Category talk:Violence against men

Main Article

The main article for this link directs to 'Domestic violence against men', rather than 'Violence against men'. If no such an article exists, then the redirect should be removed? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of the category was discussed and the vote was for it to remain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_15#Category:Violence_against_men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about this category

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Misandry.2FViolence_against_men.2FMisogyny.2FViolence_against_women. Thanks. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for violence against men

I've grouped some sources below, according to rough thematic area. Note that not all violence against men is considered to be or studied as gender-based violence - for example, the criminology studies below mostly focus on a gender-analysis of victims, but don't consider such violence to be gender-based violence. As such, random crime against males would not fit the inclusion criteria for this category. Additionally, for example, death of soldiers in war is not considered gender-based violence. Accordingly, I think it should be limited to things the literature considers sexual and gender-based violence, and not go beyond that. This would include male sexual violence (e.g. rape), domestic violence against men, sexual and gender-based violence in conflict situations (such as sex-selective massacres of men, sexual torture or mutilation, forced rape). It could also include, as a subset, violence directed at gay men, since literature often discusses this as an intersection of homophobic violence with gendered violence (see ref below re: attacks on gay males during the Iraq war).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against soldiers is gender-based. Men and boys are the primary targets of military recruiting and forced conscription, and even female soldiers are often kept away from combat (their absence is considered gender-based discrimination). Violence against sex workers is considered gender-based because while male sex workers exist, the risk factor leading to the violence (being a sex worker) primarily affects women. Men and boys are also targeted during genocide because of the assumption that they could become soldiers. Motive is not the defining determinant of what constitutes gender-based violence. By that standard very few forms of violence against women would qualify as gender-based. A good analogy would be abuse of slaves. The claim could be made that such violence was not race-based because it targeted slaves and some slaves were white. But in practice 'slave' and 'negro' were synonymous. Ditto 'sex worker' and 'woman' where violence against sex workers is concerned. 'Soldier' and 'man' are also nearly synonymous in practice. 96.41.40.221 (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall theory

  • Hagemann-White, Carol and Hans-Joachim Lenz (2004). Violence against women/Violence against men: Comparisons, differences, controversies. Studienverlag. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |eds= ignored (help)
  • Meghana Nayak (2006). "Gender Violence And Hegemonic Projects". International Feminist Journal of Politics.
  • Puchert, Ralf, and Ludger Jungnitz (2006). "Violence against Men. The Hidden Side of Patriarchy, Men and Gender Equality–Towards Progressive Policies (eds. Varanka, J., Närhinen, A., and Siukola, R.), Conference Report, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Helsinki, Finland".{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Adam Jones. Gender Inclusive: Essays on violence, men, and feminist international relations (PDF). ISBN 9780415775137.
  • Sylvia Chant (2002). "Men-streaming gender? Questions for gender and development policy in the twenty-first century" (PDF). Progress in Development Studies.

Sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict

Gendercide/sex-selective massacres of men

"This article addresses the implications of recent gender research for the definition of the crime of genocide and our understanding of it as an historical process. It proposes that gendered violence is a central defining component of the crime."

Violence against gay/TS/TG men

Male rape/sexual violence (non-conflict settings)

"For the last few decades, the prevailing approach to sexual violence in international human rights instruments has focused virtually exclusively on the abuse of women and girls. In the meantime, sexual violence against males continues to flourish in prison and other forms of detention"

Domestic violence/Intimate partner violence against men

Men in the sex trade

Criminology

Note: This is more for background. Regular violence suffered by males as a result of criminal activity I don't think passes the bar for inclusion in this category.

other

Not clear on how these sources could be used. Need to explore some of these other ancillary areas, but for now just keeping for reference.

Domestic violence

Domestic violence is a large category. If there exists some instances of domestic violence against men where the domestic violence is directed against men because of the gender, I believe that the categorization here is correct. However, it seems to me that we should avoid including categorizing articles where the violence is directed against people for motivations that are different than gender-based violence. For example, elder abuse where the victim happened to be male wouldn't necessarily be violence against men" in the way that the category description would seem to be implying in the second paragraph. To that end, I added some clarifying wording here: [1], but would like to make sure that people had a chance to explain alternative ideas. jps (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The context of the proposed change appears to be this discussion: Talk:Domestic_violence#Violence_against_men_cat. See the sources in the above section (Domestic violence/Intimate partner violence against men) which address your question. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which source indicates that instances of domestic violence against men have occurred because of the victim's gender? jps (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That question is not relevant. By definition domestic violence against women includes all violence against women within a domestic relationship. Similarly domestic violence against men includes all violence against men within a domestic relationship. The relationship is the primary qualifier. Given domestic violence against women is a subcategory of violence against women, domestic violence against men must also be a subcategory of violence against men. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies (talk · contribs). I think that the issue of false equivalence seems to come up a lot in these discussions. The idea that the two categories should mirror each other is, I would argue, a particular talking-point and POV that does not reflect the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of how these two ideas are not the same. To argue that they are is arguing for a false equivalence that defies the best sources we have on these subjects (including those reflected in the articles herein categorized). jps (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Are there sources that support that position? Sources above disagree, clearly even from the titles of the research papers:
  • Violence against men. Men's experiences of interpersonal violence in Germany.
  • Factors Influencing Gender Based Violence among Men and Women in Selected States in Nigeria
FYI there's an active discussion at NPOVN James J. Lambden (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The actual text of these papers supports the position of Drmies and myself. jps (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which papers are you reading? These excerpts are all from the papers above:

On the basis of knowledge to date, the extent to which men are subjected to physical violence by their female partners is a highly controversial issue. Here points of view range from “inconceivable” and thus non-existent in a male-dominated society to assertions that men experience domestic violence to a similar degree as women. On the basis of the qualitative interviews of this study, the first thing to be said is that every form of violence against men can occur in this sphere, including relationships in which men are systematically abused.

In a broader perspective, there is a need to integrate a gender dimension into violence research, recognizing that men are also sexual and vulnerable beings.

The study has shown that gender based violence still constitutes a problem in Nigeria, affecting women more than men.

Gender Based Violence (GBV) is a major public health and human rights problem involving all ages and sexes.

This may largely be due to the wide spread tolerance of such acts and lack of appropriate legal framework that protects women and men from domestic gender based violence in Nigeria.

Therefore, this study sets out to investigate the factors associated with gender based violence among both men and women in Nigeria.

Your comment at the top of the section argued domestic violence against men should not be categorized as gender-based violence. These studies refer to it repeatedly and explicitly as a form of gender-based violence. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have little patience for someone who provides evidence against their own position and then refuses to see it. jps (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of patience isn't an argument likely to achieve consensus for policy change. That's just my opinion though. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your demonstrated lack of WP:COMPETENCE/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (with apologies to Hanlon's razor) on this issue mirrors your previous demonstration of the same on Talk:White pride. I see a pattern. jps (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing policy require convincing a consensus of editors, my competency notwithstanding. Personalizing this disagreement will not achieve that.
Your argument, that domestic violence against men should not be categorized under "Violence against men", rests on a distinction between gender-based domestic violence against men and non-gender-based domestic violence against men. The excerpts above show the sources make no such distinction, simply qualifying all domestic violence against men as gender-based violence.
Can you give an example of domestic violence against men that would not (in your opinion) qualify as gender-based violence, ideally supported by sources, or sources that distinguish between gender-based and non-gender-based domestic violence against men? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't see a reason to assume these things would be symmetrical in the first place, and I find support for that in the work of Michael P. Johnson. I can't cite chapter and verse right now (have to see a man about a pump--a sump pump) but you can find some comments on his theorizing here, for instance. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our very own article on the ostensible subject deals with this very point. In fact, according to this article, basically none of the motivations for "intimate partner violence" that women have are related to a gendered basis in the sense that misandry is not the motivation (whereas misogyny is often the motivation in domestic violence against women). jps (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's good reason our articles aren't citable, even internally. As I see it you have two hurdles: first to convince a consensus that domestic violence against men isn't necessarily gendered (contrary to a number of sources presented.) Second, if successful, to enforce that additional (gendered) restriction on this category which currently explicitly includes "domestic violence against men" without qualification.
Our dialogue seems to have reached its productive limit. I'll mind your progress. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources indicate that domestic violence against men is necessarily gendered. jps (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • James J. Lambden, you pointed at "Violence against men: Men's experiences of interpersonal violence in Germany", saying that the title already makes your point. It doesn't. No one denies that there is violence against men, but what needs to be argued here is that the violence is gender-based. I read the report. It's well written, in a pretty font, and comments on the many kinds of violence men suffer. Unfortunately, for your argument it's not helpful, since much of the report is not about domestic violence (what it calls violence in "long-term relationships", section 2.3.3). For instance, what it has to say about "physical violence in childhood and youth" (p. 6) or "psychological violence" at work (p. 9) does nothing for you--not just because it's not domestic, but because it never discusses any of this violence as gender-based. The report talks about violence suffered by men, not violence suffered by men because they're men. I can't stress this enough: nowhere in the report does it discuss this. The closest it comes to a gender discussion is when it talks about sexual violence, where one can easily argue that boys and men were targeted because of their anatomy--but even that is not stated explicitly. It is simply not an object of this study. Let's talk about the Nigerian study, keeping in mind that this is one study, in one country, of 3000 men. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree but I don't think it's useful to debate because its relevancy hasn't been established.
The category here is "Violence against men." The category explicitly includes domestic violence against men without qualification. jps took it upon himself to impose an additional requirement (with the text because of their gender) without discussion, edit-warred to preserve it and when pressed to discuss failed to gain consensus. You (as far as I can) are the only person he's convinced. I and Arkon object. That's no consensus.
Additionally, this text was motivated by his removal of this category from the article Domestic violence, where he found himself reverted by several times by Timothyjosephwood, whose justification for reverting was that the category explicitly includes domestic violence against men. Unable to convince anyone reasonable there he came here, to modify the category's description.
I was surprised to see you revert my restoration of the original text with the edit-summary "clearly there is no consensus for your revert." You're an experienced editor and an Arbcom member, surely you know consensus is required for the modification of long-standing text not the reversal of that modification. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The previous wording before the current spat was stable on the category for years. The category with the original wording is the status quo and the onus is on those who wish to change it to gather consensus, not the other way around. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Arkon (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lambden, that something has been some way for a long time doesn't mean it's right. Tradition counts for something, but this isn't Alabama football, not the Alabama football of the old days. These days, we sometimes pass the ball; you can watch Julio Jones show off his stuff every Sunday with Atlanta, and we still win championships.

    You pointed to two sources, of which you argued the title alone proved the point; that was the sum of your argument. If this were an RfC or an AfD, this would be laughable. In the above comment, I indicated that one of your sources didn't prove what you wanted it to prove, and I actually went through the trouble of reading the whole thing. So right now your evidence, besides "tradition", is the title of a Nigerian article, not even its content. And, of course, the word of two of your friends, who actually don't have anything of substance to add. You are correct in stating that I am an experienced editor; perhaps you should make that count for something. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking for myself (thanks for the callout!), I'm still waiting on you to provide a reasoning to limit/change the description to "because of their gender". Arkon (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gave a reason above. It's because the rest of the description makes the point explicitly that the category should be restricted to articles about violence against men due to their gender. It's in the category description. Now you could, for example, argue that this restriction is wrong (though no one has), but right now the description is either self-contradictory (as it was interpreted when TimothyJosephWood claimed on the article on domestic violence generally) or it is intending the wording I request to make explicit. I think those are your two logical options. If you know of a third option, feel free to offer it. jps (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I'm trying not to waste time with needless argumentation. You want to determine whether domestic violence against men is necessarily gendered violence. Even if I concede domestic violence against men is never gendered violence it wouldn't change the fact that this category isn't restricted to gendered violence and domestic violence against men (regardless of motivation) is explicitly included. The category is "violence against men" not "gendered violence against men." James J. Lambden (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why people on WP make such an exceedingly big deal out of such exceedingly minuscule issues. But apparently we're doing this.

For references, I would point to the 100+ refs on Domestic violence against men, and wonder aloud why the article is not a self evident end to this discussion.

For argument, I would say that there are a few outstanding mediating factors for domestic violence, and gender is one of them, along with age and sexual orientation. These factors affect both risk and outcomes in a large number of ways. That is why these have been researched in the context of domestic violence by a large number of investigators.

Overlooking football analogies that I don't get because I don't sport, tradition matters in the context of no consensus, because policy is clear that the default result is to retain the state of things prior to the suggested change. So let me throw my hat in on the obvious, that there is currently no consensus for this change. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Maintaining logical inconsistencies in the face of reticence is not Wikipedia policy. It is pretty clear that the page explicitly says (1) that only articles about violence against men because of their gender should be included, and (2) that articles on domestic violence experienced by men should be included. The logical inconsistency is that much of the documented domestic violence against men does not happen because of their gender. jps (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page describes the scope of the category then delineates with specific examples. You feel the description and examples conflict. I do not, nor does TJW, nor (we can assume) do the editors who composed the text. WP:SILENCE is an essay, WP:NOCON and WP:EDITWAR are policy. Time to drop the stick. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-explanation that does not deal substantively with the problem. jps (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which version is better?

This RfC concerns the explanatory wording on the category page for violence against men. It was not a well-attended discussion and it mostly consists of a small number of editors, each of whom has chosen to repeat their own positions again and again. Some of these editors are being needlessly hostile and scoring points. This is distinctly unhelpful and is not likely to endear you to the closer.

A discussion between such a small number of editors is not a safe basis for a close, but I have also had the benefit of the comments in a CfD from 15 March 2014 and a CfD from 24 June 2014, and where relevant I have taken these into account. These discussions contain a lot of useful discussion about the purpose and intent of this category.

In this RfC two alternative wordings are offered, and there is no consensus for either. The community therefore rejects both drafts, and with my next edit I will remove all the explanatory wording until a consensus version exists. Based on the discussions I have read, I would suggest that a community consensus version will have the following characteristics:-

1) It will need to be considerably more succinct than the wordings offered here;

2) It will say that this category is not an exact mirror of our category on violence against women;

and 3) It will politely ask editors not to use the category to advance an agenda.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which version is better? version A or version B? diff.

See the above discussion. I contend that version B is a logical inconsistency.

jps (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave as is (version b) To illustrate the difference in versions, the proposed additional text is in bold below:

The scope of this category includes sexual violence against men, sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict situations, domestic violence directed against men because of their gender (including honor killings of men), and violence against trans men. Organizations, literature, events, books, etc for which the topic of gender-based violence against men is defining are also on-topic.

The additional text is an unnecessary qualifier. jps has not responded to my request for examples of situations he'd categorize as gendered domestic violence against men and ones he'd categorize as non-gendered domestic violence against men (supported by sources) to illustrate the necessity of this change. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source that deals with the subject supports the change, as demonstrated above. In short, there is no evidence that misandry has driven any domestic violence incidents. jps (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't support the necessity of either misandry or misogyny in gendered violence. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what's your favorite source that defines gendered violence independent of these concepts? jps (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also duly noted the biased misrepresentation of the three separate conversations that have taken place about this in OP's call for allies at WP:FTN. TimothyJosephWood
  • There is no better or worse You can have a category of violence against men, and/or you can have a category of gender-motivated violence against men. There seems to be no reason to prefer either. As with most Wikipedia categories, it likely makes no difference except to those edit warring about it. Rhoark (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • jps a TL;DR version of your argument from the above discussion would be helpful (only asking jps because those who disagree have already provided some arguments in this section -- but that's not to say other summaries wouldn't be welcome). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current version states that "[t]his category should not include violence where men happen to be the victims. Rather, it should only include acts of violence where the gender of the victim is an important determinant in them being selected for violence, when there is a gendered nature to the violence itself, or when it otherwise fits the definition in the literature of sexual or gender-based violence." My contention is that literally every source that exists which discusses domestic violence against men specifically identifies such acts of violence as not being due to the gender of the victim as an important determinant. However, certain editors of a political stripe seem to think that the wording at present allows for literally every article about domestic violence where a victim was male to be included. This is an ambiguity which is solved by my wording. The alternative is to remove the final paragraph, which I find to be a bad idea and literally no one supports it. jps (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this has had nothing to do with "literally every article..." about anything. This has to do with OPs general lack of WP:COMMONSENSE, and their attempts to remove this category from the actual article Domestic Violence, an article which has it's own section on...violence against men. So this makes twice now that OP has completely misrepresented other's argument, in addition to edit warring both here and on the DV article. TimothyJosephWood 19:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it seems the idea is that women who are the victim of domestic violence can generally be said to become the victim in some part because of their gender, whereas that presumption does not hold for men, and we would need sources to say that the domestic violence was in some part because they're men. I'm sort of sympathetic to the idea that the norms, laws, traditions/customs, and other structures in place throughout history in all parts of the world can be said to discriminate against women to the extent that domestic violence against women could be said to be about their gender, while domestic violence against men is a crime against someone who happens to be male unless sources say otherwise. But I don't know if a Foucauldian genealogy is a sensible exercise in the definition of a category. There would have to be a consensus among sources on the subject of domestic violence that male on female violence is about gender, but female-on-male domestic violence is not. While I don't doubt some sources say that, my guess (maybe I'm wrong -- and thus I'm not actually !voting here) is that more sources talk about the overwhelming majority of victims being women, but not automatically being about gender, and/or the idea of domestic violence being always about gender when between a male and female. That makes it hard. My sense is that the phenomena don't have to be equal for us to categorize them using the same grammar, and that we don't need to get philosophical in order to come up with best practices. If we're going to have the big qualifying statement up front, it should be a requirement that any article categorized as such have sources making clear that gender was relevant (i.e. not presuming anything, for either category). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes a lot of sense, but the categorical inclusion of any incidence of domestic violence against men in the category description right now does not allow for such approaches. jps (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that gender is an important factor in DV, no matter what way you slice it, and there are broad differences in prevalence, characteristics, and outcome when you examine it according to gender. Are lesbians who are victims of DV victimized because of their sexual identity? Probably not, since presumably the other intimate partner is also lesbian. That doesn't mean Domestic violence in lesbian relationships isn't an relevant article, because there are broad differences when examining the experience of lesbians who are the victims of DV. TimothyJosephWood 20:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody disputes that gender is an important factor in DV. Nor that there are differences as you describe. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "do the sources in domestic violence in lesbian relationships describe gender as being an important factor in this domestic violence-related subject?", and to base whether we categorize it on that, rather than to get into a discussion about domestic violence in the abstract? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I think the current version does that fairly well, while excluding basically every war ever, and instances where particular men have simply been killed while being male. This entire process has been a run around to try to exclude this cat in places where it clearly fits, like DV, and since this is a some personal war by OP to effect this change, the simpler solution seems to be reaffirm the current state, and shut down the opportunity for another failed four conversations with no consensus for the proposal. TimothyJosephWood 21:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears you're proceeding as if this RfC had concluded in your favor by removing the category from Domestic violence in Australia while it's still explicitly included by the text. Please revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: They both seem too broad to me. And what's the deal with "honor killings of men"? The only thing about honor killings that is related to gender is the fact that it effects women disproportionately. Why would honor killings belong in this category? Are we just going to list every type of violence that might possibly be experienced by men? Kaldari (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to agree with this. I had not dug into honor killings as of yet. I am rather trying to do some category maintenance here which is being impeded by a poorly-worded category description. jps (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of sending this off the rails, what about scrapping everything in that notice starting with "the scope" and replacing it with something like "The scope of this category includes all forms of violence against men where reliable sources indicate gender as an important factor in their victimization. It does not include victims of violence who happen to be male." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • version b or rhododendrite's version above - MRAs will slop this all over everything without clear boundaries. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fine with Rhododendrit's version as well. It would greatly aid in fixing this problem, I think. jps (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to highlight what the problem seems to be: the current text can easily be understood to make broad categorical (in the non-wiki sense of "category") inclusions/exclusions without respect to sourcing. Domestic violence is one example that's highlighted here. Although I don't know the story of how the current wording came about, it seems to me a patch of bandages applied to address multiple specific disputes rather than carefully crafted demarcation. Let's simplify it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not immediately opposed to your version but I worry the "important" qualifier would only trade one series of endless debates for another (i.e. what qualifies as "important.") Would "noted" be acceptable? I suggest it because it's a binary: either it was noted or was not. Either way I'm not convinced this would solve the initial issue: jps: your first update to the wording of this category followed your removal of it from the Domestic Violence article (discussion.) If this updated wording were accepted (allowing the possibility that some domestic violence against men is gendered) would you still argue for removal of the Violence against men category from the Domestic Violence article? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • [responding just to the first part, rather than the part addressed to jps] That's a fair concern, but I think that sort of thing is built into most Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. (e.g. what does "significant" mean in "significant coverage", at what point is "weight" established, etc.). It's a gray area, but it provides a framework within which a sensible debate can take place (how much is significant as opposed to whether there are blanket exceptions, what qualifies, whether other language cancels that out, and so on). That said, I won't pretend my draft language is perfect. I'm sure there are ways to improve it -- I just think simplifying it along those lines is the way to go. What I mean by "important" is sort of like how if we have an article about a famous politician, one source saying he/she at one point played the mandolin does not mean we should categorize that person as a mandolin player. Likewise if a single source out of hundreds says an incident was gender-related, that shouldn't be good enough to include here. Is there a better way to word that? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with this wording is that you need criteria that excludes...every war ever fought, since gender, until recently, has been a deciding factor in involvement in combat, and still is in many (most?) parts of the world. TimothyJosephWood 21:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm. So how to word it generally, without getting into examples? Would this be sufficient?: "The scope of this category includes all forms of violence against men where reliable sources indicate gender as an important factor in their victimization. Gender must be significant to the violence itself, and articles should not be included if victims just happen to be male, or belong to a group which happens to be predominantly or exclusively male." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • In extreme circumstances, that doesn't work. People who are gay are ipso facto predominately/exclusively male. At the same time, I don't think excluding warfare per se is a solution, because there are plenty of examples of the targeting of fighting age males among the civilian populations in an effort to weaken regional ethnic populations, which fairly easily falls into the category of violence against men. Maybe just exclude combat forces? TimothyJosephWood 22:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone can point to a single sources which says that victims of domestic violence who are men were targeted because of their gender, I would appreciate it. jps (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're probably not, as I imagine gay and lesbian victims of DV are not targeted because they are gay or lesbian. Nevertheless, their gender and sexual orientation are important aspects of the phenomenon, as had been said probably ten times now. TimothyJosephWood 22:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What important aspect is that? Can you point to a source which identifies the gender of a man as being important to the phenomenon of domestic violence against men? jps (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you really not been reading anything I've said in the past week? TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask the same of you, but I will not. I assume you don't have sources which say as much. jps (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have engaged in four protracted conversations about this, but haven't taken the time to read the article we have on it, with 100+ sources, or the few thousands words about it on the main DV article, then you probably shouldn't be trying to categorize these in the first place. TimothyJosephWood 06:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the article on domestic violence against men show that victims of domestic violence who are men were targeted because of their gender. I am beginning to think it is you who has not read the article or the sources in question. jps (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're probably not, as I imagine gay and lesbian victims of DV are not targeted because they are gay or lesbian. Nevertheless, their gender and sexual orientation are important aspects of the phenomenon, as had been said probably ten times now. TimothyJosephWood 10:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to be as charitable as possible to your proposal here. So, to use this changed subject you seem to want to demand, note that Category:Violence_against_LGBT_people is not one of the categories on domestic violence. jps (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok? Then it probably should be, since there's a two page section on the topic, as well as on Domestic violence in lesbian relationships, since that's what the entire article is about. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptions on both this and the Category:Violence_against_LGBT_people state that the violence should be directed against the victims because of their identity. I think there are examples of LGBT people being singled out in domestic violence situations because of their identities. There are sources which indicate, for example, that there exist domestic violence incidents which have been inspired by homophobia/transphobia. I can see that as being an "important aspect to the phenomenon". I am arguing that we do NOT see something similar for men who are victims in domestic violence situations. That is, I cannot find sources which identify the identity of the victim as a man as being an "important aspect to the phenomenon". Indeed, our very article of domestic violence against men spends much of the article space explaining that men who are victims in domestic violence situations are not attacked because they are men, presumably because that's what the sources say. jps (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current description of this category explicitly includes domestic violence. I believe this is about the fifth or sixth time this has been pointed out. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as I've pointed out about five or six times, this inclusion without exception is in direct conflict with the final paragraph of the category description. jps (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that we have a 200k article on DV against women, and an 85k article on DV against men, means you are wrong. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly does not. The existence of the article just means that the subject is notable. If you actually take the time to read the article on DV against men you will find that there is no evidence that gender played a role in those incidences. jps (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read and understand the intent of the category scope, it should exclude domestic violence where men happen to be the victims unless their gender was the/a motivating factor, in which case wording A is better. If the inteent of the category was to just include all instances of domestic violence where men are the victims, then wording B is closer. What is the scope intended to be? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you asked jps (the editor arguing for this change) I believe he'd say intent is irrelevant because, he contends, there are no instances of domestic violence against men where gender is a motivating factor.
Following that reasoning to its logical conclusion I've asked whether he'd remove this category from the Domestic Violence article if the updated language is accepted. He hasn't responded, however considering his attempt (and inability) to remove this category from Domestic Violence immediately preceded his attempt to change this category's description, it's reasonable to assume he would. Perhaps he will clarify. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear at this point that this is not about clarifying the scope of the category in any way that's supported by sources, but about removing the category from article they personally take issue with. Since it seems the person who originated the description two years ago is now retired, the issue of original intent is probably moot at this point. TimothyJosephWood 18:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They've removed it from a number of related articles as well, without discussion and in several cases (which I've reverted) without justification. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Either version is about gender or sexual based violence against men. It is clear to me that the intended scope of the category would be to include domestic violence against men only if their gender is a factor. However, this is an area that seems prone to tendentious interpretations of the wording of the inclusion criterion in the category, so version A (with "domestic violence directed against men because of their gender") is better. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain status quo. Still haven't seen any sourcing/reasoning to limit the scope. Arkon (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is the scope limited by version A? Honest question: If "gender-based violence" means something other than violence based on the gender of the victim, what does it actually mean? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It means you are advocating the removal of the bolded below "The scope of this category includes sexual violence against men, sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict situations, domestic violence against men, ..." Thus limiting the scope. Arkon (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version A I see. In that case, I support version A, with the limited scope, per my above comment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • version a. I considered the murder of Joe Orton as an example. Version b would put it put it in the category, version a would not. I think the intention of the category is not to include such incidents. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version B It already states about it being based on gender below it and keeps it consistent with the violence against women category. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version b the simpler and existing "domestic violence against men (including honor killings of men)". The insertion of 'directed' and 'because of their gender' in "domestic violence directed against men because of their gender (including honor killings of men)" is better covered by the closing paragraph, and putting it inside the line at this point seems only opening it to confusions as to what that might mean. Does it imply a different standard within of trans men vs men ? Does it imply that the general 'where gender is an important determinant' is the case EXCEPT that for domestic violence in non-trans men it's not just 'important determinant' it has to be 'because of' ??? Keep it to the shorter existing version. Markbassett (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category translation into Spanish

Could anyone translate this category into Spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.94.97 (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to add Hazing to this category

I.e. from that page.. "Hazing is seen in [...] gangs, sports teams, schools, cliques, universities, military units, prisons, fraternities and sororities, and even workplaces in some cases".

All of those are places where there are more men I believe. Thus that would make hazing relevant for this category. Ybllaw (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"All of those are places where there are more men I believe." There are more men than women in sororities? Wow, the regulation must have changed since the mid-20th century. Dimadick (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what sororities where, all I read was "fraternities and sororities" as one thing, which in my country they are mostly referred to as "student organisations".
If you read it like that, does your criticism about that specific element still hold?
And regardless, you haven't really replied to my suggestion as a whole, merely cherry picked one miniscule detail and blown it up without addressing the topic of hazing itself. Ybllaw (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About..
  • gangs.. the National Gang Center in the USA has a graph that claims 90% of gang members are male.. https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/demographics
  • sports teams.. from Women's sports "With the victory of Napoleon less than twenty years later, physical education was reduced to military preparedness for boys and men. In Germany, the physical education of GutsMuths (1793) included girl's education. This included the measurement of performances of girls. This led to women's sport being more actively pursued in Germany than in most other countries.". Thus "in most other countries" women in sports was less common seems to be claimed here.
  • schools and universities.. from Female education.. "Inequalities in education for girls and women are complex: women and girls face explicit barriers to entry to school, for example, violence against women or prohibitions of girls from going to school". Also this graph shows by the World Bank shows a decreasing historical education gap with women having less access to education.. https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/topics/education
  • cliques.. I couldn't find anything about cliques.
  • military units.. from Conscription and sexism.. "Men have been subjected to military drafts in most cases. Currently only two countries conscript women and men on the same formal conditions: Norway and Sweden"
  • prisons.. this document from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has a graph that shows 94% of prisoners being male worldwide.. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/briefs/Prison_brief_2024.pdf
  • workplaces.. from Women in the workforce.. "These articles presented the home as a woman's proper domain, which she was expected to run. Nevertheless, jobs were still available to women. However, they were mostly what are known as 'pink-collar' jobs such as retail clerks and secretaries.". I couldn't find anything about whether women had less jobs besides "towards the end of the 1920s, when married women begin to exit the work force less and less", which suggests that women spent less time at workplaces after getting married. I'd say additional sources for this would be required.
Ybllaw (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]