Slpl Please The situation is NOT an exact parallel to the examples youve given especially the first In that example youre comparing a matter of hard science to a highly subjective jouranistic description Basketballs to oranges We dont have a choice as to what causes AIDS We cant say for example that it is caused by a severe deficiency of Vitamin C because that would simply be false But in the case of the mens rights movement there are all sorts of descriptions ones used by scholars no less that would not be false We could say that the MRM is a countermovement to feminism a reaction to feminism a response to feminism a rebellion against feminism etc And by the way were we addressing the subject of AIDS we also wouldnt say It is considered to be a caused by the HIV virus would we Rather we would say that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus or to more explicitly bring in outside authority AIDS has been determined to be caused by the HIV virus Thats because is considered to be also brings in a degree of subjectivity to the statement  Your second example is closer to our situation and to be honest it isnt all that obviously unacceptable to me However in the case of Holocaust denial we are almost invariably dealing with clearcut antisemitism and scholars and editors should call a spade a spade In the case of the MRM I think that both scholarly and popular literature will reflect that we are not dealing with the same degree of monolithic hatred Moreover unlike Holocaust denial standard issue MRM causes dont reflect a flatout denial of historical fact  What I see in the present It is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement wording are editors taking the most negative description of the movement that they could get away with  saving the even less acceptable misogynist for a segment of the movement later in the lead and then framing it in the least subjective manner that they could get away with It is considered to be I dont particularly like backlash in lead but at least in should be framed in the more NPOV many scholars and other observers have described it as a backlash