.; Ellenberg, Susan S. (2009-10-09). “Inclusion of women in clinical trials”. BMC Medicine. 7 (1): 56. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-56. ISSN1741-7015. PMC2763864. PMID19818115.
- Simon, Viviana (2005-06-10). “Wanted: Women in Clinical Trials”. Science. 308 (5728): 1517. doi:10.1126/science.1115616. ISSN0036-8075. PMID15947140.
- Allotey, Pascale; Allotey-Reidpath, Caitlin; Reidpath, Daniel D. (2017-05-11). “Gender bias in clinical case reports: A cross-sectional study of the “big five” medical journals”. PLOS ONE. 12 (5): e0177386. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1277386A. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177386. ISSN1932-6203. PMC5426670. PMID28493948.
- Medicine, Institute of; Practice, Board on Population Health and Public Health; Research, Committee on Women’s Health (2010-10-27). Women’s Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise. National Academies Press. ISBN9780309163378.
- Farrell, Warren (February 10, 2014). The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are The Disposable Sex (21st anniversary ed.). Chapter 7: Dr. Warren Farrell. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
- Messner 1997, p. 6–7.
- Messner 1997, p. 6–7.
- Genevieve Creighton & John L Oliffe (2010) Theorising masculinities and men’s health: A brief history with a view to practice, Health Sociology Review, 19:4, 413, doi: 10.5172/hesr.2010.19.4.409
- Robinson, David (2 October 2015). “Why do women live longer than men?”. BBC Future.
- Luy, M.; Gast, K. (2014). “Do women live longer or do men die earlier? Reflections on the causes of sex differences in life expectancy”. Gerontology. 60 (2): 143–153. doi:10.1159/000355310. PMID24296637.
- Poole, Glenn. “Homelessness is a gendered issue, and it mostly impacts men”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- Feldman, Brett J.; Craen, Alexandra M.; Enyart, Joshua; Batchelor, Timothy; Friel, Timothy J.; Dusza, Stephen W.; Greenberg, Marna Rayl (2018-02-01). “Prevalence of Homelessness by Gender in an Emergency Department Population in Pennsylvania”. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 118 (2): 85–91. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2018.023. ISSN1945-1997. PMID29379974.
- Rhys H. Williams (1 January 2001). Promise Keepers and the New Masculinity: Private Lives and Public Morality. Lexington Books. p. 107. ISBN978-0-7391-0231-2. Retrieved 10 June 2013.
- Menzies 2007, p. 73.
- Farrell 2008, p. 49–56.
- Stephen Blake Boyd; W. Merle Longwood; Mark William Muesse, eds. (1996). Redeeming men: religion and masculinities. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 17. ISBN978-0-664-25544-2.
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.
- Martin Binkin (1993). Who will fight the next war?: the changing face of the American military. Brookings Institution Press. p. 53. ISBN978-0-8157-0955-8. Retrieved 12 November 2011.
- Carelli, Richard (March 23, 1981). “Supreme Court to begin hearing male-only military draft case”. Toledo Blade. Retrieved 12 November 2011.
- Rostker v. Goldberg at Cornell University Law School.
- “Like it or not, gender equality may soon come to the US military draft”. Vox. 2016-06-15.
- Cannold, Leslie (July–August 2008). “Who’s the father? Rethinking the moral ‘crime’ of ‘paternity fraud‘“. Women’s Studies International Forum. 31 (4): 249–256. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2008.05.011.Pdf.
- Majumber, Mary Anderlik (12 September 2005). “Disestablishment Suits”. In Mark A. Rothstein; Thomas H. Murray; Gregory E. Kaebnick (eds.). Genetic Ties and the Family: The Impact of Paternity Testing on Parents and Children. JHU Press. pp. 172–79. ISBN978-0-8018-8193-0.
- Salah, Anna (14 December 2005). “Teens may be forced to have paternity test”. abc.net.au. Retrieved 27 October 2012.
- Shepherd, Tory (6 June 2012). “Men flock online for ‘peace of mind’ paternity tests”. news.com.au. Retrieved 27 October 2012.
- “Who’s your daddy?”. Philadelphia Daily News. 5 October 2005.
“I think the best solution is DNA testing at birth,” said Glenn Sacks, a syndicated radio talk-show host who focuses on men’s issues
- Dayton, Leigh (12 November 2008). “Fathers ‘disrupt debate on DNA‘“. The Australian. Retrieved 27 October 2012.
- Horrin, Adele (30 June 2005). “The myth behind paternity fraud”. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 October 2012.
- Marinos, Sarah (2 December 2012). “What you need to know about paternity tests”. Herald Sun. Retrieved 28 August 2013.
- Brotman, Barbara (October 30, 1992). “Sex Contract Shares Intimate Knowledge”. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 1 November 2012.
- Michael Kimmel (1992), “Anti-Feminism”, in Michael S. Kimmel; Amy Aronson (eds.), Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural and Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO (published 2003), pp. 35–37, ISBN978-1-57607-774-0, retrieved 23 December 2011
- Wendy, McElroy (2011). “Privacy Rights Eroding Down Slippery Slope |”. foxnews.com. Retrieved 23 December 2011.
- Farrell 1994, p. 161.
- “Rape case protection bid rejected”. BBC News. BBC. 7 January 2004. Retrieved 3 November 2012.
- “Men’s rights activist: Feminists have used rape ‘as a scam‘“. Al Jazeera America. Al Jazeera. 6 June 2014. Retrieved 11 June 2014.
- Lonsway Archambault Lisak, Dr.Kimberlya ., Sgt . Joanne, Dr. David (2009). “False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault”(PDF). www.ndaa.org.
- FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation (1996). “Crime Index Offenses Reported”(PDF). www.fbi.gov.
- Kelly, Liz; Regan, Linda; Lovett, Jo (2005). A gap or a chasm?: Attrition in reported rape cases(PDF). London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. ISBN9781844735556. 293. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2011-02-18.
- “Abstracts Database – National Criminal Justice Reference Service”. www.ncjrs.gov. Retrieved 2015-12-23.
- “False Accusations”. National Coalition For Men. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
- Farrell 2008, p. 45.
- McElroy, Wendy (2 May 2006). “False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought”. Fox News. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
- Lisak, David; Gardinier, Lori; Nicksa, Sarah C.; Cote, Ashley M. (December 2010). “False allegations of sexual assault: an analysis of ten years of reported cases”. Violence Against Women. 16 (12): 1318–1334. doi:10.1177/1077801210387747. ISSN1552-8448. PMID21164210.
- Ashe, Fidelma (2007). The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance. London: Routledge. p. 60. ISBN9781134414376.
- Wykes, Maggie; Welsh, Kirsty (2009). Violence, Gender and Justice. London: SAGE. pp. 29–37. ISBN9781412923361.
- Diduck, Allison; O’Donovan, Katherine, eds. (2007). Feminist Perspectives on Family Law. London: Routledge. pp. 160–164. ISBN9781135309633.
- Dunphy 2000, p. 142 excerpt: “The conservative and unashamedly patriarchal nature of the men’s rights lobby … is well illustrated by some statements by one of its self-proclaimed spokesmen in the UK, Roger Whitcomb .. he reserved particular anger for the House of Lords ruling on marital rape in 1991 (‘a long-standing feminist dream’)”.
- Segal, Lynne (1994). Straight Sex: Tethinking the Politics of Pleasure. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 276. ISBN978-0-520-20001-2.
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’…
- “Why men’s rights activists are against inclusion of marital rape”. First Post. February 6, 2013. Retrieved March 10, 2013. excerpt: “The Government has not included marital rape in its anti-rape ordinance appealing that it is a complex issue that involves multiple stakeholders… mens rights activists are constantly clamouring that Section 498(A), the Domestic Violence Act is being misused”
- Millar, Stuart A (2002). “Marital Rape – What a Can of Worms!”. Strike at the Root. Archived from the original on July 6, 2008. Retrieved 11 October 2012.
- Farrell 1994, p. 338:”Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen. If a man feels he needs to file for divorce, his wife can say ‘If you do, I’ll accuse you of spousal rape.’ Spousal rape legislation is worse than government-as-substitute-husband. It’s government in the bedroom”
- “Spousal Rape Laws”. CNN. July 31, 1992.
Tom Williamson, President National Coalition of Free Men: “I don’t think that there should be anything called marital rape laws. I don’t deny that the elements involved with rape can occur in a marriage. They certainly do. But the problem with the concept of having something called marital rape is that it makes every man vulnerable in a bad situation to blackmail. It makes them vulnerable to false accusations for a variety of motivations that we know exists”
- Young, Cathy (August 1, 1994). “Complexities cloud marital rape case; William Hetherington has spent nine years in a Michigan prison, but proclaims his innocence – controversial case that pits one person’s word against another in accusations of spousal rape”. Insight on the News.
Much of his support has come from men’s rights organizations and conservative Christian groups, which tend to argue that a crime such as marital rape should not be on the books because consent to sex is part of the marriage covenant.Missing or empty
- Nielsen, Kenneth Bo; Waldrop, Anne, eds. (2014). Women, Gender and Everyday Social Transformation in India. London: Anthem Press. p. 193. ISBN978-1-78-308269-8.
- Pandey, Vineeta (8 March 2010). “Husbands can’t get away with marital rape: Government”. DNA. Archived from the original on 31 March 2010. Retrieved 30 September 2012.
no relationship will work if these rules are enforced.
- Dhillon, Amrit (1 November 2006). “Women confident law will end culture of abuse”. South China Morning Post. Retrieved 11 October2012.
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
- Gotell, Lise (2016). “Sexual Violence in the ‘Manosphere’: Antifeminist Men’s Rights Discourses on Rape”. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 5 (2): 65–80. doi:10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.310.
- Traister, R (2006-03-13). “Roe for men?”. Salon. Retrieved 2007-12-17.
- “U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, case No. 06-11016”(PDF).
- Jessica Valenti (2012). Why Have Kids?: A New Mom Explores the Truth About Parenting and Happiness. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 103–5. ISBN978-0-547-89261-0. Retrieved 11 May 2013.
- Farrell 1994, p. 350.
- “Teen Suicide Statistics”. Adolescent Teenage Suicide Prevention. FamilyFirstAid.org. 2001. Retrieved 2006-04-11.
- Schrijvers, Didier L.; Bollen, Jos; Sabbe, Bernard G.C. (2012). “The gender paradox in suicidal behavior and its impact on the suicidal process – Journal of Affective Disorders”. Journal of Affective Disorders. 138 (1–2): 19–26. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.03.050. PMID21529962.
- “Section 3: Gun Ownership Trends and Demographics”. www.people-press.org. Pew Research Center. March 12, 2013. Retrieved May 30, 2016.
- Clatterbaugh, Kenneth C. (1997). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: men, women, and politics in modern society (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press. pp. 77, 88. ISBN9780813327013.
- Kimmel, Michael; Kaufman, Michael (1997). “Weekend Warriors”. In Mary R. Walsh (ed.). Women, Men and Gender. Yale University Press. p. 407. ISBN978-0-300-06938-9.
- Menzies, Robert (2007). “Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men’s “Rights” and Feminist “Wrongs” in Cyberspace”. In Boyd, Susan B (ed.). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. p. 71. ISBN978-0-7748-1411-9.
- Brod, Harry; Kaufman, Michael, eds. (1994). Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. p. 162. ISBN9780803949041.
- Pease, Bob (2000). Recreating men: postmodern masculinity politics. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. p. 140. ISBN9780761962052.
- “CAUT Statement on December 6”. Canadian Association of University Teachers. Archived from the original on May 18, 2015. Retrieved May 7, 2015.
Disturbingly, we have seen in the past year the rise of misogynist men’s rights groups on campuses and in communities across the country – an alarming trend that requires our attention and action.
- Goldwag, A (Spring 2012). “Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement”. Intelligence Report. 145. Retrieved 2013-03-07.
- Shira Tarrant (11 February 2013). Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power. Routledge. p. 174. ISBN978-1-135-12743-5. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
- Lodhia, Sharmila (2014-08-01). ““Stop importing weapons of family destruction!”: cyberdiscourses, patriarchal anxieties, and the men’s backlash movement in India”. Violence Against Women. 20 (8): 905–936. doi:10.1177/1077801214546906. ISSN1552-8448. PMID25238869.
- Mann, Ruth M. (2008). “Men’s Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas”(PDF). Feminist Criminology. 3 (1): 44–75. CiteSeerX10.1.1.413.6328. doi:10.1177/1557085107311067.
- “Domestic violence expert Lundy Bancroft: Men’s Rights philosophies make angry and controlling men even worse”. We Hunted The Mammoth. 2014-05-06. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
- Flood, Michael (March 2010). ““Fathers’ rights” and the defense of paternal authority in Australia”(PDF). Violence Against Women. 16 (3): 328–347. doi:10.1177/1077801209360918. PMID20133921.Pdf.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia