Call For Short Papers From Men’s Rights Leaders: Save Men’s Rights in Wikipedia

In December, I noticed that a lot of people use Wikipedia as a common reference for many issues. Out of curiosity, I visited the Wikipedia::Men’s Rights and Wikipedia::Father’s Rights sections, and was horrified over what I saw.

The definitions were thinner than baklava dough at a Greek homeless shelter. Most of the material was inserted by feminists. The majority was criticism the movement. If I were a typical feminist-inculcated college student, politician, or journalist, I would not want to be within a million miles of the men’s rights after reading the page.

Wikipedia is where people often go to understand many things. Politicians, journalists, high school and college students, and women will never understand the true legitimacy of our movement until we publicly define what the Men’s and Father’s Rights movements are. I cannot understate the great importance of this in erasing the years of misconceptions about the movement.

Upon seeing the decrepit definitions in Wikipedia, I decided to flesh out a few sections myself. This was met with resistance and even astonishment by some Wikipedia editors, most of whom were raised to think like feminists do.

A section I added about the general position of the Men’s Movement on Same Sex Marriage was labeled “Nonsense” by an editor, and abruptly deleted. It seems that feminists do not like the idea that the men’s movement opposes same sex marriage, because it represents the final end of men’s role in family and society.

They refused to let me add my name as a co-founder of ACFC, even after proving to them with a photo that I was in the line-up at the founding ceremony at the National Press Club. This is because they won’t let you cite yourself, even if what you add is as real as Hillary’s face.

In all fairness, I must say that I found most of the editors clueless about the men’s movement, but open to recognizing well-founded revisions. But there are a few feminists staunchly blocking progress via all possible means.

I am just one person in this movement. Feminist-leaning Wikipedia editors will be able to keep Men’s Rights in the dark ages so long as I am the only person cleaning up these definitions. Feminists will win unless the best and brightest leaders of the movement move in and shut the feminist opposition down.

This is a call for short “papers” from all men’s and father’s rights leaders. We need thoughtful, accurate, fully-cited short objective summaries on all major topics of import added into Wikipedia at the earliest possible time. Every leader who has a credible track record, and some authority in the movement, should invest time in this important project. I urge you to create, or edit and refine the subject(s) you are most experienced with.

With all due respect to the thousands of dedicated individuals involved in the movement, but not leading it, please do not attempt major additions or modifications. The leaders of the movement are in the best position to accomplish this authoritatively. Wiki simply cannot cope with 5,000 people creating an editorial riot. However, I strongly encourage you pass this call for papers on to the leaders of your organization, to enjoy the ride, to monitor and perhaps reinforce the additions that leaders make in the discussion section, and perhaps add links to your favorite major writings or writers.

To edit these pages, you must first create a login. You should familiarize yourself with Wiki principles. Editors at Wiki are sticklers about what we put in (but they don’t seem to care much about the reams of un-cited nonsense in the feminism section).

Here are a few tips based on my relatively short experience with Wikipedia:

· Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules under the Guidelines, Help, and Resources section of the Community Portal.

· Do not cite yourself, or link to your own blog pages. You may cite articles you have written if published by a reputable publication that you do not control. It is best to cite articles published in independent publications by other writers. You should not cite a writer’s blog or a publication that he or she controls.

· You may add “Significant Writers” and links to organizations that are not your own.

· Do not put in links to any site primarily selling a book or other service. It will be removed.

· You may cite important things that leading activists have done, as long you are not citing yourself or your organization.

· When you go into edit mode, look at the code already there to figure out how to add topics, indent text, and add citations.

· When you go into edit mode, you will see tabs for “History” and “Discussion”. The history section shows what was added and deleted, and who it was done by. The discussion tab is where you argue your case with other editors when they try to shut you down. It is important to stick to the facts, and stick to your guns, when faced with a feminist editor. When working on the discussion page, be sure to add code at the end of your addition so everyone knows who added it.

I have a few recommendations to make, for those who will be writing sections:

· Gay Rights: In my experience, the gay rights movement is attached to feminist enterprises, and is not a part of the legitimate men’s movement. We should keep this line bright and clear. Feminists have gone to great lengths to pretend that gay rights is somehow a men’s issue – to keep Men’s Rights a subset of radical feminism. While I do know of a number of feminist-backed gay men’s organizations who push for gay rights, I do not know of any men’s rights organizations that do. Analysis: if some men want to be gay and push for gay rights, that is their agenda. But it is not the agenda of the men’s rights movement, which is about protecting the rights of heterosexual men to participate in marriage and raise their children.

· Feminist men: Feminists want to include “feminist men” as Men’s Rights activists. I believe this is wrong. Feminist men are a subset of the feminist movement. I have never seen a feminist man leading any legitimate Men’s Rights organization (however, there have been a few feminist-run organizations masquerading as Men’s groups). Feminist men are more likely to prowl the Men’s Movement and try to disrupt it than anything else. Of course, I do recognize there are many formerly feminist men in the Men’s movement, who were shaken into reality the second the divorce papers landed. Therefore, I believe it is very important to ensure that if feminist men are listed at all, they should be listed in the “Critics” section.

· Marriage Movement Section (to be added). The men’s movement has basically been all about the restoration of marriage for as long as I have been in the movement. However, since many of us spend a most of the time fighting the destruction of it and helping men destroyed by the system it is difficult to recognize that we are really the ones who have been standing up for heterosexual marriage all along. I suggest this truth be highlighted: it is my long-held view that the men’s movement is actually “the legitimate marriage movement” that feminist political animals such as David Blankenhorn ran off with a decade ago.

· MRM and FRM Clarifications: Additional clarification is needed defining the hierarchical relationship between the Men’s Rights Movement and Fathers Rights movement. As I see it, all Fathers are men, but not all men are fathers. Therefore, the Fathers Rights movement is a very large subset of the Men’s Movement.

· Custody: The “Custody” section needs to be revised to highlight the Shared Parenting movement.

· Domestic Violence is a major issue needing a full analysis.

· Second Wives: A section on the Second Wives section needs to be added, especially describing the size of this movement.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

————————————————-