# Feminists Plan Mass Edit of Wikipedia



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 5, 2014)

> Feminist groups at more than a dozen universities are planning to participate in another mass ?edit Wikipedia day,? because the free, volunteer encyclopedia website is obviously horribly sexist.
> 
> Sarah Stierch, a Wikipedia contributor and researcher for the Wikimedia Foundation, said the problem isn?t just that most Wikipedia user are male. The layout of the website is itself ?very masculine,? she said.
> 
> ...



Doing a bit of research into this I found that colleges are actually giving out credit to students who enter 'feminist thinking' into Wikipedia.


----------



## Orochimaru (Feb 5, 2014)

It's a Man's Man's Man's World.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 5, 2014)

I expect each post from this point forward to have at least one facepalm picture.


----------



## Nikushimi (Feb 5, 2014)

Can someone please explain to me what, specifically, they are trying to change about Wikipedia?

What information are they hoping to add and/or remove?

And what is it about Wikipedia's design that is supposed to look "masculine"?


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

An example of what they mean by masculine would be nice and how they want to change it. It's hard to know whether they're full of shit or have legitimate points, otherwise. I assume most people in this thread will dismiss them, because whenever feminists try to do anything, people dismiss them (which I think is inherently sexist, as they're often addressing real issues).

But I mean, as long as they don't make up content or change facts, I don't think anyone should really care all that much.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Feb 5, 2014)

These ppl are obviously biased they forgot to mention that wikipedia looks too "white"

It must be niggerfied, i propose a counter attack and we make it blacker


----------



## Nikushimi (Feb 5, 2014)

> “The average Wikipedia editor is a well-educated white male."



...Yeah, and?

Would you prefer it be edited in equal measure by poorly-educated black females, just to reach a quota/diversify the pool of contributors?

I mean, really.

One would think that being well-educated would be a positive thing.

As for being predominantly white and male...sorry, but...Wikipedia's open to everyone with internet access, and that happens to be the demographic that contributes to it the most.



> "Well-educated white males have been writing history and the story of the world since ancient times.”



Depends how far back you go and where you look.

But generally-speaking, it IS the well-educated who write history.

Knowledge is power and you get knowledge by being educated.

Goes without saying.


----------



## ThunderCunt (Feb 5, 2014)

Doesn't seem to add any value but seriously guise do something more useful


----------



## Shizune (Feb 5, 2014)

Nikushimi said:


> What information are they hoping to remove?



everything about penises


----------



## Hunted by sister (Feb 5, 2014)

I wonder what exactly are they going to change. Turn Kopernik into a woman? 

//HbS


----------



## Golden Circle (Feb 5, 2014)

Good luck, because I've been in the #wikipedia irc channel, and the janitors there are very much on top of things.


----------



## Juda (Feb 5, 2014)

_The only thing, I should like them to do is edit information that dismisses the heroic acts females did in history. Like add more things that a female has done that helped shaped the world today. 

And I agree with one of the posters above me as we tend to dismiss feminist majority of the time. Though, it's hard to take someone serious when they often aim to strip males of there masculinity. _


----------



## Golden Circle (Feb 5, 2014)

This is why no one online takes feminism seriously.

This is worse than the Justin Beiber bots on twitter, because unlike the bots they actually believe what they're writing.


----------



## Juda (Feb 5, 2014)

_I support feminism because it shows that they to can be strong. Although, I'd personally say that this only happened because of WW2. 

But modern day feminism has perverted the idea of feminism_


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Nikushimi said:


> ...Yeah, and?
> 
> Would you prefer it be edited in equal measure by poorly-educated black females, just to reach a quota/diversify the pool of contributors?
> 
> ...



Well, white males have been discriminating against everyone who isn't them throughout history and therefore not giving other people a chance to even become educated, until relatively recently, and as they're the wealthiest demographic, they still have the easiest chance and most opportunities to become more education and powerful and wealthy, therefore continuing to perpetuate the cycle. 

Just look at some of the comments.


*Spoiler*: __ 



"Women and blacks have a lot in common.

Whatever a white person invents, creates, founds, develops, ETC, suddenly belongs to black people or else whitey is an "evil dastardly racist".

Whatever a white MALE invents, creates, founds, develops, ETC,

belongs to a female or else Mr white man is an "evil sexist misogynist pig".
White men can't take a dump without hearing the whining drone of blacks and females in the distance, complaining about something we are supposedly doing wrong."


"Yup. "Rights" today means "Give me what he has". "Civil rights" means "Taking liberties at the forced expense of someone else." Yet somehow they think they're "free" because they have gay marriage or something."


"The femnazi's can be creative and develop their own version and call it "Winnipedia" or the clambox or something....."




And go look at how many likes those have. You can't tell me those don't reek of sexism and racism. Automatically grouping all non-white males together and dismissing them and not even listening to their arguments. There's an inherent assumption there that white males' contributions are all the best ones and are just trying to be undermined and they don't even care to see what other contributions other demographics might have made. They feel like they're being attacked (after oppressing everyone else for hundreds of years, mind you, and therefore setting up a system that is clearly implicitly in their favor, from things like income inequality to how non white males are treated in the media to the fact that equal opportunity doesn't completely exist) when all the other people are really trying to do is achieve what they feel is more equal, so then they turn around and start attacking back and being unwilling to listen. A pretty clear sense of entitlement. In fact, I think the main problem is how equal opportunity isn't so equal, and that's because white males dominated the system and still do, but of course they wouldn't be willing to admit that, and if that fact is pointed out to them, they automatically default to it being an assault on their race and gender (ironically). White males achievements are important, too, of course, but I just think they should realize things are currently skewed in their favor. Look at the amount of women in STEM fields, for example; it's not a lot. And I've read plenty of anecdotes of things like women feeling prejudiced against or objectified or in some way uncomfortable to pursue that career, so you can't just say "Oh, men are more interested in science. Women just don't like it that much." That's because it's grown to be culturally acceptable for men to pursue careers in science and technology, and not so much for women, so they don't feel comfortable doing so. And that cultural precedent was put in place like men. Examples like that.


I suppose the feminists are implicitly saying that and how it bothers them, as it probably rightfully should. But I just truly don't know what edits they can do, unless they just want to include more females in the site, who have maybe been neglected by history. Other than that, I really don't know. Because I also don't really see how the format is "masculine." I think feminists are necessary and there are some real issues in the world that they need to be tackling, in terms of how women are treated compared to men. I just don't know how highly this ranks on that list.


Anyway, I typed all this out to try to get people from automatically dismissing what they're trying to accomplish, and to instead try to understand what it is they're doing and why they feel motivated to do so.


----------



## kluang (Feb 5, 2014)




----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 5, 2014)

> “It’s aesthetically very masculine in its design,” said Stierch in a statement to The Daily Dot, also noting that, “The average Wikipedia editor is a well-educated white male. Well-educated white males have been writing history and the story of the world since ancient times.”



Damn, that's some seriously misandrist and racist bullshit.


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Saufsoldat said:


> Damn, that's some seriously misandrist and racist bullshit.



Are you being sarcastic?
Because that's almost completely true.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> Well, white males have been discriminating against everyone who isn't them throughout history and therefore not giving other people a chance to even become educated, until relatively recently, and as they're the wealthiest demographic, they still have the easiest chance and most opportunities to become more education and powerful and wealthy, therefore continuing to perpetuate the cycle.


As far as education goes, you DO realize that women now get the majority of degrees in higher education there? If it was the other way around, you'd never hear the end of it about that from feminists. 


Snowless said:


> Anyway, I typed all this out to try to get people from automatically dismissing what they're trying to accomplish, and to instead try to understand what it is they're doing and why they feel motivated to do so.



Doesn't make them any less brainwashed. Feminist activists in universities tend to be among the worst of their kind. High intersection with tumblr feminists.

There are some legitimate issues (although still first world problems) - Like that one guy who went on a spree to put female writers into a separate category (making them harder to find), and the occasional edit wars - But in general, feminist complaints about Wikipedia are of utter irrelevance and they actually, genuinely, think that objective neutrality is "patriarchy" because it doesn't reflect their "feelings".


----------



## Shakar (Feb 5, 2014)

They manage to get more stupid  and full of shit each day that passes, I didn't think it was possible


----------



## rac585 (Feb 5, 2014)

just another reason to never trust wikipedia.


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> As far as education goes, you DO realize that women now get the majority of degrees in higher education there? If it was the other way around, you'd never hear the end of it about that from feminists.
> 
> 
> Doesn't make them any less brainwashed. Feminist activists in universities tend to be among the worst of their kind. High intersection with tumblr feminists.
> ...



I did not, no. 
 But politics and science are both still very largely male-dominated fields, though; I know that much.
And I suppose that's to be expected, since we've had such a head start.
It's just worth noting why that inequality exists and that we absolutely are the cause of it.


And yeah, I will admit that while I find a lot of feminists' arguments credible and viable, sometimes on tumblr I see them complaining about things, and it does seem like they're citing sexism for problems that don't really have to do with sexism. I do agree with a lot of tumblr feminism I see, as well, though. I think it just depends on the particular issue.

I'm just not educated enough on what they're trying to accomplish here and exactly what the problem is to know whether I find this legitimate or not. And I do believe it's sexist to automatically dismiss them as "stupid, overreacting feminists," or whatever.

I mean, you might be right. I just wouldn't want to make a judgement without examples.


----------



## John Sheppard (Feb 5, 2014)

Wikipedia has a masculine design. Wait what?


----------



## ThunderCunt (Feb 5, 2014)

Azzrael said:


> Wikipedia has a masculine design. Wait what?



It is white and black! We need more colours.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> I did not, no.
> But politics and science are both still very largely male-dominated fields, though; I know that much.
> And I suppose that's to be expected, since we've had such a head start.
> It's just worth noting why that inequality exists and that we absolutely are the cause of it.



Well yes, women were discouraged from going into science and politics for a long time, no denying that. Despite many efforts to the contrary, they still can't get a lot of girls to show interest in such things.
That also partly explains why there's such a huge gap (9:1) for the gender of wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is full of science and history, which are male-dominated fields except for certain subdisciplines.



Snowless said:


> And yeah, I will admit that while I find a lot of feminists' arguments credible and viable, sometimes on tumblr I see them complaining about things, and it does seem like they're citing sexism for problems that don't really have to do with sexism. I do agree with a lot of tumblr feminism I see, as well, though. I think it just depends on the particular issue.
> 
> I'm just not educated enough on what they're trying to accomplish here and exactly what the problem is to know whether I find this legitimate or not. And I do believe it's sexist to automatically dismiss them as "stupid, overreacting feminists," or whatever.
> 
> I mean, you might be right. I just wouldn't want to make a judgement without examples.



Feminists who handle legitimate issues are likely not involved in "wikipedia edit-athons", though.


----------



## Mizura (Feb 5, 2014)

I don't really understand what they're trying to do.  If they want to add more content in terms of female historical figures and such, more power to them. But they're not going to try to change the design or anything, are they? That'd be stupid. 

I know that there were a few controversies, like this one:


Basically, male novelists would be in the parent, 'American Novelists' category, while women novelists were relegated to a 'American Woman Novelist' sub-category. On top of that, male novelists were not in a 'American Men Novelist' sub-category, they were simply in the main category. You could see how that'd upset female novelists. I think women novelists were re-integrated into the main category since though.

With all that said... I still have no idea what exactly they want to do here.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2014)

Some issues addressed are valid...but the movement of feminism in particular is poisoned by the irrational. With the advent of social media like tumblr it has only exacerbated the problem, the face of feminism has become that of shrill misandrists that have been given a platform they did not have previously.


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Well yes, women were discouraged from going into science and politics for a long time, no denying that. Despite many efforts to the contrary, they still can't get a lot of girls to show interest in such things.
> That also partly explains why there's such a huge gap (9:1) for the gender of wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is full of science and history, which are male-dominated fields except for certain subdisciplines.
> 
> 
> ...



I think it's both a lack of interest and because of the atmosphere they have to endure. I don't know if you know who Emily Graslie is, but she does this Youtube science show called the brain scoop, where they dissect and explain things, and if you look at some Youtube comments, a lot of them are just typical sexist garbage. About how hot she is and how they'd want to do her and stuff like that. Completely disregarding her efforts or academic achievements, just to focus on her looks and sex. She actually had to come out and address how ridiculous it is. And I think that's a lot more widespread than just her; I think that's a common thing female academics have to endure, so I think we are still, in some sense, dissuading them from pursuing fields like those.
And I've seen clips where a male reporter was talking to a some female computer scientist and said something to the effect of "You're a little too attractive to be doing this, don't you think?"
I think that casual objectification of women really dissuades them, as it seems guys value their bodies over brains, as a whole.


And yeah, you might have a fair point there.


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Mizura said:


> I don't really understand what they're trying to do.  If they want to add more content in terms of female historical figures and such, more power to them. But they're not going to try to change the design or anything, are they? That'd be stupid.
> 
> I know that there were a few controversies, like this one:
> 
> ...



Okay, if women are often relegated to sub-categories, and they want to make edits like that, just to make women and men in the same category and therefore have their achievements presented on an equal platform, I can understand that.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> I think it's both a lack of interest and because of the atmosphere they have to endure. I don't know if you know who Emily Graslie is, but she does this Youtube science show called the brain scoop, where they dissect and explain things, and if you look at some Youtube comments, a lot of them are just typical sexist garbage. About how hot she is and how they'd want to do her and stuff like that. Completely disregarding her efforts or academic achievements, just to focus on her looks and sex. She actually had to come out and address how ridiculous it is. And I think that's a lot more widespread than just her; I think that's a common thing female academics have to endure, so I think we are still, in some sense, dissuading them from pursuing fields like those.
> And I've seen clips where a male reporter was talking to a some female computer scientist and said something to the effect of "You're a little too attractive to be doing this, don't you think?"
> I think that casual objectification of women really dissuades them, as it seems guys value their bodies over brains, as a whole.



Basing opinions on humanity on youtube comments is always a bad idea 

The constant mentioning/judging of female looks in unrelated topics annoys me as well though


----------



## rac585 (Feb 5, 2014)

initpidzero said:


> It is white and black! We need more colours.



personally i'm hoping they add a few pink borders and flower icons.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Rac said:


> personally i'm hoping they add a few pink borders and flower icons.



Wikipedia should just get custom skins like forums do.


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Basing opinions on humanity on youtube comments is always a bad idea
> 
> The constant mentioning/judging of female looks in unrelated topics annoys me as well though



Or, it's a good idea. Because Youtube comments, like the rest of the internet, provide an anonymous way for people to express what they really believe. They don't have to worry about being judged personally and can just say what they think. And apparently that is what they think.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2014)

While I feel it has been far too compromised for me, to the point where one may as well simply call themselves "gender equality advocates," there is infighting among self-identified feminists themselves on exactly what it means. From what I've learned of the differences between the three waves of feminism, it seems it's the intermediary of second wave of feminism and third wave feminism that is often associated and what bred this form of radical feminism that seems to dominate social media. Since as I stated, it gives any nutcase a platform it probably has also allowed this form of feminism to thrive.

An interesting article I read, this woman is a feminist and her mother is the author of "The Color Purple" (and a nutcase, unfortunately), and she highlights her criticism of second-wave feminism:


----------



## jux (Feb 5, 2014)

Man, I'm a self-proclaimed angry fuck the patriarchy feminist and even I'm pretty unsure what the point of this is. 

If anything, we should just be adding/expanding on articles on female activists etc and/or getting wikipedia to promote a few of these articles on their front page.

Meh.



Seto Kaiba said:


> While I feel it has been far too compromised for me, to the point where one may as well simply call themselves "gender equality advocates," there is infighting among self-identified feminists themselves on exactly what it means. From what I've learned of the differences between the three waves of feminism, it seems it's the intermediary of second wave of feminism and third wave feminism that is often associated and what bred this form of radical feminism that seems to dominate social media. Since as I stated, it gives any nutcase a platform it probably has also allowed this form of feminism to thrive.



All feminists disagree with one another, because at the end of the day most people are feminist in the same sense that most of us are black right's activists. 

The distinction between second wave feminism and third wave feminism are grounded in a few fundamental ideas:

Second wave:
- More politically/policy focused
- Focus on a female's ability to have personal agency, autonomy and individuality in terms of choice, opportunities and sexuality, hence having a more inherently structuralism ideology. ie. abortion rights etc. 
- Focus on "female identity", attempting to pull it away from the previous stereotype and unfounded critiques
- Focus on equal pay and policies to support women in the workforce ie. paid parental leave
- Hence equality is based on having the structure and opportunities that men have and reforming society in that way. 

Third wave:
- More sociologically focused
- Focus on gender as a cultural concept, removed from sex, hence more grounded in post-structralist ideas
- Focus on how women are lacking in agency due to social structure
- Movements in intersectionality (ie. the experiences of coloured women vs. white women)
- Hence, the idea of equality more based in seriously changing normative views on gender to be more removed from sex, race, religion etc

Within these two branches you have a shitload of ideoogical discrepancies. Ie. individualist feminists, intersectional feminist, autonomous feminists etc. 

All of us fight like cats. Half of us shave. Most of us hate bras.


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> While I feel it has been far too compromised for me, to the point where one may as well simply call themselves "gender equality advocates," there is infighting among self-identified feminists themselves on exactly what it means. From what I've learned of the differences between the three waves of feminism, it seems it's the intermediary of second wave of feminism and third wave feminism that is often associated and what bred this form of radical feminism that seems to dominate social media. Since as I stated, it gives any nutcase a platform it probably has also allowed this form of feminism to thrive.
> 
> An interesting article I read, this woman is a feminist and her mother is the author of "The Color Purple" (and a nutcase, unfortunately), and she highlights her criticism of second-wave feminism:



The article's author's mother seems like one of those diehard feminists that give them a bad name and try to break the current double standards by imposing their own contrasting double standards, which is a terrible way to go about it.

My perception was that modern feminism promoted choice. So, they wouldn't indoctrinate little girls to say, love the color pink and play with dolls, but would give them the choice and allow them to do those things if they chose. Not to force them to play with toys that were more traditionally used for guys. I mean, I get what her mother was trying to do with that by breaking stereotypes, but it just seems to create the same problem in the opposite direction. And at the very least, all of the new-age feminists I've encountered have been proponents of the "do whatever you want" idea.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2014)

Well as I stated, I just feel there's too much poison in feminism specifically for me to associate with it. I am all for equal rights, but with things like tumblr, and even IRL, it's pretty clear crazy has permeated the core of the specific matter of feminism.


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well as I stated, I just feel there's too much poison in feminism specifically for me to associate with it. I am all for equal rights, but with things like tumblr, and even IRL, it's pretty clear crazy has permeated the core of the specific matter of feminism.



I think its just a few rotten eggs ruining the perception of feminists for everyone.
Even on tumblr, it still feels most just want equal rights, even if their views are probably too liberal for the average person to automatically see the merit in them.


----------



## ThunderCunt (Feb 5, 2014)

Rac said:


> personally i'm hoping they add a few pink borders and flower icons.



I was being sarcastic there.
hastag sarcasm(I know that is how hastags work!!!!)


----------



## jux (Feb 5, 2014)

Feminism has a pretty crap PR team.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Sweet, sweet vindication.

Modern Western feminism is running out of actual issues to fight.  Plus they're too chickenshit to take on Islamists.

Jux, being a raging feminist is not becoming.  I appreciate your candor but I suggest dropping the whole "patriarchy" tumblr mantra.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> I think its just a few rotten eggs ruining the perception of feminists for everyone.
> Even on tumblr, it still feels most just want equal rights, even if their views are probably too liberal for the average person to automatically see the merit in them.



The moderates need to teach the extremists that their shit doesn't fly. It seems they're too passively tolerated. 

And even the moderates tend to keep spouting uninformed lies like the "1 in 4" rape myth or that obscenely exaggerated "wage gap". Doesn't really help their legitimacy.


----------



## Disquiet (Feb 5, 2014)

Mizura said:


> I know that there were a few controversies, like this one:
> 
> 
> Basically, male novelists would be in the parent, 'American Novelists' category, while women novelists were relegated to a 'American Woman Novelist' sub-category. On top of that, male novelists were not in a 'American Men Novelist' sub-category, they were simply in the main category. You could see how that'd upset female novelists. I think women novelists were re-integrated into the main category since though.


Not to defend this example in itself (I know little to nothing about it, and your link won't currently open for me regardless), but this sort of thing could easily be a misunderstanding brought about by a misfired attempt to draw attention to female novelists in particular because, ostensibly, less attention is granted to them otherwise. When the US has its "black history month" it's not an attempt to separate historical figures of importance into "white historical figures" and "black historical figures" as though the difference was meaningful, it's an attempt to draw attention to the existence of the latter.


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> The moderates need to teach the extremists that their shit doesn't fly. It seems they're too passively tolerated.
> 
> And even the moderates tend to keep spouting uninformed lies like the "1 in 4" rape myth or that obscenely exaggerated "wage gap". Doesn't really help their legitimacy.



I don't mean to be insulting by saying this, but I think it's honestly just that the average feminist (like the average person) isn't the best in the world at evaluating evidence and picking compelling arguments.
I saw a tumblr post once trying to demonstrate income inequality and they compared the richest man in the world to the richest woman in the world. And he had maybe 4 or 5 times her wealth, I don't remember.
But, like, you don't pick the two biggest outliers and compare them. That's just a a poorly formed, poorly though out argument.
Especially in the senationalized world of tumblr, I just think people need to sit down and think and create better arguments instead of jumping on every bandwagon and making loose connections. It would help their cause more, I agree.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Feb 5, 2014)

Hooray for extremists who are most likely Misandrists or just attention whores wanting to stir up trouble, reminds me of those feminists who wanted to edit the Transformers wiki because they found it sexist for reasons that made no sense.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Feb 5, 2014)

How about instead of shitting up Wikipedia, they all join and contribute like everyone else? That would mean more women on Wikipedia, and nothing has stopped women from contributing. Isn't that working towards what they want instead of throwing a tantrum like an entitled child?

Feminism once meant something but now it's just fucking pathetic.


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (Feb 5, 2014)

Wikipedia has a simple functional design, please don't change that in to a overcomplicated mess, thanks.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> The moderates need to teach the extremists that their shit doesn't fly. It seems they're too passively tolerated.
> 
> And even the moderates tend to keep spouting uninformed lies like the "1 in 4" rape myth or that obscenely exaggerated "wage gap". Doesn't really help their legitimacy.



Because those high hopes worked well in dealing with Islamic radicalism right?

We're dealing with people, even Elim Rawne, who consider equity feminists like Sommers and Young to be traitors to the cause.  Social networks and social media have allowed the Dworkins and Solinases to thrive and spread their venom to dumb, impressionable women and spineless men like Dresden Codak's Aaron Diaz.  But maybe Diaz is a bad example since he's a fucking hack to begin with.


----------



## sworder (Feb 5, 2014)

babaGAReeb said:


> These ppl are obviously biased they forgot to mention that wikipedia looks too "white"
> 
> It must be niggerfied, i propose a counter attack and we make it blacker





this is what a feminist sounds like


----------



## jux (Feb 5, 2014)

Mael said:


> Sweet, sweet vindication.
> 
> Modern Western feminism is running out of actual issues to fight.  Plus they're too chickenshit to take on Islamists.
> 
> Jux, being a raging feminist is not becoming.  I appreciate your candor but I suggest dropping the whole "patriarchy" tumblr mantra.



Mael, I'm just being self deprecating. In honesty, I'm pretty moderate and fair about my activism. The only time I  rage is when my eggs have been badly poached. 

Also I know you hate "tumblr" terms (I mostly do too), but everything I write publicly I pretend my sociology/political science professor is sitting behind me watching everything I type. I have to use those dumb words to maintain the imaginary GPA. Sorry. (Also they're...correct terms, not matter how  many annoying tweens on tumblr have basterdized the words and meaning).


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> I think its just a few rotten eggs ruining the perception of feminists for everyone.
> Even on tumblr, it still feels most just want equal rights, even if their views are probably too liberal for the average person to automatically see the merit in them.



It's not just a "few" rotten eggs.  Those rotten eggs are the majority, the frontier and the spearhead of political, sociological and casual feminism.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

babaGAReeb said:


> These ppl are obviously biased they forgot to mention that wikipedia looks too "white"
> 
> It must be niggerfied, i propose a counter attack and we make it blacker



I second this.  A black-IN of Wikipedia is just what the internets needs. 



jux said:


> Mael, I'm just being self deprecating. In honesty, I'm pretty moderate and fair about my activism. The only time I  rage is when my eggs have been badly poached.
> 
> Also I know you hate "tumblr" terms (I mostly do too), but everything I write publicly I pretend my sociology/political science professor is sitting behind me watching everything I type. I have to use those dumb words to maintain the imaginary GPA. Sorry. (Also they're...correct terms, not matter how  many annoying tweens on tumblr have basterdized the words and meaning).



I figured as much considering you can actually be eloquent.  Unfortunately the internet makes me bristle at even the slightest hint of it especially through term usage.  Oh and I see you also took classes that you'll regret when looking for a job, just like me and my International Relations.

Some may or may not be correct terms, but it doesn't stop the fact that the terms are ruined.

Doge was an incredible meme of simplicity and lulz.  Then some Republicans had to get their hands on it and although the application was correct, their taint ruined half the meme, just like modern day feminism with actual causes.



afgpride said:


> It's not just a "few" rotten eggs.  Those rotten eggs are the majority, the frontier and the spearhead of political, sociological and casual feminism.



Fuckin' Star Platinum over here.


----------



## Pliskin (Feb 5, 2014)

Normality said:


> Here comes the feminist bashing tho. Because they are all one exact person. Maybe I should start calling all men pigs because they are all one person too.



I get that it must be annoying to be lumped together with misandric or plain tin foil lunatics. OTOH, I think the movement at large (and I consider myself part) has to admit that there is a battle for public perception going on and the rational ones are losing, Hard (no penis metaphor), 

I think there is a certain sense of 'unity before sanity', that is present in all movements (lefties,righties, religions ) that actually runs counter to the goals of the movement. 

Or to state it bluntly: unless people start to actively distance themselves from the lunatics, getting anywhere will be difficult. This may be unfair, but it is the consequence from a lack of hygiene from the past within the movement (much like the GOP has a similar situation with the teabaggers)


----------



## The Weeknd (Feb 5, 2014)

Fuck these cunts, for real.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Normality said:


> Here comes the feminist bashing tho. Because they are all one exact person. Maybe I should start calling all men pigs because they are all one person too.



So apparently being male is an ideology now, good to know


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> So apparently being male is an ideology now, good to know



Unfortunately Normality is letting her teenager come out.  I thought she was smarter than that.


----------



## buff cat (Feb 5, 2014)

It's shit like this that make us look bad.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

non-explody said:


> It's shit like this that make us look bad.



No, what's even worse is when an equity feminist (Katherine Young) and her co-author partner Paul Nathanson (gay male) are considered traitors and "cisgender heteronormative" pushers of "the patriarchy" all because they're trying to write about actual equality instead of outright hatred for the other side.

Like militant Islam, feminism needs to really take a good look at itself or many are going to treat them one in the same in terms of how to deal with crazy.


----------



## sworder (Feb 5, 2014)

The term feminist is forever ruined. If you claim to be a feminist, people will think you are one of the crazy people in the OP.

I'm all for equal women rights, but I'd never call myself a feminist. There should be a new term to distinguish the normal people from the weirdos


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

non-explody said:


> I know...
> 
> It's like they don't see that they are taking like the one way our attempts at equality are heard, and twisting them around into a huge joke. It's because of shit like this that when I say I'm a feminist, it makes people uncomfortable/they think I'm a retard.



They wouldn't think you're a retard.  They'd think you'd be irrational.

But explain that you're an equity feminist...one that's actually seeking equal rights, not special rights or the reduction of male rights.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Feb 5, 2014)

*Feminists Plan Mass Edit of Wikipizzle*

this thing makes more sense when you gizoogle it



> Feminist crews at mo' than a thugged-out dozen universitizzles is plannin ta participate up in another mass "edit Wikipizzle day," cuz tha free, volunteer encyclopedia joint is obviously horribly sexist.
> 
> Sarah Stierch, a Wikipizzle contributor n' researcher fo' tha Wikimedia Foundation, holla'd tha problem aint just dat most Wikipizzle user is male. Da layout of tha joint is itself "very masculine," her big-ass booty holla'd.
> 
> ...



Bustin a lil' bit of research tha fuck into dis I found dat colleges is straight-up givin up credit ta hustlas whoz ass enter 'feminist thinking' tha fuck into Wikipizzle.


----------



## Aduro (Feb 5, 2014)

What exactly is so masculine about it anyway? It just uses blocks of a standard font organized by subject or chronologically for biographies and uses the Havard Referencing System like most exam boards. If they really want equality for women then why not go harass companies that avoid promoting them instead of pestering an unbiased encyclopedia?


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Aduro said:


> What exactly is so masculine about it anyway? It just uses blocks of a standard font organized by subject or chronologically for biographies and uses the Havard Referencing System like most exam boards. If they really want equality for women then why not go harass companies that avoid promoting them instead of pestering an unbiased encyclopedia?



Like I said.  Modern internet feminists are too chickenshit to tackle real global issues because the Taliban or whomever would slice them into six different pieces and ship them to their families, so they have to look for issues and lo they make all sorts of shit up.

Because of this, honestly, racial issues will always be more important in my mind than gender issues in this country.  I'm not discounting the ever-present problem of rape or wage inequality (albeit that overlaps into many other categories including age, background, race, etc.), but the young, modern feminists we have now have adopted Dworkin's writings like they're biblical and ruined the appeal of the movement more than any "dudebro" ever could legitimize it.

I mean let's face it, there's a very good chance a woman is going to be America's next President.  If that happens, then half of the arguments women are making now are fucking moot.


----------



## Black Superman (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> Well, white males have been discriminating against everyone who isn't them throughout history and therefore not giving other people a chance to even become educated, until relatively recently, and as they're the wealthiest demographic, they still have the easiest chance and most opportunities to become more education and powerful and wealthy, therefore continuing to perpetuate the cycle.
> 
> Just look at some of the comments.
> 
> ...





So much truth. People think white supremacy is a bunch of rednecks in pickup trucks shouting epithets when it's far from that most of the time. 90% of contemporary white supremacy stems from policy making and financial fukkery.  If they had their way, no one would be their equal and they're fine with that. Your American dream is my american nightmare. When it comes to fighting wars we're brothers, race and all that suddenly doesn't matter anymore, when it comes to who gets a loan or who gets a job or who child is left behind,  then people start throwing out these Ayn Rand everyone for themselves platitudes. Ok then, if that's how you feel let me get on my Malcolm X platform because clearly your system was never meant to address my needs in the first place. 

I won't fight your wars, I won't buy your hat, I won't sell your drugs. I will pass my classes, I will learn your craft, I will  fuck your daughters, I will burn your flag.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Zero, get your ass to Zimbabwe because that seems to be the only place where you'd be happy, a black supremacist shithole.

But you're likely too chickenshit to do that, instead harping on unrealistic revenge fanfics and whining about nonexistent issues, just like these feminists.  You're a sham of an American lemme tell you that.

You bitch and moan just as much as these white girl feminists do over some real trivial or conspiracy theory shit.  Maybe like Malcolm X, you'll also get merc'd out and the world can feel better again.


----------



## Aduro (Feb 5, 2014)

Mael said:


> Like I said.  Modern internet feminists are too chickenshit to tackle real global issues because the Taliban or whomever would slice them into six different pieces and ship them to their families, so they have to look for issues and lo they make all sorts of shit up.
> 
> Because of this, honestly, racial issues will always be more important in my mind than gender issues in this country.  I'm not discounting the ever-present problem of rape or wage inequality (albeit that overlaps into many other categories including age, background, race, etc.), but the young, modern feminists we have now have adopted Dworkin's writings like they're biblical and ruined the appeal of the movement more than any "dudebro" ever could legitimize it.
> 
> I mean let's face it, there's a very good chance a woman is going to be America's next President.  If that happens, then half of the arguments women are making now are fucking moot.



True, I mean feminist goals in the West have largely been achieved, for example Germany and the UK have both had very long running female leaders too and the USA has a reasonable amount of women in government. The only big problem in the West in the Glass Ceiling, and that only really affects the top roles which many struggle to reach.

Not to mention many differences in gender equality work against men. Guys in the UK have a massively higher chance of committing suicide or going to prison (although its less bad than the racial differences in prison) and good luck to any dad trying to get custody of his kid if the mother isn't grossly negligent or incapable of looking after them. because they'll sure as hell need it.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Aduro said:


> True, I mean feminist goals in the West have largely been achieved, for example Germany and the UK have both had very long running female leaders too and the USA has a reasonable amount of women in government. The only big problem in the West in the Glass Ceiling, and that only really affects the top roles which many struggle to reach.
> 
> Not to mention many differences in gender equality work against men. Guys in the UK have a massively higher chance of committing suicide or going to prison (although its less bad than the racial differences in prison) and good luck to any dad trying to get custody of his kid if the mother isn't grossly negligent or incapable of looking after them. because they'll sure as hell need it.



Don't forget the ease that Western females have to declare rape or sexual assault against a guy, and I acknowledge there's still a fucking problem, and many courts will unfairly judge against the guy.  A guy claims a woman did this, and everyone laughs at him.


----------



## Pliskin (Feb 5, 2014)

Mael said:


> Don't forget the ease that Western females have to declare rape or sexual assault against a guy, and I acknowledge there's still a fucking problem, and many courts will unfairly judge against the guy.  A guy claims a woman did this, and everyone laughs at him.



Well, to be fair, most of the "pussy" comments come from other guys. Same with hot women abusing children, most guys go primordial ape mode and just spout 'Ugh!! Ugh! Woman hot vagina, sex good, Child lucky' thumping primitive bone-clubs  against their chest.

But yeah, the double standard exists.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Pliskin said:


> Well, to be fair, most of the "pussy" comments come from other guys. Same with hot women abusing children, most guys go primordial ape mode and just spout 'Ugh!! Ugh! Woman hot vagina, sex good, Child lucky' thumping primitive bone-clubs  against their chest.
> 
> But yeah, the double standard exists.



Well yeah that's what I'm getting at.

"Dude, she's like 80lbs lighter than you, why couldn't you just push her off?"

Men and women simply do not believe that a larger male could be sexually assaulted or raped.  Combine that with the notions that men aren't supposed to fight back (or they might get arrested for domestic violence).


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 5, 2014)

I have never thought of Wikipedia's design as gender-related, one way or the other. I cannot see how it comes off as masculine...

...and I can't think of what it is they're planning to edit. If they try to vandalize any pages, their edits will be reverted and they'll be banned from editing. If they want to add factual information, that is fine; all they have to do is cite it. But they're being vague and coming off with an ulterior motive.

For the record, many of Wikipedia's  (meaning they are considered the best articles on the entire site) are about women, womens' works, and some about feminism. Same with .


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Feb 5, 2014)

I don't even ...


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Narcissus said:


> I have never thought of Wikipedia's design as gender-related, one way or the other. I cannot see how it comes off as masculine...
> 
> ...and I can't think of what it is they're planning to edit. If they try to vandalize any pages, their edits will be reverted and they'll be banned from editing. If they want to add factual information, that is fine; all they have to do is cite it. But they're being vague and coming off with an ulterior motive.
> 
> For the record, many of Wikipedia's  (meaning they are considered the best articles on the entire site) are about women, womens' works, and some about feminism. Same with .



Narc, here's your problem.

You're being logical in an Age of Feels.

Modern internet feminism is zero logic and all feels.  It's buzzwords and reblogs.  It's a complete travesty that should be snuffed out like runt piglet.


----------



## Black Superman (Feb 5, 2014)

Mael said:


> Zero, get your ass to Zimbabwe because that seems to be the only place where you'd be happy, a black supremacist shithole.
> 
> But you're likely too chickenshit to do that, instead harping on unrealistic revenge fanfics and whining about nonexistent issues, just like these feminists.  You're a sham of an American lemme tell you that.



This ain't real?


How about this?


What about this?


Huh, did Bill O' Reilly just admit that whites make up 70% of arrests, yet aren't convicted as much as blacks? Something's not adding up here.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L9_34u9JRY[/YOUTUBE]




[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQl-s0mHO0Q[/YOUTUBE]

I'm done.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cCQU0jt4cs[/YOUTUBE]

The proof is all around you, you just pretend not to see it. Wake the fuck up. This is America, not some equal opportunity promiseland. Pretend like racism doesn't exist but get  at someone for pointing out its existence. Why can't people be as offended by these things than me coming to a very practical conclusion based on the mountains of evidence. I guess if it's not happening to you, who gives a fuck, right?

The drug war is racist. 
The criminal justice system is racist. 
The mortgage lenders are racist.
The way you've been programmed by media is to be a compliant racist.
I on the other hand, am not racist for advocating the empowerment of a marginalized group.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Is this gonna be a racism thread now?


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Wow Zero, nobody said racism didn't exist in America you stupid fuck.

But your impassioned bullshit about everyone being against blacks and your Malcolm X platform about this dog eat dog where whites are evil and oppressing and everyone else is a fucking victim is tiresome since you already advocate racial revenge violence and praise government's like Mugabe.

And everything you posted is raw paranoia.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> Well, white males have been discriminating against everyone who isn't them throughout history and therefore not giving other people a chance to even become educated,


This is a fundamental flawed assumption that most feminists seems to share. 

It is only recently that "white male" has come to be a grouping. The ruling class was white and male for much of European history. But there were many poor white males who had no power throughout history. 

The ruling class wasn't based on you being white and male. It wasn't even based on you being rich white male. The ruling class of European society was hereditary and much more akin to a class. structure. (though being rich could get you into it. But you were a sub class, not a blue-blood)

The common man, the peons, the masses tied to the land treated much the same as minorities, and men vs women held little distinction. 

A woman from the ruling class, had much more power than white male peasant. 

Trying to shoe horn European classism into modern day ideas of racism and sexism is inherently flawed. 



Snowless said:


> until relatively recently, and as they're the wealthiest demographic, they still have the easiest chance and most opportunities to become more education and powerful and wealthy, therefore continuing to perpetuate the cycle.



This is just human nature. Every person looks to pass on their wealth and status to their children. 



Snowless said:


> And go look at how many likes those have. You can't tell me those don't reek of sexism and racism. Automatically grouping all non-white males together and dismissing them and not even listening to their arguments. There's an inherent assumption there that white males' contributions are all the best ones and are just trying to be undermined and they don't even care to see what other contributions other demographics might have made.


Yes, I think that comment was sexist. Mainly because it works on negative stereotypes. 
But single comments don't really mean much to me. A comment is not indicative of a culture. 



Snowless said:


> They feel like they're being attacked (after oppressing everyone else for hundreds of years, mind you, and therefore setting up a system that is clearly implicitly in their favor, from things like income inequality to how non white males are treated in the media to the fact that equal opportunity doesn't completely exist) when all the other people are really trying to do is achieve what they feel is more equal, so then they turn around and start attacking back and being unwilling to listen.


So here you make the same sort of generalization and stereotyping as the person in the comments. 

You apply "white male oppresses" to every white male in existence today. What my ancestors might or might not have done is no reflection on my actions. "after oppressing everyone" is a complete bullshit comment. 

You take white male as a monolith and attack it. 

The fact that white males today have push back, and feel attacked, is because you declare them as a hundreds' year old oppressor, this is only natural. They didn't do this, nor does it accept that MOST, (and hear me here) MOST white males of the past were not part of the ruling class and were also oppressed!



Snowless said:


> A pretty clear sense of entitlement. In fact, I think the main problem is how equal opportunity isn't so equal, and that's because white males dominated the system and still do, but of course they wouldn't be willing to admit that, and if that fact is pointed out to them, they automatically default to it being an assault on their race and gender (ironically).


Sorry, but I don't consider defending myself against accusations that I am oppressor of all people not white and male as being entitled. 

You seem to equate not accepting that I am the scum of the fucking earth having as a sense of entitlement. 

You are absolutely right that opportunity is not equal. But it is not just based on gender or race. A poor white boy in Virginia whose father works at walmart, lives in a trailer and collects food stamps. Has less opportunity than Jaden Smith.

It is not because white males dominate the system. It because those who dominate the system benefit themselves. A rich white male doesn't give a shit that about the poor white males. Just because they share a sex and race doesn't mean that there is a bond. 

This is where much of the push back comes from. The assumption that because you are white and male that this gives you some sort of golden ticket. 
The key to opportunity is being rich. A white male can fake this better than most, but that is all. 



Snowless said:


> White males achievements are important, too, of course, but I just think they should realize things are currently skewed in their favor. Look at the amount of women in STEM fields, for example; it's not a lot. And I've read plenty of anecdotes of things like women feeling prejudiced against or objectified or in some way uncomfortable to pursue that career, so you can't just say "Oh, men are more interested in science. Women just don't like it that much." That's because it's grown to be culturally acceptable for men to pursue careers in science and technology, and not so much for women, so they don't feel comfortable doing so. And that cultural precedent was put in place like men. Examples like that.


Yes, a group of humanities feminists telling society at large that they are the reason girls don't go into STEM. Of course why they themselves as enlightened feminists don't go into STEM... well. I sure you can blame men for that somehow. 

There are more women in this society than men, there are more female voters in this society than male voters. 
If you want to do something, then do it. If you want have women politicians then vote for them. 

Everyone in their life experiences uncomfortable things, a part of being human is dealing with it. But this isn't something unique to women or men. A man in an elementary school feels this pressure, and feminist are doing their best to keep it that way. 

Feminists take great strides to cement female dominated spaces, and attack male dominated spaces which they covert. Not all male dominated, you don't hear feminists complaining that the majority of coal minors are men, or that janitors are men. 



Snowless said:


> I suppose the feminists are implicitly saying that and how it bothers them, as it probably rightfully should. But I just truly don't know what edits they can do, unless they just want to include more females in the site, who have maybe been neglected by history. Other than that, I really don't know. Because I also don't really see how the format is "masculine." I think feminists are necessary and there are some real issues in the world that they need to be tackling, in terms of how women are treated compared to men. I just don't know how highly this ranks on that list.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I typed all this out to try to get people from automatically dismissing what they're trying to accomplish, and to instead try to understand what it is they're doing and why they feel motivated to do so.


To me it is indicative of the problem with feminism. 
They complain that the majority of the wiki editors are men, to solve this do they join the community and start updating the wiki which is open to all and does not discriminate.... nope. 
They attack it on principle. 

The assumption that because there are not as many women as men automatically means that there is something wrong with the system, and not something wrong with themselves. 

To ask why aren't more women doing XXXX, without asking yourself why aren't I doing XXXX, is the major problem with this mentality.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Feb 5, 2014)

thanks god for the undo history button.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> But I mean, as long as they don't make up content or change facts, I don't think anyone should really care all that much.


CTK is that you?


Golden Circle said:


> This is why no one online takes feminism seriously.
> 
> This is worse than the Justin Beiber bots on twitter, because unlike the bots they actually believe what they're writing.


That's the worse part yet, at least with the trolls you knew they are just saying BS, these people actually believe their bullshit.

It's not surprising the see the path western feminism is taking.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 5, 2014)

Wikipedia itself is one of the most irrefutable arguments supporting innate gender differences. As a few have pointed out, the Wikipedia project is entirely voluntary. There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of women who want to contribute toward it.

However, the problem is that contributing to Wikipedia is largely an anonymous and thankless job. It's the internet equivalent of toiling down in a mine for the benefit of others. And that's just something that most women have absolutely no desire to take part in.

In contrast, where do you find women on the internet? Massed up on social networking sites like Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. What are they doing there? Mostly just talking about themselves and their friends, and posting pictures. Those are the priorities women have.

The reason this evidence is so irrefutable is because it's simply impossible that "the patriarchy" had any hand in creating or even influencing this great disparity. The internet itself is too new and too de-centralized. Every person who accesses the internet has the freedom to choose how they want to utilize it. Thus the idea that Wikipedia is somehow sexist because 90% of its contributors are male is as ridiculous as saying that Pinterest is sexist because 80% of its users are female. There's nothing stopping people of either sex from using any site they choose. But just like most men have no interest in posting dozens of "selfie" pics and telling everyone what they had for lunch, most women have no interest in doing thankless intellectual grunt work as a hobby.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Feb 5, 2014)

Aduro said:


> True, I mean feminist goals in the West have largely been achieved, for example Germany and the UK have both had very long running female leaders too and the USA has a reasonable amount of women in government. The only big problem in the West in the Glass Ceiling, and that only really affects the top roles which many struggle to reach.
> 
> Not to mention many differences in gender equality work against men. Guys in the UK have a massively higher chance of committing suicide or going to prison (although its less bad than the racial differences in prison) and good luck to any dad trying to get custody of his kid if the mother isn't grossly negligent or incapable of looking after them. because they'll sure as hell need it.



The UK is a bad example because Margaret thatcher is a leader that now most people hate. And really when one out of the last 10 prime ministers is female, and she has been the only of the 3 main party leaders during that period minus labour stand-ins, that's not a good sign.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Feb 5, 2014)

Wait, how is Wikipedia's looks masculine? Do they want pink borders?

Wikipedia is bad in certain languages. It is disproportionate. So if you google, say Laura Secord in ENglish, the page is twice as long as if you search for her in the fr.wikipedia. 

Don't believe me?



This is a problem I have seen way too many times, where articles differ in lenght and depth depending on which regional server you use. I mean, it's kind of expected, but you would assume that Wikipedia would have a greater harmony.

Point is, if wikipeida lacks femine stuff, go try wikipedia iceland or something, just because en.wikipedia lacks feminsit views, it does not mean that other servers do too. 
Conversly, changing en.wikipedia does not mean that fr.wikipedia will change too, you will have to do that seperatly.


----------



## LesExit (Feb 5, 2014)

sworder said:


> The term feminist is forever ruined. If you claim to be a feminist, people will think you are one of the crazy people in the OP.
> 
> I'm all for equal women rights, but I'd never call myself a feminist. There should be a new term to distinguish the normal people from the weirdos


Why wouldn't you just call the women who take things too far extremist? Tons of groups have them. 

I don't think that about people when they claim they're a feminist, unless they start saying things that support some kind of extreme view. Since there are tons of people that aren't extreme, and really care about quality between the genders. It sucks that the extremist part of feminism takes merit away from these people. 

I have no problem with calling myself a feminist, if that means people relate me to people like this, then....they silly gooses ( ・_・)


----------



## Hunted by sister (Feb 5, 2014)

Mael said:


> Don't forget the ease that Western females have to declare rape or sexual assault against a guy, and I acknowledge there's still a fucking problem, and many courts will unfairly judge against the guy.  A guy claims a woman did this, and everyone laughs at him.


Girl has sex with a passed-out drunken ex during a party, claims rape. He goes to jail. His friend finds a recording of her raping him on an anti-burglar camera, shows it to police. He gets released, she gets *fined*.

Equality my ass 


Mael said:


> Well yeah that's what I'm getting at.
> 
> "Dude, she's like 80lbs lighter than you, why couldn't you just push her off?"


And if you do everyone's like "how the fuck could you hit a girl?!" and then you deal with assault charges.

//HbS


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 5, 2014)

Mael said:


> Unfortunately Normality is letting her teenager come out.  I thought she was smarter than that.



I'm letting my teenager out because I don't agree with you? Seriously, shut the fuck. Why do you come on NF if you cant take any type of opposition? Not every feminist is a misandrist, yet you insist on lumping everyone together. If I did that to any other group, be it religious or not, I would get called on it.  People get in trouble all the time for lumping Muslims together even though their fringe group is a curse on the Earth, but somehow its okay to do that to feminists? Bitch, stfu.


----------



## Basilikos (Feb 5, 2014)

Present day feminism here in the West seems to be nothing more than self serving and whining about non-existent issues than actual equality between the sexes.

It's incredibly jarring when a woman sexually harasses or rapes a guy (even a prepubescent male) and people turn a blind eye to it or worse talk about how "hot" such a feat is and how lucky the guy should feel.  And if the guy actually makes the attempt to physically defend himself via force, he's an evil woman beater.  But if the roles were switched and a female tried to fight off the guy assaulting/harassing her, it's perfectly ok.  Disgusting.  As far as I'm concerned, the person who sexually abuses and/or rapes another person deserves a no holds barred asskicking at the very least.  Whether the offender has a penis or a vagina is irrelevant.  Justice isn't biased in favor of either sex.

Equality comes with responsibility and accountability for your behavior and suffering the consequences when you get out of line.  This is something that many women today, even some in my own family, desperately want to avoid.  They're quite comfortable supporting injustice while deceptively painting themselves as the helpless, oppressed victims.  It's bullshit.


----------



## sadated_peon (Feb 5, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> Girl has sex with a passed-out drunken ex during a party, claims rape. He goes to jail. His friend finds a recording of her raping him on an anti-burglar camera, shows it to police. He gets released, she gets *fined*.


source? I want to learn more.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Feb 5, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> source? I want to learn more.


Sorry, it was on Wykop.pl a couple of weeks ago, a website that gets flooded with articles from everywhere about everything. I can't find it. If I do, I'll link you.

//HbS


----------



## Island (Feb 5, 2014)

Feminism isn't bad, and a number of you are under the impression that radical feminism represents feminism as a whole. Just like any other group, the most radical people also happen to be the loudest and can therefore make their contorted views known to the world. They aren't feminists. They are just as sexist as the people they claim to be fighting.  is the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. Anything beyond that, and anything that elevates women to a status above men isn't feminism, and people who advocate such aren't feminists.

You're a feminist if you believe in equal rights for both sexes.

You're not a feminist if you believe that one sex is overall superior to the other and deserves a higher position in society because of that.

You shouldn't lump radical, self-proclaimed feminists with actual feminists, just like you shouldn't lump moderate conservatives or moderate liberals in with extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.

As for the article and the planned mass-edit, there may or may not be truth to what these people are saying. There probably _are_ instances where articles are biased towards males or that females are underrepresented for whatever reason. However, mass-editing articles like this is vandalism. If somebody has an issue with an article, they should gather up all of their data and relevant information and then make a post outlining how they plan to change an article to make it more accurate.

This is just plain vandalism disguised as some great crusade for equality.


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 5, 2014)

These women seem to be under the impression that every single editor of wikipedia currently is a rich white male. I'd be interested in seeing some actual demographics of wikipedia editors. I suspect there's some dishonesty in these feminists' mission statements.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Island said:


> You're a feminist if you believe in equal rights for both sexes.



No, that would be an egalitarian.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Island said:


> Feminism isn't inherently bad, and a number of you are under the impression that radical feminism represents feminism as a whole. Just like any other group, the most radical people also happen to be the loudest and can therefore make their contorted views known to the world. They aren't feminists. They are just as sexist as the people they claim to be fighting.  is the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. Anything beyond that, and anything that elevates women to a status above men isn't feminism, and people who advocate such aren't feminists.
> 
> You're a feminist if you believe in equal rights for both sexes.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone is dismissing feminism as a whole.  But acknowledging that the movement has been irrevocably poisoned by the fringes who gain power through the internet and dumber/sycophantic men/women falling for it is not wrong.

I had mentioned equity feminism numerous times.  It's the sort of feminism that addresses inequalities for women as well as unfair biases, especially in young schools and in courts, towards boys and men leading to a lot of psychological issues.  Unfortunately you mention equity feminism on tumblr or Facebook or Twatter and you're going to unleash the hounds of insanity.


----------



## Island (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> No, that would be an egalitarian.


No, egalitarianism is equality _overall_, for everyone, regardless of class, sex, or any other defining characteristic.

Feminism is a subset of egalitarianism that focuses on equality between the sexes. If you advocate egalitarianism, then you are also a feminist.

See the definition of feminism that I linked in my previous post and compare to the .

, if you missed it the first time.



Mael said:


> I don't think anyone is dismissing feminism as a whole.  But acknowledging that the movement has been irrevocably poisoned by the fringes who gain power through the internet and dumber/sycophantic men/women falling for it is not wrong.


A handful of image macros on the first page disagree with your first post, but I agree that the movement as a whole is being poisoned by radicals. Again, though, that's not all that different from most political movements where extremists come in and ruin everything.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Feb 5, 2014)

Egalitarianism: the doctrine of the equality of mankind and the desirability of political and economic and social equality

Feminism: Psycho bitches who want to slit mens throats and rule the world on account of believing they are the superior sex the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Island said:


> No, egalitarianism is equality _overall_, for everyone, regardless of class, sex, or any other defining characteristic.
> 
> Feminism is a subset of egalitarianism that focuses on equality between the sexes. If you advocate egalitarianism, then you are also a feminist.
> 
> ...



Did you check what you just linked?

"organized activity in support of women's rights and interests"

This IMPLIES that it is only focussed on women. It is impossible to do so while claiming to be egalitarian, as that would further imply the sexist assumption that men's rights and interests are of no concern to reach equality.


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 5, 2014)

In this thread you either call these bitches out, or act like a white knighter. No common ground.


----------



## Island (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Did you check what you just linked?
> 
> "organized activity in support of women's rights and interests"
> 
> This IMPLIES that it is only focused on women. It is impossible to do so while claiming to be egalitarian, as that would further imply the sexist assumption that men's rights and interests are of no concern to reach equality.


That's not what it implies whatsoever. You can easily be part of an advocacy group that advances the rights of a certain group but still be egalitarian.

Also, did _you_ read what I linked?



> the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities





> the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes



I don't know why you're so vehemently opposed to the idea that feminism can be and is something other than women hating men.


----------



## BiNexus (Feb 5, 2014)

Even when you start moving away from the Euro-centric history, and look at the 3 main historical regions (Euro-Mediterranean), Africa and Southern Asia (effectually ignoring most of what is now Russia) you can see that there are geo-political, economic and foreign policy (yes, there were dregs of foreign policy in history, but nothing near the complexity or depth we know today).

During the common era, the African continent had many tribes that enjoyed close economic ties to what is now Europe, Pakistan, India and Iraq, with some trade to Asia and, through those linkages, were able to get by with relative ease. During the Greek and Roman empires/dominance over the Mediterranean, they were simply offshoots or European preponderance. The regions that benefited from this trade were able to more easily assert their dominance over others that weren't so "lucky" (in the sense that this was simply a precursor to the European exploitation and imperialism that has come in recent history). What is now East Asia, was, especially during the common era, much more isolationist than the rest of the world. They kept to themselves and simply traded with the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires as they saw fit, as well as with Africa and Europe.

Europe, which has come to be associated with the "White Man" has been at the forefront of history due to the fact that has been the most dynamic, strife-filled and _mobile_ region in history. Their influence, outreach, and power has been the most of any region in almost any time period. This is, arguably, due to the volatility of the region and the proximity of so many city-states, regions, fiefdoms, etc., many with differing values, and characterized by a vying for regional preponderance.

It's not because the white man is evil and wants to drown out the voices of other genders (which I haven't spoken of yet) or races, it's because they've been present in a lot of what has shaped global history and established norms and practices that are still in use today by maintaining historical records.


sadated_peon said:


> This is a fundamental flawed assumption that most feminists seems to share.
> 
> It is only recently that "white male" has come to be a grouping. The ruling class was white and male for much of European history. But there were many poor white males who had no power throughout history.
> 
> ...



I'm going to have to disagree with you. It's true that the rich, affluent women belonging to rich, affluent families held more clout and importance than, and, as such, could ignore and deem irrelevant members of a lower class, irrespective of race or gender. That part is fine, however, if you choose to divide them up into classes as such, you must look within the classes you've defined. Not doing so would be gravely disingenuous.

When you do, looking at European class systems here, you will see that within each class, men held prominence over women. They were valued because they were stronger; educated simply for the fact that they were male;have generally been widely preferred due to the fact that names of families transferred on the paternal side. The European societal system has always been one that benefits the male.

Indeed, when the Europeans discovered the New World and interjected themselves and conquered some of the tribes of the indigenous people, they overthrew matrilineal societies and societal orders for, what else, patriarchal ones.



> Yes, a group of humanities feminists telling society at large that they are the reason girls don't go into STEM. Of course why they themselves as enlightened feminists don't go into STEM... well. I sure you can blame men for that somehow.
> 
> There are more women in this society than men, there are more female voters in this society than male voters.
> If you want to do something, then do it. If you want have women politicians then vote for them.
> ...



This I agree with, however. It just shows, in my view, a strong disconnect and pervasive hypocrisy in what this particular brand of feminists are pushing for. If more women would post and be active in the article editing community, would the numbers be so skewed.

If the argument was put forth that "patriarchal constructs" are _still_ keeping women away from intellectual positions; leadership positions; positions of authority, then, again, I would see it as a strong disconnect with reality (at least, in the western world, or the global north), or even unfair expectations of what the information revolution will bring for feminists.

For when you consider drawings in antiquity, such as on caves of very early civilizations of humans, couldn't you say the normative values were set in place either then, or long before then, that put men (i.e. hunters of the society) on pedestals for their exploits, with women as, more-or-less, background figures? How, then, can we expect all of that to change in the span of less than two centuries? Essentially, in relative sense, that would almost be an instantaneous change. We are seeing strides for change, and of course things aren't equal, and may not be truly equal for some time, or, as some hold, things may never _truly_ be equal, but we are living in a time where change has been relatively drastic and apparent.

The pervasive part of norms and ideologies and socio-economic structures, is that they work best when they are invisible to those they are imparted upon. Looking back through history, we can _see_ the discrepancy; we know it's been there, but instead of complaining shrilly about things that can be changed by action, let's simply act.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> In this thread you either call these bitches out, or act like a white knighter. No common ground.



Well that was a given.


----------



## Sarry (Feb 5, 2014)

Yeah, I saw a few posters about this in my Uni, but I ignored them because this effort to edit Wiki seemed wasted when it could be put to much better use. 


Mael said:


> Like militant Islam, feminism needs to really take a good look at itself or many are going to treat them one in the same in terms of how to deal with crazy.


But that will never happen, at least in current situations

Moderates won't risk infighting, and all the extremists have to do is decry whoever opposes their goals and yell "traitors" or "heretics" or so on. 

Feminism is going to get uglier and uglier as time goes.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Sarry said:


> Feminism is going to get uglier and uglier as time goes.


It will be eaten from the inside. Sex-positive vs. sex-negative, minority feminists vs white feminists, etc... it's gonna be beautiful to watch.


----------



## Nikushimi (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> Well, white males have been discriminating against everyone who isn't them throughout history



People in general have always been doing that and continue to do that. Nothing's changed, except who happens to be ahead statistically at the moment.



> and therefore not giving other people a chance to even become educated, until relatively recently, and as they're the wealthiest demographic, they still have the easiest chance and most opportunities to become more education and powerful and wealthy, therefore continuing to perpetuate the cycle.



Any person alive today in the U.S. has had a chance to become educated (obviously with variable access to resources and information, but still). I'd assume it's the same for other major civilized world powers. Wealth is a trickier issue, but let's not get ahead of ourselves--we're talking about editing Wikipedia, here.



> Just look at some of the comments.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



It's just the typical knee-jerk reactionary bullshit you're bound to get from people taking advantage of the lack of a need of a social filter when they post anonymously. Like I said above, this shit still goes on--but it's not white male exclusive.

It's fundamentally rooted in peoples' tendency to unconsciously commit the fallacy of composition and then parrot back the same kind of emotional, us-vs.-them rhetoric they hear in response to it because that's the framework that's been established, and so people end up totally missing the point.



> They feel like they're being attacked (after oppressing everyone else for hundreds of years, mind you, and therefore setting up a system that is clearly implicitly in their favor, from things like income inequality to how non white males are treated in the media to the fact that equal opportunity doesn't completely exist)



See, this is where I call bullshit.

Just because someone is a white male doesn't mean they're responsible for the way things turned out after hundreds of years of oppression; they're no more responsible for that state of affairs than any other demographic that's alive today.



> when all the other people are really trying to do is achieve what they feel is more equal, so then they turn around and start attacking back and being unwilling to listen. A pretty clear sense of entitlement. In fact, I think the main problem is how equal opportunity isn't so equal, and that's because white males dominated the system and still do, but of course they wouldn't be willing to admit that, and if that fact is pointed out to them, they automatically default to it being an assault on their race and gender (ironically). White males achievements are important, too, of course, but I just think they should realize things are currently skewed in their favor.



Not that I'm trying to take the wind out of your sails, but...how does all this tie back to the Wikipedia issue?



> Look at the amount of women in STEM fields, for example; it's not a lot. And I've read plenty of anecdotes of things like women feeling prejudiced against or objectified or in some way uncomfortable to pursue that career, so you can't just say "Oh, men are more interested in science. Women just don't like it that much." That's because it's grown to be culturally acceptable for men to pursue careers in science and technology, and not so much for women, so they don't feel comfortable doing so. And that cultural precedent was put in place like men. Examples like that.



But that's still a choice... I do/say a lot of things that aren't culturally accepted and I do it with middle fingers raised and a grin on my face. 

This is the same problem I have with feminists who argue that it's rape when a woman sleeps with a man so as not to be seen as a bitch/hold-out. Sorry, but...at that point, priorities are clearly being considered and willfully chosen over each other. If saving face is what's most important to you, then that's a decision, and--like any decision--it has consequences.



> I suppose the feminists are implicitly saying that and how it bothers them, as it probably rightfully should. But I just truly don't know what edits they can do, unless they just want to include more females in the site, who have maybe been neglected by history. Other than that, I really don't know. Because I also don't really see how the format is "masculine." I think feminists are necessary and there are some real issues in the world that they need to be tackling, in terms of how women are treated compared to men. I just don't know how highly this ranks on that list.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I typed all this out to try to get people from automatically dismissing what they're trying to accomplish, and to instead try to understand what it is they're doing and why they feel motivated to do so.



I appreciate that and I would very much like to understand what they're doing and why. That's why I asked all those questions in my first post. 



Snowless said:


> I think it's both a lack of interest and because of the atmosphere they have to endure. I don't know if you know who Emily Graslie is, but she does this Youtube science show called the brain scoop, where they dissect and explain things, and if you look at some Youtube comments, a lot of them are just typical sexist garbage. About how hot she is and how they'd want to do her and stuff like that. Completely disregarding her efforts or academic achievements, just to focus on her looks and sex. She actually had to come out and address how ridiculous it is. And I think that's a lot more widespread than just her; I think that's a common thing female academics have to endure, so I think we are still, in some sense, dissuading them from pursuing fields like those.
> And I've seen clips where a male reporter was talking to a some female computer scientist and said something to the effect of "You're a little too attractive to be doing this, don't you think?"
> I think that casual objectification of women really dissuades them, as it seems guys value their bodies over brains, as a whole.



I can certainly understand and agree to having the self-control and respect not to openly make comments like that, but...let's not pretend males aren't hard-wired with that priority in mind.

And again, the internet allowing people to post anonymously with no consequences for saying inappropriate things is absolutely instrumental in this phenomenon.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 5, 2014)

Who said white women were the majority in the first place, Zaru? Last time I checked there are more Asian and Hispanic women than Caucasian women.

Time for us to duel. To the battledome everyone.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Who said white women were the majority in the first place, Zaru? Last time I checked there are more Asian and Hispanic women than Caucasian women.
> 
> Time for us to duel. To the battledome everyone.





This is clearly about first world feminism


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 5, 2014)

Oh, nevermind. Fight cancelled.


----------



## stream (Feb 5, 2014)

Well, I'm going to try to be balanced: It is correct that Wikipedia is mostly edited by males, which necessarily introduces some sort of bias. In fact, I would go as far that even many women have a bias, the same way that many blacks are racist to some extent. And technically, being perfectly unbiased is as hard as making a pin stand on its end.

However, I don't think this action is the right way to act about it.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> This is clearly about first world feminism



Dworkin vs. Solinas, who is more batshit crazy!

*probably Solinas considering she shot Andy Warhol and all Dworkin does is consider consensual, romantic sex to also be rape which is also a product of her being stupid and fugly at the same time*


----------



## Sunuvmann (Feb 5, 2014)

Oy vey

If they're that concerned, why dont they join the community and do it through legit channels. If they do that all vandal like, you'll be treated as trolls and your changes will be reverted.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Feb 5, 2014)

What exactly makes a design "masculine"? And how are they going to "feminisize" it without falling into the stereotypes they hate so much?


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 5, 2014)

Totally not a cat said:


> What exactly makes a design "masculine"? And how are they going to "feminisize" it without falling into the stereotypes they hate so much?



Change all blue color items pink. And replace all spelling of "women" with "in the kitchen(s)."


----------



## mlc818 (Feb 5, 2014)

I feel bad for the serious and important feminist edits that may be blocked due to a larger than normal number of inaccurate, "malicious," or biased changes.

It would have been really good for them to give some examples of what is currently wrong and needs to be changed, as right now there's no way to assess the quality of their changes or what they'll even be attempting.  I'm sure that there is a lot to be changed, but I'm also sure that many people who are particularly serious about their ideological viewpoint would easily insert bias.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Normality said:


> I'm letting my teenager out because I don't agree with you? Seriously, shut the fuck. Why do you come on NF if you cant take any type of opposition? Not every feminist is a misandrist, yet you insist on lumping everyone together. If I did that to any other group, be it religious or not, I would get called on it.  People get in trouble all the time for lumping Muslims together even though their fringe group is a curse on the Earth, but somehow its okay to do that to feminists? Bitch, stfu.



Platinum mad, eh?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2014)

Mael said:


> Zero, get your ass to Zimbabwe because that seems to be the only place where you'd be happy, a black supremacist shithole.
> 
> But you're likely too chickenshit to do that, instead harping on unrealistic revenge fanfics and whining about nonexistent issues, just like these feminists.  You're a sham of an American lemme tell you that.
> 
> You bitch and moan just as much as these white girl feminists do over some real trivial or conspiracy theory shit.  Maybe like Malcolm X, you'll also get merc'd out and the world can feel better again.



Wow.

I have to say Mael, that was stupid.


----------



## Lucaniel (Feb 5, 2014)

klad said:


> Also aren't you doing the exact same thing you were calling Mael out for?
> Typical teenage girl.



except she was doing it 



> *Because they are all one exact person*. Maybe I should start calling all men pigs because they are all one person too.



to point out the stupidity of generalising

toddler level reading comprehension

a teenage girl would sneer at that


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Wow.
> 
> I have to say Mael, that was stupid.



Shut up Seto.  You make enough excuses for this prick yet have no clue how he operates.  It's always the Malcolm X Kill Whitey stance with him.  I'm fucking tired of his "challenger" ass because he belongs in the same league of irrelevance as Al Sharpton.

We're supposed to be attacking racism, not trying to actively turn the tables against another race for foolish feelings.  His nonsensical rants about a separate black economy, in the US, warrants absolute derision as does his defense of Robert Mugabe.

It's always white people.  They're always out to get him.  Interracial marriage is treason.

So if he feels that way, he should go to the place his backward mindset belongs, in places like Zimbabwe.

This isn't a white rights thing I'm even upset over, it's a shut the fuck up because you're acting just like those you hate thing I'm upset over.  I know you bristle wheneve people challenge activists of black racial issues but this one time, be quiet and let the man take his licks for his ironic and regressive behavior.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2014)

Mael said:


> Shut up Seto.  You make enough excuses for this prick yet have no clue how he operates.  It's always the Malcolm X Kill Whitey stance with him.  I'm fucking tired of his "challenger" ass because he belongs in the same league of irrelevance as Al Sharpton.
> 
> We're supposed to be attacking racism, not trying to actively turn the tables against another race for foolish feelings.  His nonsensical rants about a separate black economy, in the US, warrants absolute derision as does his defense of Robert Mugabe.
> 
> ...



I'm not making excuses for him, I'm holding you to a higher standard than him and for you to go off the rails and be approaching the absurd is bad enough, so you can cut your little tantrum. 

The issues he mentioned are relevant, his approach to them are flawed. 

You and I have had the Malcolm X discussion before. He had an extremely different platform after leaving the NOI, which likely drove members of it to kill him to begin with.


----------



## Mael (Feb 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm not making excuses for him, I'm holding you to a higher standard than him and for you to go off the rails and be approaching the absurd is bad enough, so you can cut your little tantrum.
> 
> The issues he mentioned are relevant, his approach to them are flawed.
> 
> You and I have had the Malcolm X discussion before. He had an extremely different platform after leaving the NOI, which likely drove members of it to kill him to begin with.



He deserves to be treated like the regressive punk he is.


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru, on the page before this one, you said feminism isn't egalitarianism. I disagree. Yes, feminism advocates more for women's rights, but that's because there's just more ground to be made up on that side. I've seen feminists advocate for men's rights, too.
And, in fact, if a feminist would be unwilling advocate against injustice perpetrated against males (the stigma against male rape, for example), I wouldn't be willing to call them a true feminist. 


And Niku, I'm just going to respond to a few of your points that caught my eye.



Nikushimi said:


> Any person alive today in the U.S. has had a chance to become educated (obviously with variable access to resources and information, but still). I'd assume it's the same for other major civilized world powers. Wealth is a trickier issue, but let's not get ahead of ourselves--we're talking about editing Wikipedia, here.



Well, okay, getting away from Wikipedia and talking about the possiblity to become educated: yes, you're right. Anyone has the potential to become educated.
But higher education is going to be more accessible to the wealthier, especially with rising tuition rates and lowering scholarships, so those in lower socioeconomic classes are at a clear disadvantage.
I would argue that, on average, minorities in general have to put forth more effort to become educated. They absolutely can, and clearly many do, but I do think it's not exactly as easy.






Nikushimi said:


> See, this is where I call bullshit.
> 
> Just because someone is a white male doesn't mean they're responsible for the way things turned out after hundreds of years of oppression; they're no more responsible for that state of affairs than any other demographic that's alive today.



Okay, I'm not trying to personally throw blame on all white males for the state of things today. I'm a white male. I don't think I can possibly blame myself for slavery or racism of the past.
However, white males have more benefits. From what I can tell, males take other males' opinions more seriously and are more dismissive towards females'. From middle school to college, I've heard guys just say things like "What, are you on your period or something?" if a girl gets mad, because then they can just dismiss her and not address why she might be mad. Also, females and minorities tend to get trashed more by the media when they do things wrong. And income inequality. Things like that.

I'm just saying that those things exist, and the people reaping the benefits from those need to acknowledge they exist and not see it as a personal attack on themselves when those inequalities are pointed out or tried to be corrected. And they should give more power to those who are oppressed (I'm using that term veryy loosely, here) to help themselves.






Nikushimi said:


> But that's still a choice... I do/say a lot of things that aren't culturally accepted and I do it with middle fingers raised and a grin on my face.
> 
> This is the same problem I have with feminists who argue that it's rape when a woman sleeps with a man so as not to be seen as a bitch/hold-out. Sorry, but...at that point, priorities are clearly being considered and willfully chosen over each other. If saving face is what's most important to you, then that's a decision, and--like any decision--it has consequences.



It is a choice, yes. But that's still an unfair bias against them. So, there's clearly a problem there. I suppose, to some extent, you can blame a female for dropping out of STEM, even if she was prejudiced against, because she should have stuck with it if she really cared about it.
But that's not delving into the roots of the issue. The prejudice shouldn't exist in the first place, and the people applying it are the main culprits to blame and that's where we should be trying to fix things. Otherwise you're taking the easiest argument out and I think it's small-scale level of victim blaming.

Now, as for rape, that's a touchy subject. But in this example, I agree with you and I don't. If she has consenting sex, then yes, it is not rape. But you're just totally ignoring the people who are holding her to that double standard. They're to blame, too. Again, they're closer to the root of the problem and they shouldn't be overlooked, just so you can blame the female more easily. (I'm not accusing you, I'm just saying, in general, people will just blame the girl and stop there, and not look deeper into the issues, at the guys who probably deserve more blame for being shitty people)






Nikushimi said:


> I can certainly understand and agree to having the self-control and respect not to openly make comments like that, but...let's not pretend males aren't hard-wired with that priority in mind.
> 
> And again, the internet allowing people to post anonymously with no consequences for saying inappropriate things is absolutely instrumental in this phenomenon.



See, I really don't like that logic. Because that just gives all guys an easy out. By saying guys are just hardwired like that, you're not completely holding them responsible for their actions and are in some sense justifying them.
Girls deserve to not be objectified and to say, or imply, its the natural tendency for men to objectify women really highlights whats wrong with the male perception of the issue. It ignores how females feel about being objectified and focuses on the male desire to keep objectifying.

Now, I know you weren't trying to say that. But I feel like that's the implicit argument in saying that's just how men are. It's a very male-centric way of thinking.
You can find a girl sexually attractive and still completely respect and acknowledge her achievements and not be thinking about fucking her the entire time.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Wow.
> 
> I have to say Mael, that was stupid.



Maybe the Malcolm X part, everything else was legit.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 5, 2014)

Sunuvmann said:


> Oy vey
> 
> If they're that concerned, why dont they join the community and do it through legit channels. If they do that all vandal like, you'll be treated as trolls and your changes will be reverted.


If you gotta give them any credit, it's for actually attempting to edit it themselves.
There are those who complain but don't even act up when asked to change it themselves, e.g. that whole "Sex and the City" fiasco 


Seto Kaiba said:


> The issues he mentioned are relevant, his approach to them are flawed.


Wait, this is fucking rich
So let me get this straight
When a black guy says he's gonna avoid doing business with white people and fuck their daughters, then "his approach is flawed"?

Well at least it's obvious how much of a double standard you have now. 



Totally not a cat said:


> What exactly makes a design "masculine"? And how are they going to "feminisize" it without falling into the stereotypes they hate so much?


Some people believe that order, logic and structure are male oppression of feminine thinking.


----------



## Sarry (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Some people believe that order, logic and structure are male oppression of feminine thinking.


..what the hell is feminine thinking?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 5, 2014)

Sarry said:


> ..what the hell is feminine thinking?



well, going by the implication...

Feels.

Feels everywhere.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Wait, this is fucking rich
> So let me get this straight
> When a black guy says he's gonna avoid doing business with white people and fuck their daughters, then "his approach is flawed"?
> 
> Well at least it's obvious how much of a double standard you have now.



You're a fucking idiot. How is that a double-standard? He says whacked out shit all the time, but no one is likely to take it seriously. It's not even a practice that he can conceivably put into effect. It's a form of racism that would pretty much require him to be a hermit, and while I know where his anger comes from I just don't agree with how he handles it. 

You can fuck off now.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 5, 2014)

Mael said:


> Platinum mad, eh?



LOL

No stop. Recently, all you've been doing is throwing childish tantrums. In this same thread you've been throwing tantrums everywhere and you dare call me mad? You don't happen to be on your period btw, right?


----------



## Gino (Feb 5, 2014)

HAHA this thread!


----------



## Black Superman (Feb 5, 2014)

All this butthurt because I praised Mugabe for promoting group economics. He's really pushing this black supremacist angle hard. It's tired. Call me whatever you want. I never get mad. A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinion of a sheep. I stand by that as well.


----------



## dynasaur (Feb 5, 2014)

@ZeroTheDestroyer
you shouldn't be praising Mugabe in the first place.



and this thread should be closed.


----------



## Chloe (Feb 5, 2014)

Ehh this is a pointless thing that is only going to make more ppl smh at feminism.

In most areas of developed nations there isn't so much inequality between males in females in recent years.
Race is another issue, the UK and maybe Canada seems to be doing the best jobs in regards to racial equality.

But yeah this whole wikipedia mass edit sounds dumb.
Most of this new age internet era of feminism is kinda ridic.


----------



## Gino (Feb 5, 2014)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> All this butthurt because I praised Mugabe for promoting group economics. He's really pushing this black supremacist angle hard. It's tired. Call me whatever you want. I never get mad. A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinion of a sheep. I stand by that as well.




Bruh the motherland don't give a darn about you.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 5, 2014)

Chloe said:


> Ehh this is a pointless thing that is only going to make more ppl smh at feminism.
> 
> In most areas of developed nations there isn't so much inequality between males in females in recent years.
> Race is another issue, the UK and maybe Canada seems to be doing the best jobs in regards to racial equality.
> ...



I think the U.S. does a good job too...


----------



## Snowless (Feb 5, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> This is a fundamental flawed assumption that most feminists seems to share.
> 
> It is only recently that "white male" has come to be a grouping. The ruling class was white and male for much of European history. But there were many poor white males who had no power throughout history.
> 
> ...



Well, look at property rights, voting rights, throughout history. Polygamy benefiting guys, men having more opportunities than women of the same class, women being considered property and/or relegated to housework. I think it's clear guys have had it better than girls, historically, and history isn't something that's so distinct from how things are today. Things have evolved from it and been influenced by it.

I'm not saying all white males are rich and have had it great throughout history, they've just generally had the better end of the deal than those who aren't, and that blatant inequality of the past pervades into the modern day and has settled into a more subtle, albeit overlooked one.





sadated_peon said:


> So here you make the same sort of generalization and stereotyping as the person in the comments.
> 
> You apply "white male oppresses" to every white male in existence today. What my ancestors might or might not have done is no reflection on my actions. "after oppressing everyone" is a complete bullshit comment.
> 
> ...



Okay, that's fair. I should try to not generalize like that. I'm not speaking for every white male in America, or the western world, or whatever. But there are a lot of them to whom I think that argument applies. And I'm referring to them. 

And I still hold to my view that women have been more oppressed than males and that shows its head in modern culture. And maybe I'm coming on too strong. Which isn't good, because that tends to alienate people. But my point is that instead of getting so defensive, they should try to understand the opposing points and why feminists or females might feel like things need to be changed. And I'm not talking about all white males, only the ones who sit there and don't make an effort to understand (which is a lot of them, to be fair).




sadated_peon said:


> Sorry, but I don't consider defending myself against accusations that I am oppressor of all people not white and male as being entitled.
> 
> You seem to equate not accepting that I am the scum of the fucking earth having as a sense of entitlement.
> 
> ...



A good point, yes.
Okay, hm. I'm not trying to say that _every_ white male has it better than _every_ nonwhite, nonmale. And I'm not saying _every_ white male has more opportunities or a better life.
You are right about wealth and those at the top (who are white males, mostly, for historical reasons, but they're such outliers, I don't even want to make them part of my argument).

But there are clear inequalities. I've mentioned several specifics in other posts, like income inequality or the hypersexualization of women to the degree where people ignore their achievements. Or, say, they did a study and police are more prone to stop a black person who is sitting at a street corner doing nothing, than a white person.

Those are the kinds of things that I think are important to not neglect. I apologize if it seems I am attacking all white males. I really don't mean to. It's just that white males are the least discriminated against category, and the ones most likely to overlook problems like those, because they don't affect them. I just want to draw attention to those and for white males to understand the double standards from which they're benefitting.




sadated_peon said:


> Yes, a group of humanities feminists telling society at large that they are the reason girls don't go into STEM. Of course why they themselves as enlightened feminists don't go into STEM... well. I sure you can blame men for that somehow.
> 
> There are more women in this society than men, there are more female voters in this society than male voters.
> If you want to do something, then do it. If you want have women politicians then vote for them.
> ...



Well, I do agree that there are better ways to advocate change than bitching about things and reblogging them on tumblr. And I will criticize younger, new age feminists in that that's a lot of what they do. They should absolutely go out and try to do things, instead of just complaining about them. 

But I do think you're also hung up attacking the feminists themselves instead of addressing the issues they're presenting.
And I don't think things are quite as black and white as you're presenting them. Not as many women are running for office as men. That probably has something to do with wealth distribution.

I don't think attacking men is the right way to approach things. And I don't know if the average feminist is as willing to sit back and just blame men for everything and not do anything beyond that, as you're kind of portraying them to do. But, regardless, I do think our society accommodates men more and that is indeed the cause for some of these problems and we should address that.




sadated_peon said:


> To me it is indicative of the problem with feminism.
> They complain that the majority of the wiki editors are men, to solve this do they join the community and start updating the wiki which is open to all and does not discriminate.... nope.
> They attack it on principle.
> 
> ...



And, I can't agree or disagree with this. They just failed to provide any examples, so I don't know whether what you're saying is true or if they're changing legitimate concerns. 
Although, I will agree in that this is turning into some sort of unnecessary PR stunt, when they could just rectify whatever the problems are in a more casual context.

But that last statement seems like a fair one. People should take more initiative. Although, to be fair, whether it's justified or not, at least the Wikipedia feminists are trying to change something, instead of just complaining.


And for what it's worth, for any feminists reading this, I'm not at all saying all feminists just sit and complain and do nothing, so I apologize if it seems that way. I'm just referring to the feminists that do indeed do that, in a couple of my above arguments.


----------



## Black Superman (Feb 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> Bruh the motherland don't give a darn about you.



You're so quick to say that about us, but why don't you say that about them?:amazed


----------



## Gino (Feb 5, 2014)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> You so quick to say that, but why don't say that about them?:amazed




Rephrase what you just said.


----------



## Chloe (Feb 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I think the U.S. does a good job too...


What I meant is that from what I understand, America has a large variation depending on the area.
Like as a whole America doesn't seem to be doing too bad.


----------



## Nikushimi (Feb 5, 2014)

Snowless said:


> Well, okay, getting away from Wikipedia and talking about the possiblity to become educated: yes, you're right. Anyone has the potential to become educated.
> But higher education is going to be more accessible to the wealthier, especially with rising tuition rates and lowering scholarships, so those in lower socioeconomic classes are at a clear disadvantage.
> I would argue that, on average, minorities in general have to put forth more effort to become educated. They absolutely can, and clearly many do, but I do think it's not exactly as easy.



Granted, but...you don't need higher education to contribute to Wikipedia.



> Okay, I'm not trying to personally throw blame on all white males for the state of things today. I'm a white male. I don't think I can possibly blame myself for slavery or racism of the past.
> However, white males have more benefits. From what I can tell, males take other males' opinions more seriously and are more dismissive towards females'. From middle school to college, I've heard guys just say things like *"What, are you on your period or something?"* if a girl gets mad, because then they can just dismiss her and not address why she might be mad. Also, females and minorities tend to get trashed more by the media when they do things wrong. And income inequality. Things like that.



I say that to my male friends all the time. :ignoramus

But Wikipedia doesn't make smartass remarks like that; it's rather impartial about the input it receives.



> I'm just saying that those things exist, and the people reaping the benefits from those need to acknowledge they exist and not see it as a personal attack on themselves when those inequalities are pointed out or tried to be corrected. And they should give more power to those who are oppressed (I'm using that term veryy loosely, here) to help themselves.



Coolio. But I think you might be casting your net a little too broadly here. Unequal access to higher education or a cultural tendency toward sexist remarks don't really seem like they interfere with a person's access to Wikipedia.



> It is a choice, yes. But that's still an unfair bias against them. So, there's clearly a problem there. I suppose, to some extent, you can blame a female for dropping out of STEM, even if she was prejudiced against, because she should have stuck with it if she really cared about it.
> But that's not delving into the roots of the issue. The prejudice shouldn't exist in the first place, and the people applying it are the main culprits to blame and that's where we should be trying to fix things. Otherwise you're taking the easiest argument out and I think it's small-scale level of victim blaming.



It's only victim blaming if you go along with playing the victim. And that's exactly the problem.

Society will ALWAYS have preconceived notions about how things should be; that's just the way people are. It's up to each of us as free, volitional human beings to say "fuck that" and do our own thing. Be ourselves.

We can't control other people, much as we may like to at times. So the next-best thing we can do is to control ourselves.

Again, it all comes down to what you prioritize: Your own hopes and wishes or other peoples' expectations of you.

And it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to be a victim or a trailblazer.

There's competition in the marketplace of ideas, son; the trick is not to fear it but to embrace it.



> Now, as for rape, that's a touchy subject. But in this example, I agree with you and I don't. If she has consenting sex, then yes, it is not rape. But you're just totally ignoring the people who are holding her to that double standard. They're to blame, too. Again, they're closer to the root of the problem and they shouldn't be overlooked, just so you can blame the female more easily. (I'm not accusing you, I'm just saying, in general, people will just blame the girl and stop there, and not look deeper into the issues, at the guys who probably deserve more blame for being shitty people)



Nah, I pretty much exclusively blame the girl in that example.

Whether or not the guys are shitty people is totally irrelevant as far as I care. Having shitty opinions and a shitty mentality isn't criminal, and there's a simple way to deal with people like that: don't associate with them. Not every guy believes a girl is a bitch or a hold-out if she doesn't have sex with them. But giving into the expectations of those who do just validates their bullshit and keeps the wheel a-turnin'.



> See, I really don't like that logic. Because that just gives all guys an easy out. By saying guys are just hardwired like that, you're not completely holding them responsible for their actions and are in some sense justifying them.



Oh I'm not dismissing their actions (re-read what I typed), I'm just saying they are biologically hard-wired to prioritize looks over everything else.

That excuse doesn't translate over into behavior, though; people have free will and ultimately have to choose consciously how they act. So it doesn't excuse lewd comments and such.



> Girls deserve to not be objectified and to say, or imply, its the natural tendency for men to objectify women really highlights whats wrong with the male perception of the issue. It ignores how females feel about being objectified and focuses on the male desire to keep objectifying.
> 
> Now, I know you weren't trying to say that. But I feel like that's the implicit argument in saying that's just how men are. It's a very male-centric way of thinking.
> You can find a girl sexually attractive and still completely respect and acknowledge her achievements and not be thinking about fucking her the entire time.



I agree with you and yet I disagree.

I think it IS the natural tendency for everybody to objectify everybody, because that's how people (and perhaps every living organism with a capacity for it ever) are.

That includes men objectifying women and women objectifying men. They just do it in different ways (although there is some overlap).

I actually don't think objectification is necessarily a bad thing, either, as I don't believe it's mutually exclusive with respect or acknowledgment. More importantly, it isn't criminal, so it sorta falls into that whole "marketplace of ideas" thing again...

That said, you're correct that that isn't really what I was trying to say; I just meant that males are naturally sex-minded and internet anonymity brings out the worst in people. I thought I was pretty clear about expressing that biological tendencies don't dismiss accountability for actions, but I suppose I could've said that more explicitly. In any case, I'm saying it now.


----------



## Black Superman (Feb 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> Rephrase what you just said.



You sound like you afraid of ruffling white peoples feathers bruh.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 5, 2014)

When I see or hear complaints of this nature I just say immediately think _here we go again_. I think too many people this generation are narcissistic little shits who have had things too easy, so rather than look for issues that are severely hindering someone's lives, they make a huge deal out of trivial bullshit so that they can become the centre of attention.


----------



## Gino (Feb 5, 2014)

Codea said:


> not everything is racial.
> 
> it's because African Americans(or black Americans if you will) cannot trace back to their indigenous tribes. And then there is the difference of culture.




I know that I've ran into many condescending African people who love to throw that very fact in our faces even when we are trying to become more aware of where our roots lie.So basically we'll never be good enough lol.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 5, 2014)

I remember when an African youth called me a child of slavery. I gave him a humiliating beat down in front of his younger brother. I felt pretty good about myself afterwards.

In all seriousness it is frustrating and makes me think, from time to time, why bother. It is as though some people are happy to speak of your responsibility towards them and accept your help; however when it comes to showing respect/acceptance they go skydiving.


----------



## dynasaur (Feb 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> I know that I've ran into many condescending African people who love to throw that very fact in our faces even when we are trying to become more aware of where our roots lie.So basically we'll never be good enough lol.


And that's alright, because Africans(I'm African)are not perfect either. 


Gunners said:


> I remember when an African youth called me a child of slavery. I gave him a humiliating beat down in front of his younger brother. I felt pretty good about myself afterwards.


That's horrible, I'd never do that.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 5, 2014)

Ok can we keep this back on topic with gender and not fucking ethnicity? And in actually not all Africans feel that way about Black Americans. A lot of the older ones actually feel sorry for not reaching out to help trace out their roots. But regardless this is more so about feminist movement.


----------



## Gino (Feb 5, 2014)

I'm pretty sure I said not all Africans shut yo punk ass up.Anyway you're right back on topic.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 5, 2014)

Eat a dick monkey.


----------



## Gino (Feb 5, 2014)

Take it to the Vm's or Pm's bitch.


----------



## Flynn (Feb 5, 2014)

I'm not sure exactly what they are doing and depending on what this group means to do, I can be very much for it or even more confused.

Are these groups editing areas of history of female accomplishment or are they simply editing historical events as females to allow an equal representation of power?

I guess one can be self inclusive of the other but its quite confusing. Of course well educated white males recorded most of history, they had the right to do so throughout history. So are feminists/feminist supporters doing this mass edit of adding their social theory to show a change of the times?


----------



## Drunkenwhale (Feb 5, 2014)

Nikushimi said:


> And what is it about Wikipedia's design that is supposed to look "masculine"?




It looks more "futuristic" to me.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 5, 2014)

Women's history is definitly something that could use more attention. Unfortunately there is not much to work with in many primary sources...

I recently finished reading _Spring and Autumn_ (completed 481 BC?) and its famous _Zuo Commentary_ (completed 463 BC?), the first narrative source on Chinese history. 

After reading it I can conclude that I still know virtually nothing about the lives of commoners, the lives of women nor about the lives of ethnic minorities. The protagonists are all Han noblemen in the courts of the various feodal realms, and to the extent other categories of people appear they do so only as secondary characters.

You will get lines like "when the Duke came of age he married a woman from Qi. We called her Lady Jiang [the family name of the Qi rulers]. She gave birth to X, Y and Z."

That's about as much info as we get on women in that book. We learn that noblewomen were married off to foreigners as part of political alliances, that they were referred to by their original family name and that they had children. The end.

Once in a while it seems that a duke's mother could rule the country with her son as a puppet, since the chronicle sometimes mentiones a duchess dowager accompanying her son on state visits. But I didn't get the impression that this was explicitly acknowledged, just implied (My command of Classical Chinese is not perfect yet).

Bottom line is, if you want women's history you'll usually not find much of it overtly in the classical history books. You have to read between the lines and supplement with archeological evidence.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Ok can we keep this back on topic with gender and not fucking ethnicity? And in actually not all Africans feel that way about Black Americans. A lot of the older ones actually feel sorry for not reaching out to help trace out their roots. But regardless this is more so about feminist movement.


In _actuality_, no one said all Africans felt that way.


----------



## EJ (Feb 5, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> Bottom line is, if you want women's history you'll usually not find much of it overtly in the classical history books. You have to read between the lines and supplement with archeological evidence.



This is true. At least in the schools I attended, you read more about European history with most or about all being about European men. 

I got into an argument with some roommate one time over this, and he told me that European history is the world's history and implied it should be the main kind of history being taught in schools.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 5, 2014)

The funny thing is that Wikipedia gets this shit all the time. They basically will just lock pages and shrug it off.


----------



## Shizune (Feb 5, 2014)

Flow said:


> This is true. At least in the schools I attended, you read more about European history with most or about all being about European men.
> 
> I got into an argument with some roommate one time over this, and he told me that European history is the world's history and implied it should be the main kind of history being taught in schools.



I think the focus on European history is misconstrued. I can't speak for other countries, but living in the US or Europe it makes sense you'd focus on the history behind your country. I don't think it's inspired by racism, although I agree a lack of education about other parts of the world can be really harmful.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 5, 2014)

With China and India back as important countries we should of course teach the histories of all countries where we reliably know what happened.

However since before ca. 1500 the different cultural spheres were fairly isolated from one another it might be good to group the histories of countrie that interacted much with one another. I therefore propose a primary division into chronologica periods and then a secodary division into culture spheres. Example:

*Antiquity*
Middle East: Persia
Europe: Greece and Rome
India: Vedic period, Maurya and Gupta dynasties.
China: Zhou, Qin and Han dynasties.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 6, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> Women's history is definitly something that could use more attention. Unfortunately there is not much to work with in many primary sources...
> 
> I recently finished reading _Spring and Autumn_ (completed 481 BC?) and its famous _Zuo Commentary_ (completed 463 BC?), the first narrative source on Chinese history.
> 
> ...



See, this is the type of ridiculous rhetoric that gives modern feminists the gina tingles. What were women doing during this time period? Probably raising children and holding down the fort while the man was fighting in wars or toiling away in dangerous work environments. Take note of the fact that I do not under any circumstance intend to downplay the role that women played in early history. Raising children and taking care of a household is an exceptionally important job and it actually upsets me that feminists downplay the importance of such tasks. 

I should mention that even though raising kids and taking care of the house are important tasks, I also don't believe that it is necessary to write volumes of history books about such things. This is obviously why historians didn't feel the need to go as deeply into it as they do the rise and fall of empires...but I hope that this has already crossed your mind.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

We can keep making remakes of Jeanne d'Arc stories depicting her getting raped in different situations each and every time. Or how Cleopatra being such a whore that almost everyone in Egypt and other parts of Africa has at least a tiny fragment of her DNA. or how Anne Frank holds the universe record of Hide and seek. Or how Amelia Earhart dumb ass got lost flying a plane.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> I should mention that even though raising kids and taking care of the house are important tasks, I also don't believe that it is necessary to write volumes of history books about such things. This is obviously why historians didn't feel the need to go as deeply into it as they do the rise and fall of empires...but I hope that this has already crossed your mind.



But you would agree that it might have been interesting to know more about Lady Jiang: what was her personality like? Did she and the Duke of Lu have a good relationship? Did she excercise any influence on her husband's government? What were her hobbies and interests? WHAT WAS HER FIRST NAME? (We don't learn, since her only value is as a link to the Jiang family).

Her manners and actions not being recorded does not mean they would have been uninteresting to a modern reader. It just means that author(s) of _Spring and Autumn_ did not think she was relevant to the scope of the project, which appears to have been to record important "world news" during the later part of the Zhou dynasty. Lady Jiang is only relevant to world news because she was the wife of one head of state and the mother of another.

You can't really blame _Spring and Autumn_ for that, any more than you can blame Reuters for not writing more about Michelle Obama and Peng Liyuan. But now that the bones of all the people mentioned in the book have long since turned to dust and many other books from the period similarly decomposed or been burned, we can still find ourselves frustrated that we don't find out more about certain things in the few sources we have left.

Even more than the neglect of women I am personally frustrated by S&A's neglect of _commoners_ in general, male or female. The existance of non-nobles is only implied when they pay taxes or when they serve as soldiers. Sometimes you get a note that "there was a famine in that year" or "there was a drought in that year", but there's no detailed journalistic account of how this affected the peasant population. Other than...them being hungrier than usual, presumably.


----------



## Kahvehane (Feb 6, 2014)

In other news, Wikipedia sysops are planning a mass "page lock/revert" day to counter feminist groups' attempts to remove the Wiki's suckling lips from the patriarchy's illusory teet.


In the meanwhile, said feminist groups have yet to finish reading their widely circulated pamphlets titled "How a Wiki Works, and Why Making Silly Edits is Futile".


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> But you would agree that it might have been interesting to know more about Lady Jiang: what was her personality like? Did she and the Duke of Lu have a good relationship? Did she excercise any influence on her husband's government? What were her hobbies and interests? WHAT WAS HER FIRST NAME? (We don't learn, since her only value is as a link to the Jiang family).
> 
> Her manners and actions not being recorded does not mean they would have been uninteresting to a modern reader. It just means that author(s) of _Spring and Autumn_ did not think she was relevant to the scope of the project, which appears to have been to record important "world news" during the later part of the Zhou dynasty. Lady Jiang is only relevant to world news because she was the wife of one head of state and the mother of another.
> 
> ...



When they do write about Michelle Obama it seems they talk about her fashion sense or some other innocuous bullshit. But save your breath, you're talking to a wall there basically.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> When they do write about Michelle Obama it seems they talk about her fashion sense or some other innocuous bullshit. But save your breath, you're talking to a wall there basically.


Well well well...if it isn't our resident eunuch.

Who is more likely to be interested in Michelle Obama's fashion sense or 'other innocuous bullshit', men or women? That shit certainly isn't written for men.



Kahvehane said:


> In other news, Wikipedia sysops are planning a mass "page lock/revert" day to counter feminist groups' attempts to remove the Wiki's suckling lips from the patriarchy's illusory teet.
> 
> 
> In the meanwhile, said feminist groups have yet to finish reading their widely circulated pamphlets titled "How a Wiki Works, and Why Making Silly Edits is Futile".



Hahaha!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Well well well...if it isn't our resident eunuch.
> 
> Who is more likely to be interested in Michelle Obama's fashion sense or 'other innocuous bullshit', men or women? That shit certainly isn't written for men.
> 
> ...


Glad to see you think that anyone gives two shits what you think. No one cares about how many girls you drag out of the trailer park and stick your probably diseased dick in and no one was fucking talking to you, this is a conversation for adults.


----------



## LivingHitokiri (Feb 6, 2014)

> ?It?s aesthetically very masculine in its design,? said Stierch in a statement to The Daily Dot


What the fuck,  since when simplistic and practical designs are considered as masculine ?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

LivingHitokiri said:


> What the fuck,  since when simplistic and practical designs are considered as masculine ?


Wikipedia's design is also changeable, you can control it if you log in.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Glad to see you think that anyone gives two shits what you think. No one cares about how many girls you drag out of the trailer park and stick your probably diseased dick in and no one was fucking talking to you, this is a conversation for adults.



:amazed :amazed  
My Response:


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

Don't really have to read what you have to say. This topic is stupid (Wikipedia's sexist layout) but you're still a misogynistic man-child who seems to think that just because the other man children who run around this place pissed that some cheerleader rejected them in high school agree with you that you've won some kind of life time achievement award


----------



## Palpatine (Feb 6, 2014)

Wikipedia is masculine...what?


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Feb 6, 2014)

Palpatine said:


> Wikipedia is masculine...what?



As masculine as frieza


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

Palpatine said:


> Wikipedia is masculine...what?


It's racist. Look how white it is. And look how the white background is holding the black text in place...shaping it to it's will and shit.


----------



## LivingHitokiri (Feb 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wikipedia's design is also changeable, you can control it if you log in.


I assume they are talking about the default design of it ,the one that many see ,which i think is ridiculous to be considered   as masculine or anything besides simplistic.
It would be great if they added more information about Female historical figures and add a more "female  design" as an option to people like it but thats it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

LivingHitokiri said:


> I assume they are talking about the default design of it ,the one that many see ,which i think is ridiculous to be considered   as masculine or anything besides simplistic.
> It would be great if they added more information about Female historical figures and add a more "female  design" as an option to people like it but thats it.


There is such a thing as masculine design, but I don't think I've ever seen it applied to something like a web page. Like the aliens in the movie alien are basically huge cocks. Cocks all over the place. Wikipedia isn't covered in cocks or xenomorphs.


----------



## LivingHitokiri (Feb 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There is such a thing as masculine design, but I don't think I've ever seen it applied to something like a web page. Like the aliens in the movie alien are basically huge cocks. Cocks all over the place. Wikipedia isn't covered in cocks or xenomorphs.


I know there but im just curious on how exactly they took  wikipedia design as masculine.
As for the xenomorphs i dont think even feminists would go that far about it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

LivingHitokiri said:


> I know there but im just curious on how exactly they took  wikipedia design as masculine.
> As for the xenomorphs i dont think even feminists would go that far about it.


Well the xenomorphs were designed to make men uncomfortable. Subconsciously the shit is supposed to be all about male rape.


----------



## LivingHitokiri (Feb 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well the xenomorphs were designed to make men uncomfortable. Subconsciously the shit is supposed to be all about male rape.



I give up , it seems il never understand the mind of feminists or any extremist at this point.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

LivingHitokiri said:


> I give up , it seems il never understand the mind of feminists or any extremist at this point.


That's not feminism, that's the people who made the movies. The whole thing is basically designed to be very rapey. The penis shaped heads, the forced impregnation and the way the face huggers shove what's seen to be like a cock in your mouth. The art design for the movie is pretty fucking creepy and it used to be worse if I remember correctly.


----------



## LivingHitokiri (Feb 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's not feminism, that's the people who made the movies. The whole thing is basically designed to be very rapey. The penis shaped heads, the forced impregnation and the way the face huggers shove what's seen to be like a cock in your mouth. The art design for the movie is pretty fucking creepy and it used to be worse if I remember correctly.


Well shit, there goes my Alien collection....


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 6, 2014)

The aliens in the _Alien_ and _Species_ franchises were designed by Swiss artist H.R Geiger, who has a...disturbing style. A lot of his stuff seem to mix sex organs with cyberetics.

Most recently we will have seen his work in _Prometheus_.

While he's best known for the movies I mentioned, he also does paintings and sculptures. Check 'em out.


----------



## G (Feb 6, 2014)

what the fuck feminists


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Don't really have to read what you have to say. This topic is stupid (Wikipedia's sexist layout) but you're still a misogynistic man-child who seems to think that just because the other man children who run around this place pissed that some cheerleader rejected them in high school agree with you that you've won some kind of life time achievement award



You're an emotional ass dude. Don't get mad at me cuz of how weak you are. You're softer than baby thighs bro. Even your insults are just like typical shit feminists say.

Let CTK be a lesson to any dudes out there who think that going the mainstream emasculation route is a good idea. Dudes whole aura is just moist.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2014)

Was that an insult..


----------



## navy (Feb 6, 2014)

Why arent there ten pages of laughter? Get the fuck out of with this shit.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> You're an emotional ass dude. Don't get mad at me cuz of how weak you are. You're softer than baby thighs bro. Even your insults are just like typical shit feminists say.
> 
> Let CTK be a lesson to any dudes out there who think that going the mainstream emasculation route is a good idea. Dudes whole aura is just moist.



You do have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to women it seems.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 6, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You do have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to women it seems.



I just say realistic shit and don't pedestalize. I really should go back and post up some of the weird ass shit you and CTK say about girls. I remember one time CTK tried to explain to me that he was a real man because he didn't stare at some bartenders tits while in a bar, which is ridiculous. And you personally like to come into threads and accuse others of bitterness without ever really elaborating on what drew you to those conclusions. I specifically remember in one instance where someone (Either Zaru or Mael, can't remember) was explaining how high intelligence in women correlates with declining populations and you entered the thread and said the same little snarky shit that you're saying to me, "Bitter much?" Someone listing a fact that doesn't necessarily paint women in an exceptionally positive light is not bitter hatred or misogyny. I will concede that you're much less emasculated than CTK, but you still swallow feminist propaganda like it's water.

For arguments sake, find me 3 posts of mine that show off a chip on my shoulder when it comes to girls.


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2014)

I agree with Seto Kaiba. If three people have the same opinion about you out of coincidence, you should start taking a good hard look in a mirror.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> I agree with Seto Kaiba. If three people have the same opinion about you out of coincidence, you should start taking a good hard look in a mirror.



Three notorious white knights online who have never actually met me. 

If that's what it takes for you to 'take a long, hard look in the mirror' then you have a very flimsy sense of self. Someone please find me some of these horribly bitter, misogynistic posts of mine.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> I just say realistic shit and don't pedestalize. I really should go back and post up some of the weird ass shit you and CTK say about girls. I remember one time CTK tried to explain to me that he was a real man because he didn't stare at some bartenders tits while in a bar, which is ridiculous. And you personally like to come into threads and accuse others of bitterness without ever really elaborating on what drew you to those conclusions. I specifically remember in one instance where someone (Either Zaru or Mael, can't remember) was explaining how high intelligence in women correlates with declining populations and you entered the thread and said the same little snarky shit that you're saying to me, "Bitter much?" Someone listing a fact that doesn't necessarily paint women in an exceptionally positive light is not bitter hatred or misogyny. I will concede that you're much less emasculated than CTK, but you still swallow feminist propaganda like it's water.
> 
> For arguments sake, find me 3 posts of mine that show off a chip on my shoulder when it comes to girls.




Rap beef. Marty just held it down.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 6, 2014)

CTK, you know Marty is dumb as fuck. I dont think he knows what a female even is.


----------



## Basilikos (Feb 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> I agree with Seto Kaiba. If three people have the same opinion about you out of coincidence, you should start taking a good hard look in a mirror.


That's assuming those three people are judging you fairly, which given how biased human beings can be, is certainly far from being guaranteed.


----------



## Gino (Feb 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> I agree with Seto Kaiba. If three people have the same opinion about you out of coincidence, you should start taking a good hard look in a mirror.


..........
He reminds me of when I was in the bathhouse not thirsting it by not putting vagina on a pedestal and then all of sudden I hated women I'm beginning to wonder about some of you dawg.


All I'm saying from my POV that's all MartyMcFly1 been doing since day one.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 6, 2014)

Marty is a loser who lives in his Mom's basement. Of course he is mad at women. No women will ever want to be with such a scummy dude. It seems he'll die alone. LOL


----------



## Gino (Feb 6, 2014)

..............okay


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2014)

I don't know happened in the thread you were posting in, so I can't give my input. I'll post more after I'm done watching this documentary.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 6, 2014)

Normality said:


> CTK, you know Marty is dumb as fuck. I dont think he knows what a female even is.



Normality is like a dumber, more aggressive Seto.

I always feel like when men can't concretely tell me what pisses them off about girls, then they don't have any experience with them.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

Grain of salt.


----------



## Gino (Feb 6, 2014)

High blood pressure.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> I just say realistic shit and don't pedestalize. I really should go back and post up some of the weird ass shit you and CTK say about girls. I remember one time CTK tried to explain to me that he was a real man because he didn't stare at some bartenders tits while in a bar, which is ridiculous. And you personally like to come into threads and accuse others of bitterness without ever really elaborating on what drew you to those conclusions.



Every thread on women you're there. I think your defensive attitude is ironically quite indicative of that bitterness. Which is odd you weren't always this way. 

How would that be anything on 'weird shit I've said about girls'? 

I'd argue your constant need to measure and prove you aren't emasculated is weird, and probably hiding deeper issues at hand.



> I specifically remember in one instance where someone (Either Zaru or Mael, can't remember)



Then you don't specifically remember...



> was explaining how high intelligence in women correlates with declining populations and you entered the thread and said the same little snarky shit that you're saying to me, "Bitter much?" Someone listing a fact that doesn't necessarily paint women in an exceptionally positive light is not bitter hatred or misogyny.



When Zaru stated women's rights was what would be the start of downfall of western society or was at the present? Only a demented individual would agree with that, one such you seem to have become over time. That is not a fact, that was a paranoid assumption. Such assumptions that he's no stranger to.



> I will concede that you're much less emasculated than CTK, but you still swallow feminist propaganda like it's water.



Funny. Considering I just went through this thread stating I could never get behind feminism because of its toxic attributes. Yet keep going, it's kind of hilarious and what I believe I stated to you before, you're no different from the feminists you despise. You're bitter towards them, and perceive anything less of what you think a man is as betrayal to the entire gender.

There is nothing more emasculated than a guy like that, even by your own approach.



> For arguments sake, find me 3 posts of mine that show off a chip on my shoulder when it comes to girls.



An arbitrary standard, but ok:


*Spoiler*: __ 





MartyMcFly1 said:


> I attribute this to lack of fathers, and a feminized education. The lack of quality fathers impairs a male’s ability to grow into a confident man and I suspect that for many of these young boys their early years of education aren't about education but learning how to please a female superior. You see varying degrees of these pathetic losers on the forum. On one hand I sympathize with them, on the other hand they don't sell themselves well at all and only manage to gain my contempt when I hear them talk about anything. Everything they say is full of vapid political correctness and feminist catchphrases.
> 
> Notice how on the last page Cardboard White Knight brought up the fact that our current civilization is constructed by men. He referenced it as something to he seemed to be vaguely ashamed of, or like it was a situation that needed to be immediately ameliorated.  One of feminism's irritating reflexes is its fashionable disdain for “patriarchal society,” to which nothing good is ever attributed. Don't act as if the first world society we live in and inventions that enabled women to leave the household weren't created by men. I refuse to tuck in my balls and be ashamed of being a man.





MartyMcFly1 said:


> Haha, somebody had to touch this one.






Now, I expect you to do one of three things: 

Say I took them out of context. 
Try to to shake off the fact that I actually managed to find these. 
React like the emasculated male you accuse others of being.

I think it's all kinda of funny how this all started from a single sentence about you. I wasn't even trying to be mean, but look at all the projecting you did in response.


----------



## Mael (Feb 6, 2014)

Seto is hardly the kind of guy who swallows feminist propaganda.  As a matter of fact, he's actually quite despondent of the modern feminist movement and rightly so.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

If Seto, Flow and I agree on something we're probably right. It's not like we agree on much or even get along.


----------



## Basilikos (Feb 6, 2014)

I don't think one can rightfully blame MartyMcFly1 for being deeply unsatisfied or "bitter", if you prefer, about what many feminists have done and said.  It's pretty clear from this thread that numerous people are at least skeptical of present day Western feminism.

So really, Seto, cut the internet one-up-manship rubbish.  It's immature, petty, and gets old really fast.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2014)

Basilikos said:


> I don't think one can rightfully blame MartyMcFly1 for being deeply unsatisfied or "bitter", if you prefer, about what many feminists have done and said.  It's pretty clear from this thread that numerous people are at least skeptical of present day Western feminism.
> 
> So really, Seto, cut the internet one-up-manship rubbish.  It's immature, petty, and gets old really fast.



"One-up manship"? I wasn't the one that was measuring the guys' masculinity here. Before you white knight, it would probably help to keep up with who you're trying to defend.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

Basilikos said:


> I don't think one can rightfully blame MartyMcFly1 for being deeply unsatisfied or "bitter", if you prefer, about what many feminists have done and said.  It's pretty clear from this thread that numerous people are at least skeptical of present day Western feminism.
> 
> So really, Seto, cut the internet one-up-manship rubbish.  It's immature, petty, and gets old really fast.



Odd that you think Seto is causing the issue here not the person who obviously needs therapy.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 6, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> When Zaru stated women's rights was what would be the start of downfall of western society or was at the present? Only a demented individual would agree with that, one such you seem to have become over time. That is not a fact, that was a paranoid assumption. Such assumptions that he's no stranger to.



Logic escapes you quite regularly. 

Women's rights and changes in gender roles -> Significantly lower birthrates -> The population shrinks and eventually dies out. As it is currently happening in: First world countries where women's rights had the most development.
This is not debateable. It's a mathematical consequence.

Well, it's not surprising that you'd try to paint it that way, since you're no stranger to being a lying piece of shit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Logic escapes you quite regularly.
> 
> Women's rights and changes in gender roles -> Significantly lower birthrates -> The population shrinks and eventually dies out. As it is currently happening in: First world countries where women's rights had the most development.
> This is not debateable. It's a mathematical consequence.
> ...


Or it could just be better birth control methods.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 6, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Every thread on women you're there. I think your defensive attitude is ironically quite indicative of that bitterness. Which is odd you weren't always this way.
> 
> How would that be anything on 'weird shit I've said about girls'?
> 
> I'd argue your constant need to measure and prove you aren't emasculated is weird, and probably hiding deeper issues at hand.



You're saying that you aren't also in all of those threads, usually in some long, drawn out argument. I just promote realistic ideas about sexual relations that aren't full of the nonsensical politically correct bullshit that tends to be accepted into the mainstream.

CTK *is *incredibly emasculated and I suspect ashamed of being a man. He'll say something like he believes that most men think it's acceptable to rape unconscious women and you won't bat an eyelash, but when I point out the absurdity of things like the slut walk, or mention the fact that I'm not ashamed of being a man, then you take offense.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Then you don't specifically remember...
> 
> When Zaru stated women's rights was what would be the start of downfall of western society or was at the present? Only a demented individual would agree with that, one such you seem to have become over time. That is not a fact, that was a paranoid assumption. Such assumptions that he's no stranger to.


He didn't say it would lead to the downfall, he just made a point about how intelligent women tend to have less children. Which is a true fact. Very little can be inferred about someone just pointing out a fact.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Funny. Considering I just went through this thread stating I could never get behind feminism because of its toxic attributes. Yet keep going, it's kind of hilarious and what I believe I stated to you before, you're no different from the feminists you despise. You're bitter towards them, and perceive anything less of what you think a man is as betrayal to the entire gender.
> 
> There is nothing more emasculated than a guy like that, even by your own approach.


Not true, but I'll respond to this when I dissect the 3 comments of mine that 'prove my bitterness'.


Seto Kaiba said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually stand by every single statement I made in those quotes you posted. I even consider those to be pretty damn mild.



MartyMcFly1 said:


> Jesus Christ. Any guy looking for any advice about women would do well do ignore this guys posts entirely. I promise you he has nothing to offer you whatsoever.
> 
> I've said this in another thread, but men and women are after different things right off the bat when it comes to dating sex. I've found that women need commitment from one man to be happy, and men need regular sex from women. There is absolutely no escaping this law of nature.
> 
> ...



I stand by this. Simply pointing out the differences between men and women is not sexist, or indicative of bitterness as you would like for us to think. You really believe it makes you a shitty person to kiss someone out of pity? Fuck outta here with that noise.

Also, what I said is true. Women tend to be the gatekeepers of sex, and men tend to be the gatekeepers of commitment. You can pretend that men and women are the exact same without differences, but that just isn't true.


MartyMcFly1 said:


> Haha, somebody had to touch this one.


I stand by this too. I would explain it, but I think I gave a rather eloquent explanation for it in that same thread. I'll let you read it again.



MartyMcFly1 said:


> This exemplifies the madness of the feminist movement.
> 
> If feminists wanted to be taken more seriously, then they would be absolutely appalled at ridiculous movements like "Slut Walks" and "Take Back The Night." Those movements are placing sole blame for the negative events of one's life on everybody around you. Mature, intelligent people can parse out what they contributed to a negative event in their life and what they did not. I got robbed one night delivering pizzas. I didn't ask for it, but delivering to a low-income neighbor as a walking target is an assumed risk on part of the profession.
> 
> ...





MartyMcFly1 said:


> I attribute this to lack of fathers, and a feminized education. The lack of quality fathers impairs a male’s ability to grow into a confident man and I suspect that for many of these young boys their early years of education aren't about education but learning how to please a female superior. You see varying degrees of these pathetic losers on the forum. On one hand I sympathize with them, on the other hand they don't sell themselves well at all and only manage to gain my contempt when I hear them talk about anything. Everything they say is full of vapid political correctness and feminist catchphrases.
> 
> Notice how on the last page Cardboard White Knight brought up the fact that our current civilization is constructed by men. He referenced it as something to he seemed to be vaguely ashamed of, or like it was a situation that needed to be immediately ameliorated.  One of feminism's irritating reflexes is its fashionable disdain for “patriarchal society,” to which nothing good is ever attributed. Don't act as if the first world society we live in and inventions that enabled women to leave the household weren't created by men. I refuse to tuck in my balls and be ashamed of being a man.



I stand by this completely. There is a reason why young boys are doing so bad in school in modern times. Fatherlessness leads to disastrous results among children, especially young boys. Just look at the black community for an illustration of this. And civilization being constructed by men is something I won't apologize for just because I'm a man. That's no different than apologizing because Wikipedia editors are mostly men. This part stands out to me in particular:
*One of feminism's irritating reflexes is its fashionable disdain for “patriarchal society,” to which nothing good is ever attributed. *
You don't agree with that?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Logic escapes you quite regularly.
> 
> Women's rights and changes in gender roles -> Significantly lower birthrates -> The population shrinks and eventually dies out. As it is currently happening in: First world countries where women's rights had the most development.
> This is not debateable. It's a mathematical consequence.
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 






Zaru said:


> Women were on the "sidelines" (nevermind that you just ignored the majority of human civilization consisting of agriculture, and before that hunting/gathering, where both sexes worked to their best, and farm/household work being extremely time consuming before modern inventions) because they had to be put there for society to continue existing. Do I need to explain the female womb bottleneck for populations to you? It's the basis for pretty much all male/female social constructs.
> 
> It's kinda funny because most first world countries are empirical evidence for the conclusion that giving women more equal rights and opportunities dooms those societies to self-destruction. Sub-replacement level birthrates across the board. Getting replaced by populations that treat women more as wombs.
> 
> Note: I'm not making a claim about who had it worse. But you're mistaking protectionism for disdain.






You have stated a number of times that your paranoid delusions were indisputable fact. While it's true western society sees a lower birthrate than other nations, you immediately attribute it to the rights women receive in society as opposed to other factors like I don't know...increased life expectancy? Better education and income? It's funny your accusation of ignoring that most of society was agrarian and hunter/gatherer relative to our history, but don't see how your argument is supremely flawed in that we live in a very different age of civilization than our predecessors where in the west at least, most people don't live like that and don't need to. You also ignore assimilation of immigrants that tend to have higher birthrates who or whose children, couple with natural-born citizens to keep up the replacement rate; at least in western countries with significant immigrant populations.

Better a liar than a paranoid racist I guess.


----------



## Nep Nep (Feb 6, 2014)

Lol okay ladies I'm sure your time editing Wikipedia will be well spent. 

Don't try to equalize pay between men and women or anything no, just go edit that stupid masculine Wikipedia that will definitely leave a massive impact.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 6, 2014)

Popping in to say I support Marty's assessment of CKT's character.


----------



## LesExit (Feb 6, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Logic escapes you quite regularly.
> 
> *Women's rights and changes in gender roles -> Significantly lower birthrates -> The population shrinks and eventually dies out.* As it is currently happening in: First world countries where women's rights had the most development.
> This is not debateable. It's a mathematical consequence.


This is confusing me....I don't understand how a population could ever die out because of changes in gender roles o___o ????

Seems live an extremely oversimplified mathematical consequence. 
Could someone explain better? I expect details by the time I get out of Japanese class 


no but really....I'm confused...


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2014)

Zaru has a tendency to confuse people due to him being not only a racist, but completely misguided.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

Gunners said:


> Popping in to say I support Marty's assessment of CKT's character.



Who is CKT?


----------



## Basilikos (Feb 6, 2014)

> Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 18 (12 members and 6 guests)
> Basilikos, Suigetsu, Zaru, very bored, Seto Kaiba, MartyMcFly1, LesExit, Colonel Awesome, Kyokkai


Fascinating.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Or it could just be better birth control methods.



The ability to decide and plan when to (or not to) have children falls under women's rights, as access to birth control methods, including abortion, is quite a political issue.
Changing gender roles removed the pressure of having children.

For the record, I welcome these developments from a human rights perspective. But there's no point in closing your eyes to the consequences. Birthrates below replacement level are not a sustainable way to run a society. It literally, by definition, cannot work in the long run. 
How is this simple logic so hard to understand?



Seto Kaiba said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You just repeat the same bullshit as back then and act like you've made a point.

Women in the most developed first world countries now have more self-determination about childbirth, and they are deciding to not have enough children to sustain the population. 
Statistical, scientific fact. As I answered to CTK, it means the inevitable disappearance of such a population given enough time.

You, again, repeat that insanely idiotic logic that "It's okay because immigrants produce more babies!". 
Didn't I explain this to you before? If these immigrants adapt to the same society standards, they will, too, drop to below replacement levels. Inevitably, the same result follows.
If they don't, then they will REPLACE that society with one that has different values regarding women's rights and reproduction. Which, again, means it is not sustainable.

Relying on the rest of the world treating women like baby factories forever? What the fuck kind of argument is that?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> You're saying that you aren't also in all of those threads, usually in some long, drawn out argument.



For one whose primary concern I presume is men's rights, you spend a lot of it just griping about what some crazed feminist group is doing. There are issues, plenty, relevant to men but I'd hardly say your the first example I think of when it comes to one that addresses those concerns.



> I just promote realistic ideas about sexual relations that aren't full of the nonsensical politically correct bullshit that tends to be accepted into the mainstream.



While there is a mentality that goes to far, ex: tumblr sjws, more often than not I find that lamentations of being 'politically correct' are more or less griping that the specific brand of ignorance is not as acceptable as it used to  be in the past. 



> CTK *is *incredibly emasculated and I suspect ashamed of being a man. He'll say something like he believes that most men think it's acceptable to rape unconscious women and you won't bat an eyelash, but when I point out the absurdity of things like the slut walk, or mention the fact that I'm not ashamed of being a man, then you take offense.



I disagree with him on a number of issues, _vehemently_. You are acting like a perpetual victim with Special Snowflake Syndrome. This is one of the few times I've actually discussed a matter at length with you, I've gone after CTK far far worse than this. 

I tend to agree with you more than I don't, it's just when the matter of women come up that you just seem to express this chip on your shoulder, and I cannot shake the impression. 



> He didn't say it would lead to the downfall, he just made a point about how intelligent women tend to have less children. Which is a true fact. Very little can be inferred about someone just pointing out a fact.



He went way beyond that. As he tends to.



> Not true, but I'll respond to this when I dissect the 3 comments of mine that 'prove my bitterness'.



Compelling response.



> I actually stand by every single statement I made in those quotes you posted. I even consider those to be pretty damn mild.
> 
> I stand by this. Simply pointing out the differences between men and women is not sexist, or indicative of bitterness as you would like for us to think. You really believe it makes you a shitty person to kiss someone out of pity? Fuck outta here with that noise.



I don't think so either, in and of itself. It's all how you seem to go about it that comes off that way. I know you don't hate women per se, but you do seem to hold some contempt for them.



> Also, what I said is true. Women tend to be the gatekeepers of sex, and men tend to be the gatekeepers of commitment. You can pretend that men and women are the exact same without differences, but that just isn't true.



Most women have and seek intercourse for physical satisfaction, as a matter of fact...a man is more likely to fall in love at first sight at least, than a woman. I'll try to find it but there have been some pollings on casual sexual relationships, and it is usually the male that requests or desires commitment than not; which to me makes perfect sense, if we are going to go on the matter of nature. 



> I stand by this too. I would explain it, but I think I gave a rather eloquent explanation for it in that same thread. I'll let you read it again.
> 
> I stand by this completely. There is a reason why young boys are doing so bad in school in modern times. Fatherlessness leads to disastrous results among children, especially young boys.



It would be much better if children were raised in two-parent households period. Having a child in a single-parent household puts them at a disadvantage in general regardless. "Feminizing" education I really did not nor do I presently see anything like that, more likely just "apathetic" educators and uneducated people making decisions on the curriculum for children. Maybe in some places, radical feminism has taken a hold, like in universities; but in public education, it is largely swayed by a far more worrying demographic. At least down here.



> Just look at the black community for an illustration of this.



I know. 1 in 3 black homes with children don't have a father present. It's a very serious issue, because these kids go to the streets to look for a paternal figure and find it in someone that leads them astray, and in some cases, to their own self-destruction; but in all such instances, a perpetuation of a destructive cycle of crime and poverty which is ultimately a bigger issue than its relation to feminism or MRA.



> And civilization being constructed by men is something I won't apologize for just because I'm a man.



Never asked you to, I don't feel bad for it either. 



> That's no different than apologizing because Wikipedia editors are mostly men. This part stands out to me in particular:
> *One of feminism's irritating reflexes is its fashionable disdain for ?patriarchal society,? to which nothing good is ever attributed. *
> You don't agree with that?



I find feminism toxic to actual gender equality, at least the brand of feminism that has dominated discussion on the matter; so yes, somewhat. Nearly everything is a double-edged sword in society, and one's standing in it (or expected standing).


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2014)

Zaru said:


> The ability to decide and plan when to (or not to) have children falls under women's rights, as access to birth control methods, including abortion, is quite a political issue.
> Changing gender roles removed the pressure of having children.
> 
> For the record, I welcome these developments from a human rights perspective. But there's no point in closing your eyes to the consequences. Birthrates below replacement level are not a sustainable way to run a society. It literally, by definition, cannot work in the long run.
> ...



Because the incentive is low, and our society is structured in a way that having more children would be burdensome and more difficult to raise them with the adequate resources than in other places of the world. 



> Statistical, scientific fact. As I answered to CTK, it means the inevitable disappearance of such a population given enough time.



You're talking thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of years, during which time there could and likely will be, developments that none of us could account for. The Japanese population for example, as abysmal as their birthrate is would only be threatened to die out in 1000 years. 



> You, again, repeat that insanely idiotic logic that "It's okay because immigrants produce more babies!".



It's not idiotic logic, it's true. When they settle into a new resident country, they tend to have more children. In the U.S. at least these families tend to assimilate quite successfully. Your concern like I told you then seems to be with the natural-born population. At least across generations.



> Didn't I explain this to you before? If these immigrants adapt to the same society standards, they will, too, drop to below replacement levels.



The children will have less than the parents, yes. However immigrant parents tend to have children well beyond the required replacement rate, again, at least in the U.S. Considering the U.S. owes its large population to, and receives a significant influx of immigrants, I find your concerns very far off. 



> Inevitably, the same result follows.
> If they don't, then they will REPLACE that society with one that has different values regarding women's rights and reproduction. Which, again, means it is not sustainable.
> 
> Relying on the rest of the world treating women like baby factories forever? What the fuck kind of argument is that?



Honestly. I don't care. Anything short of world war, a natural disaster on a massive scale, or genocide isn't going to make your concerns relevant. The U.S. is certainly in no danger of disappearing other than those factors, and despite being a multicultural society, which you've expressed some lamentations over does have a stringent demand for assimilation to our nation's standards, not those of their birth nation. Like I said, it's paranoia.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> Zaru has a tendency to confuse people due to him being not only a racist, but completely misguided.



See, I didn't even say it!


----------



## Gunners (Feb 6, 2014)

Even though I don't agree with his conclusion, what Zaru is saying isn't confusing. I think the people in this section need to learn how to handle opposing opinions, and stop using the support of others as a crutch.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

But you're dick riding (lack of words here) on Zaru's posts.


----------



## SLB (Feb 6, 2014)

Sometimes I truly wonder how many radfems that get a voice like this identify and understand the waves of feminism and necessity for having a voice, not only only as your platform but your ammunition against inequality.

Cause and effect. What will be the effect in this edit? What platform gets pushed because of this? The validity in equating things is thorough, even here. I get that. But... sometimes you gotta pick your battles.

A public domain for knowledge and information (even when incredible) is likely not going to be the battle you'll win or make a point on.

But this thread... I have to say minus a few random regressions, some thorough and well though out responses to the article.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2014)

Gunners said:


> Even though I don't agree with his conclusion, what Zaru is saying isn't confusing. I think the people in this section need to learn how to handle opposing opinions, and stop using the support of others as a crutch.



Whether or not they are confusing is the least of concerns.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 6, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> But you're dick riding (lack of words here) on Zaru's posts.


How does one respond to a unfunny prick who cannot even articulate himself? If you cannot find the words to describe my actions, say nothing or at the least rake your brains to construct a sentence that is somewhat accurate.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

Gunners said:


> How does one respond to a unfunny prick who cannot even articulate himself? If you cannot find the words to describe my actions, say nothing or at the least rake your brains to construct a sentence that is somewhat accurate.



You are dick riding on his posts. How many times in this thread have you mentioned his name? And you finding me unfunny is fine. But I get tons of rep saying otherwise. Stop dick riding


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 6, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> You are dick riding on his posts. How many times in this thread have you mentioned his name? And you finding me unfunny is fine. *But I get tons of rep saying otherwise*. Stop dick riding



Have we really gotten to that point...?


----------



## Gunners (Feb 6, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> You are dick riding on his posts. How many times in this thread have you mentioned his name? And you finding me unfunny is fine. But I get tons of rep saying otherwise. Stop dick riding


Should I add not being able to count to the list of things you fail at?


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Have we really gotten to that point...?



Excuse me...excuse me. Do I interrupt you when trolling?


----------



## Zaru (Feb 6, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Because the incentive is low, and our society is structured in a way that having more children would be burdensome and more difficult to raise them with the adequate resources than in other places of the world.


Did you really just say that having more children is more burdensome and difficult in first world countries than elsewhere?
On the contrary, people are just too spoiled with their first world problems and expectations of "having it all" that they think having children is too much of a hassle.

That's what I'm actually for: Creating an incentive for the right people (educated, stable) to have more children again, as some european countries are trying with varying success.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You're talking thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of years, during which time there could and likely will be, developments that none of us could account for. The Japanese population for example, as abysmal as their birthrate is would only be threatened to die out in 1000 years.


I'm fully aware that this affects a timeframe of over 1000 years, but apparently I think in longer terms than you. Your claims of paranoia fall flat because none of this takes effect in my lifetime anyway. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> It's not idiotic logic, it's true. When they settle into a new resident country, they tend to have more children. In the U.S. at least these families tend to assimilate quite successfully. Your concern like I told you then seems to be with the natural-born population. At least across generations.
> 
> The children will have less than the parents, yes. However immigrant parents tend to have children well beyond the required replacement rate, again, at least in the U.S. Considering the U.S. owes its large population to, and receives a significant influx of immigrants, I find your concerns very far off.


You, on the other hand, make a very bold assumption here: That the USA will, for the next 1000+ years, be better off than the countries it receives immigrants from, and never change its immigration policy, which is absurd given the radical changes that happened over the last 100 years alone. I'd call that outright absurd. 

And you're just repeating yourself. Momentary population growth relief right after immigration is not a long term solution - you are simply RELYING on those from OUTSIDE your society to sustain it. It's like saying being in a coma is fine because you're connected to a life support machine.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

Gunners said:


> Should I add not being able to count to the list of things you fail at?



Yea, go for it.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 6, 2014)

Marty should just turn gay or move to the middle east. He prefers the company of men it seems. teehee

In all seriousness wtf at Zaru's posts and yes Marty does have a fucking chip on his shoulder. I've been noticing it since he started posting on threads dedicated to feminism. He's honestly disgusting so I try to avoid him. 

Stop hating on CTK because he stands up to a lot of bullshit. The cafe is mainly a guy zone populated by young, often childish men(marty). His voice is the voice of reason when it comes to women's rights. He doesn't share the same views as some of you apes because he is a progressive male. Unlike some here who are actually saying that women's rights is the downfall of humanity. Like really? That sounds okay to you? I'm by no means advocating extreme feminism, but it is clear that some of you need a bit of feminism in your life. Its not the fault of the female population that you didnt have a good mother figure or cant find a girlfriend. I dont have a good father figure and guess what? I dont give a darn and have no chip on my shoulder towards men.


----------



## Revolution (Feb 6, 2014)

Wikipedia is edited by various activist groups all the time.  Why is this news?  

Ever heard of a blogger?


----------



## Zaru (Feb 6, 2014)

Normality said:


> Its not the fault of the female population that you didnt have a good mother figure or cant find a girlfriend.





You can bet your entire fortune on one thing: Low quality feminists always result to highschool tier shaming tactics and personal attacks when people oppose them


----------



## Island (Feb 6, 2014)

Zaru said:


> Did you really just say that having more children is more burdensome and difficult in first world countries than elsewhere?


I don't think that's what he was saying, but in developed countries, children are a drain on the family budget rather than a source of income. Since the advent of child labor laws in the 19th century, children started going to school rather than working on the farm or in factories.

It costs to raise children, whereas in agrarian societies and even industrial societies with the absence of labor laws, children can be a huge source of income for the family.

From a financial standpoint, raising children is definitely more burdensome in the developed world.

Also, this thread is lol.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 6, 2014)

Island said:


> I don't think that's what he was saying, but in developed countries, children are a drain on the family budget rather than a source of income. Since the advent of child labor laws in the 19th century, children started going to school rather than working on the farm or in factories.
> 
> It costs to raise children, whereas in agrarian societies and even industrial societies with the absence of labor laws, children can be a huge source of income for the family.
> 
> ...



But that's the thing, birthrates are the lowest in the highest income brackets. Those who definitely COULD afford them more often decide not to. It's a mentality thing, not just financial considerations (which poor, uneducated people don't give a darn about)


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> You're an emotional ass dude. Don't get mad at me cuz of how weak you are. You're softer than baby thighs bro. Even your insults are just like typical shit feminists say.
> 
> Let CTK be a lesson to any dudes out there who think that going the mainstream emasculation route is a good idea. Dudes whole aura is just moist.





Zaru said:


> You can bet your entire fortune on one thing: Low quality feminists always result to highschool tier shaming tactics and personal attacks when people oppose them



Low tier racist result to making it seem like they know everything..


----------



## SLB (Feb 6, 2014)

Seriously, what's with the cafe and taking personal shots like this? Shit's not even in moderation.


----------



## Gino (Feb 6, 2014)

Moody said:


> Seriously, what's with the cafe and taking personal shots like this? Shit's not even in moderation.



You haven't been here long enough shit has gotten worse than this.This is the place to say shit you otherwise you wouldn't say in the real.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

Because we all know each other personality.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> Low tier racist result to making it seem like they know everything..





You can be so cute, Flow


----------



## Flynn (Feb 6, 2014)

I don't think this thread should have gotten this long without a clear reason of what the fuck the article means


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2014)

Zaru said:


> You can be so cute, Flow



Seeing you act like you weren't being destroyed earlier makes me giggle Zaru.


----------



## SLB (Feb 6, 2014)

@Gino, I know it has it's own set of rules 

@Hand Banana, Ahh, I see.


----------



## Garcher (Feb 6, 2014)

Today's feminists should be seen on the same level as nazis communists and all this other shit. They ideological idiots. I don't even find the right words for this level of bullshit. It's unbelievable. And the saddest thing is, that these people actually play such a big role in western politics in almost every aspect.
It is the same thing like they say every discovery in science is just a male discovery and can at most 50% true, because the female point of view is missing.

When I read such articles, I really feel like Russia is a better place to live. 

Will people ever wake up?


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 6, 2014)

What are nazis communists?


----------



## EJ (Feb 6, 2014)

Aikuro said:


> Today's feminists should be seen on the same level as nazis communists and all this other shit.



All your credibility was taken out of your post with this sentence alone.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 6, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> What are nazis communists?



The opposite of grammar nazis, because they oppose punctuation.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 6, 2014)

Sarahmint said:


> Wikipedia is edited by various activist groups all the time.  Why is this news?
> 
> Ever heard of a blogger?



It's news because people in the cafe love to circle jerk over fringe groups. Maybe the vast majority of women don't claim to be feminist, but a lot of them stand up for their individual rights or want to work outside of their traditional gender roles. Just because the world's given a bad rep doesn't mean people don't hold a belief that falls under it.


----------



## Shizune (Feb 6, 2014)

What just happened to Flow's rep?


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Feb 6, 2014)

This has got to be one of the most retarded things I've read for a very long time.


----------



## Basilikos (Feb 6, 2014)

Gunners said:


> I think the people in this section need to learn how to handle opposing opinions, and stop using the support of others as a crutch.


This.  



Moody said:


> Seriously, what's with the cafe and taking personal shots like this? Shit's not even in moderation.


Unfortunately, it's been like this for years.  Mods evidently don't give a shit for whatever reason.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> For one whose primary concern I presume is men's rights, you spend a lot of it just griping about what some crazed feminist group is doing. There are issues, plenty, relevant to men but I'd hardly say your the first example I think of when it comes to one that addresses those concerns.



I don't identify with Men's Right's as a whole, however I'm sure you agree that they do bring up some valid concerns. Also, comparing men's rights to feminism is ridiculous, feminists have infinitely more power, even the radical ones.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I disagree with him on a number of issues, _vehemently_. You are acting like a perpetual victim with Special Snowflake Syndrome. This is one of the few times I've actually discussed a matter at length with you, I've gone after CTK far far worse than this.
> 
> I tend to agree with you more than I don't, it's just when the matter of women come up that you just seem to express this chip on your shoulder, and I cannot shake the impression.



Perpetual victim with snowflake syndrome? Chip on my shoulder? Definitely not, I hate people with that mentality. I simply asked you to find me 3 examples of bitterness and none of the examples you posted were very good at all.


Seto Kaiba said:


> I don't think so either, in and of itself. It's all how you seem to go about it that comes off that way. I know you don't hate women per se, but you do seem to hold some contempt for them.


Not contempt, I'm just realistic. In general I think men in the west especially are taught to expect too much from women. Half of it is that men are being pussified and the other half is that guys are being given ideas about women from women that are either childish or wildly incorrect and misleading. Male honesty or calling girls out on their shit isn't contemptuous. It's just the truth. Like I said before, if a guy can't tell me concretely what pisses him off about girls, then he has no experience with them. The reverse is also true.

In one thread I said something like, "_Men should not take any advice from women about how to sleep with women_," and that was called misogynistic by a lot of people on this forum, but in my mind it's just a fact. Have any of you guys ever read any books by Richard Feynman? Malcolm X? Oscar Wilde? Iceberg Slim? Dostoyevsky? Mark Twain? Ernest Hemingway? Aldous Huxley? Chuck Palahniuk? Charles Bukowski? C.S.Lewis? Somerset Maugham? (I could name wayy more, but these are just off the top of my head) I think in the past men were given more realistic ideas about dealing with women, and I believe that men with fathers are taught these sorts of things as well, but these speeches tend to be concluded with "_...and don't tell your mother any of this shit_," Also, I understand the women getting offended at the shit that I say, because it's just out of reflex. The offended men seriously don't know what the fuck they're talking about.


Seto Kaiba said:


> Most women have and seek intercourse for physical satisfaction, as a matter of fact...a man is more likely to fall in love at first sight at least, than a woman. I'll try to find it but there have been some pollings on casual sexual relationships, and it is usually the male that requests or desires commitment than not; which to me makes perfect sense, if we are going to go on the matter of nature.


At no point did I say that women don't like sex, I said that they are less likely to seek sex devoid of emotions like a man would. Men on average have higher libidos and testosterone is largely responsible for libido. Men have been measured to be more sexually unrestricted on average, men will pay women for sex, and eggs being more valuable than sperm leads to visceral caution about who gets access to the female family jewels.

However, men are the gatekeepers of commitment. The fact that this isn't apparent to you makes me wonder. Classic shit girls say slithering to get some commitment: "_What are we?_" "_Where is this relationship heading?_" "_I told my friends that you're my boyfriend..._" You're right, maybe there are some thirsty ass dudes always out hunting for a wife/girlfriend, but the type of man a woman wants will always be the gatekeeper of commitment. I chalk this up to the wildly incorrect ideas many men have about women.




Seto Kaiba said:


> It would be much better if children were raised in two-parent households period. Having a child in a single-parent household puts them at a disadvantage in general regardless. "Feminizing" education I really did not nor do I presently see anything like that, more likely just "apathetic" educators and uneducated people making decisions on the curriculum for children. Maybe in some places, radical feminism has taken a hold, like in universities; but in public education, it is largely swayed by a far more worrying demographic. At least down here.


Then why are so many young boys disproportionately on ADHD medicine and other shit like that. Maleness, excitability, and physically aggressive playing, is being seen more and more as a pathology. We're not feminizing young boys? What about the everybody gets a trophy bullshit, or these draconian punishments when they get in fights or get accused of bullying? Maybe you don't know any young boys, but that shit is happening.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I know. 1 in 3 black homes with children don't have a father present. It's a very serious issue, because these kids go to the streets to look for a paternal figure and find it in someone that leads them astray, and in some cases, to their own self-destruction; but in all such instances, a perpetuation of a destructive cycle of crime and poverty which is ultimately a bigger issue than its relation to feminism or MRA.


I consider the black community to be a matriarchy of sorts. The women are wildly more successful and educated than the men, and the men are wildly less successful with greater rates of incarceration than the women. The women also head a majority of the households within this community. 

If I said something like, "_I don't believe a single woman should be allowed to go to a sperm bank and get pregnant_," people would paint that as misogyny and bitterness towards women, but looking at the statistics you could argue that that is potentially the worst thing you could ever wish upon a child. 

I'm not gonna get into a rant about this here, but with welfare set up the way it is, we are essentially paying a lot of these women to breed, and even giving them incentive not to want a father around. This is related to the topic at hand because a lot of fathers legally can't see their kids, or can't see them enough to make a difference.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Never asked you to, I don't feel bad for it either.


Well then why was that comment one of the ones you cited as an example of my inner misogyny and bitterness towards women? Either it is or it isn't.



Normality said:


> Marty should just turn gay or move to the middle east. He prefers the company of men it seems. teehee
> 
> In all seriousness wtf at Zaru's posts and yes Marty does have a fucking chip on his shoulder. I've been noticing it since he started posting on threads dedicated to feminism. He's honestly disgusting so I try to avoid him.
> 
> Stop hating on CTK because he stands up to a lot of bullshit. The cafe is mainly a guy zone populated by young, often childish men(marty). His voice is the voice of reason when it comes to women's rights. He doesn't share the same views as some of you apes because he is a progressive male. Unlike some here who are actually saying that women's rights is the downfall of humanity. Like really? That sounds okay to you? I'm by no means advocating extreme feminism, but it is clear that some of you need a bit of feminism in your life. Its not the fault of the female population that you didnt have a good mother figure or cant find a girlfriend. I dont have a good father figure and guess what? I dont give a darn and have no chip on my shoulder towards men.



You're very quick to condemn or promote the opinions/characters of others, but incredibly slow at actually providing value in the form of analysis/facts/logical opinions.

Time for more MartyMcFly1 misogyny: Let me preface this by saying that what I'm about to say comes entirely from anecdotal evidence. A lot of women are exceptionally quick to promote White Knight/Beta Male behavior in men, even though these qualities lead to depression/severe unhappiness in the White Knight/Beta. This is because they like the idea of a subservient man to use as emotional tampons, and later on as providers if they can't settle down with the men that they're actually attracted to by the time they're 30+. My problem with CTK is that guys like him are being mass produced to their own detriment. Any guy who consumes enough mainstream media will have all the same opinions as him, which are essentially feminist/liberal/pc talking points of very little substance.

Anyway, I definitely struck a cord with you somewhere. If I managed to get you this angry at me in real life I would be 100% positive that you were into me...but I won't get into that.


----------



## olaf (Feb 7, 2014)

I hoped to find any specific on this 'masculinity' of wikipedia design, but nope. Like it was said before, any real problems are drowned with unspecific inflamatory claims


Hunted by sister said:


> I wonder what exactly are they going to change. Turn Kopernik into a woman?
> 
> //HbS


----------



## Chloe (Feb 7, 2014)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> At no point did I say that women don't like sex, I said that they are less likely to seek sex devoid of emotions like a man would. Men on average have higher libidos and testosterone is largely responsible for libido. Men have been measured to be more sexually unrestricted on average, men will pay women for sex, and eggs being more valuable than sperm leads to visceral caution about who gets access to the female family jewels.
> 
> However, men are the gatekeepers of commitment. The fact that this isn't apparent to you makes me wonder. Classic shit girls say slithering to get some commitment: "_What are we?_" "_Where is this relationship heading?_" "_I told my friends that you're my boyfriend..._" You're right, maybe there are some thirsty ass dudes always out hunting for a wife/girlfriend, but the type of man a woman wants will always be the gatekeeper of commitment. I chalk this up to the wildly incorrect ideas many men have about women.



This kinda goes into more detail on this idea.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2014)

Chloe said:


> This kinda goes into more detail on this idea.



I like how people can whine about feminism around here all the time but still treat MRAs like they're anything other than douchey groups that reinforce a gender role model that needs to die. If MRAs were really about men's rights they wouldn't be so homophobic and directed at debunking women's rights.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 7, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how people can whine about feminism around here all the time but still treat MRAs like they're anything other than douchey groups that reinforce a gender role model that needs to die. If MRAs were really about men's rights they wouldn't be so homophobic and directed at debunking women's rights.



MRAs are fringe and marginalized, unlike feminism which has many vocal outlets. So the bad apples of the latter obviously gain more attention and reaction than those of the former.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 7, 2014)

Zaru said:


> MRAs are fringe and marginalized, unlike feminism which has many vocal outlets. So the bad apples of the latter obviously gain more attention and reaction than those of the former.



MRAs seem universally to be out there, I don't even get why the movement seems to have no moderate members. It's like they're the Tea Party of rights groups.


----------



## Shizune (Feb 7, 2014)

Flow is red and you guys are arguing about feminism?  there's bigger issues afoot here!


----------



## Zaru (Feb 7, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> MRAs seem universally to be out there, I don't even get why the movement seems to have no moderate members. It's like they're the Tea Party of rights groups.



I can't claim to know much about any MRA groups, though membership might often intersect with the "manosphere" of the internet which tends to be reactionary (that might be an understatement)


----------



## ThunderCunt (Feb 7, 2014)

There is such a thing as Men's right activist. I thought it was all a joke.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 7, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how people can whine about feminism around here all the time but still treat MRAs like they're anything other than douchey groups that reinforce a gender role model that needs to die. If MRAs were really about men's rights they wouldn't be so homophobic and directed at debunking women's rights.



If feminists were really about women's rights, they wouldn't be so supportive of islam and directed at debunking men's rights.

I can make sweeping generalizations, too. I'm sure there are asshole in any group, but acting like men don't face discrimination in many areas is just dumb.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 7, 2014)

initpidzero said:


> There is such a thing as Men's right activist. I thought it was all a joke.



The serious ones (no idea what percentage they make up) mostly focus on family law/father's rights (the one area where men are undoubtably disadvantaged), there are apparently also some points of interest in areas like military service, government spending etc.

For all the good it's caused in the past, the current state of feminism (though it's difficult to draw the border between what is part of feminism and what is a general social development) does more damage than MRAs could ever hope to repair with their little influence.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Feb 7, 2014)

initpidzero said:


> There is such a thing as Men's right activist. I thought it was all a joke.



We're by far the most powerful group on this planet. Rights activists would have to pick their battles carefully and use the sweetest language possible because they might be forced to eat their words later. Nevertheless we shouldn't just assume that every man is strong enough to hold their own, especially in a verbal confrontation. Men are easily manipulated into fighting back instinctively and some are incapable of restraining their physical strength. That is a weakness I'm afraid and manipulative women know that so they'll use it to psychologically exploit men and essentially instigate a fight that they'll ultimately win. As a species we care more about who caused the most damage rather than who started it all. In my opinon both genders share the blame.

This mass editing of Wikipedia is pure vandalism disguised as feminism. Of course this so-called mass editing might be not what it appears to be. Maybe what they'll do is write articles about women. And if that's the case then let them do it.


----------



## Mael (Feb 7, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how people can whine about feminism around here all the time but still treat MRAs like they're anything other than douchey groups that reinforce a gender role model that needs to die. If MRAs were really about men's rights they wouldn't be so homophobic and directed at debunking women's rights.



Then you have no idea what half of Mens Rights is all about.

It's about reversing the unfair standards imposed on men in terms of child custody, divorce proceedings, alimony, abuse, sexual assault, rape, etc.  Again, case in point, guy gets raped by woman and half the time people either treat it like free sex or ask why he didn't fight back.  But if he did fight back, he'd be suspect for domestic violence.

So there, there's your reason for the concept.  Now please, CTK, you're a smart guy but I don't want to think you a eunuch since you white-knight for women (and often goofy ones) far more often than what makes me comfortable.



Nitty Scott said:


> Flow is red and you guys are arguing about feminism?  there's bigger issues afoot here!



No, there isn't.


----------



## EJ (Feb 7, 2014)

@CTK,

I'm really against misandrist shit, but I agree with you. Once you start to realize it's the main people arguing against feminism in every thread (even in threads that has nothing to do with feminism) they have some kind of objective.


----------



## Gino (Feb 7, 2014)

Must resist urge to troll.......


----------



## wibisana (Feb 7, 2014)

Basilikos said:


> This.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, it's been like this for years.  Mods evidently don't give a shit for whatever reason.



If you dont agree with me you are Nazi or Hitler


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Feb 8, 2014)

Azzrael said:


> Wikipedia has a masculine design. Wait what?



Wikipedia has a phalic design. This entire forum has a phalic design! And pedia sounds like penis!


----------



## Takahashi (Feb 8, 2014)

I'm still not sure what this is really about.  When they say they're editing it to be less masculine, is that simply making pages for recognizable women who don't have one?  Or is it an attempt to edit history to fit their narrative?  If it's the former that's fine, if it's the latter they can all piss off.  

In addition, complaining that Wikipedia is primarily edited by white males is absurd.  No one's stopping women or men of any race from editing.  Put it up there, cite your shit properly and you're good to go.  It's not the fault of the people actually editing that they're the majority if you're unwilling to do what they do.

The wording just reeks of disingenuous intent.  You should be editing Wikipedia for the sake of providing correct information.  If you're doing so only to balance out some irrelevant gender statistic, it just sounds spiteful.


----------



## Mael (Feb 8, 2014)

Takahashi said:


> I'm still not sure what this is really about.  When they say they're editing it to be less masculine, is that simply making pages for recognizable women who don't have one?  Or is it an attempt to edit history to fit their narrative?  If it's the former that's fine, if it's the latter they can all piss off.
> 
> In addition, complaining that Wikipedia is primarily edited by white males is absurd.  No one's stopping women or men of any race from editing.  Put it up there, cite your shit properly and you're good to go.  It's not the fault of the people actually editing that they're the majority if you're unwilling to do what they do.
> 
> The wording just reeks of disingenuous intent.  You should be editing Wikipedia for the sake of providing correct information.  If you're doing so only to balance out some irrelevant gender statistic, it just sounds spiteful.



It's not even disingenuous intent.  It's simply moronic.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 8, 2014)

Check your privilege, Mael.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 8, 2014)

This thread is still going? How many white knights are there?


----------



## Alwaysmind (Feb 8, 2014)

klad said:


> This thread is still going? How many white knights are there?



Apparently a whole forum worth of white knights.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 8, 2014)

And two people that don't read, evidently.


----------



## jux (Feb 8, 2014)

Mael said:


> Then you have no idea what half of Mens Rights is all about.
> 
> It's about reversing the unfair standards imposed on men in terms of child custody, divorce proceedings, alimony, abuse, sexual assault, rape, etc.  Again, case in point, guy gets raped by woman and half the time people either treat it like free sex or ask why he didn't fight back.  But if he did fight back, he'd be suspect for domestic violence.
> 
> So there,


In essentiality MRAs and Feminism both actually work against the current gender norms and roles which oppress genders. They're more similar than you'd expect. 
a) child custody laws are blindly in favour of women BECAUSE of the this prevailing traditional view that women are naturally gifted with child birth and raising opposed to men. Both Feminism and MRA attempts to counteract this view. 
b)  the way the law deals with abuse, sexual assault and rape for both genders is because our current views are inherently biased against the victim. Reasons for this is because of the traditional gender rules instilled on men and women created by, (yes, I am sorry Mael) the patriarchal social structure. Ie. Men want sex all the time and are stronger/Women are passive and weak/shouldn't dress so provocatively/shouldn't be drunk around men.

Conclusively both are against the current social norms and views of gender. Feminism has been about redressing gender norms for ages. Especially third wave post modern feminism. Both are movements surrounded around the frustration of oppressive gender roles. The problem is that autonomous feminists who have taken over centrists have excluded male perspective when it comes to gender views. This, I grant, does suck. Though it doesn't help that half of MRAs spend so much of their time adamantly opposing this umbrella concept of feminism despite not knowing anything about the philosophy or political movements. If they were so against gender norms they would have rallied up within a more moderate feminist faction. It's just a shame they don't. They shouldn't be in opposition. They should both be working together against the current social structure which make these discriminations possible.


----------



## dr_shadow (Feb 8, 2014)

As for articles on historical periods and countries I can see them adding a women's section. Like for instance in the article on the Han dynasty:



> *Marriage, gender, and kinship*
> 
> The Han-era family was patrilineal and typically had four to five nuclear family members living in one household. Multiple generations of extended family members did not occupy the same house, unlike families of later dynasties.
> 
> ...





Not "radical feminist rewriting of history" I think.


----------



## Zumoku (Feb 8, 2014)




----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 9, 2014)

klad said:


> This thread is still going? How many white knights are there?



Funny, Klad. Where do you see anyone supporting this stupid edit wikipedia idea? Yet here you are whining about white knights.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 9, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> And two people that don't read, evidently.


I didn't read the thread but based on this page alone I can see some hardcore white knighting. Logically, this topic doesn't have that much to discuss unless you get into a discussion about feminism which this did spiral into, it was inevitable.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Funny, Klad. Where do you see anyone supporting this stupid edit wikipedia idea? Yet here you are whining about white knights.





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how people can whine about feminism around here all the time but still treat MRAs like they're anything other than douchey groups that reinforce a gender role model that needs to die. If MRAs were really about men's rights they wouldn't be so homophobic and directed at debunking women's rights.



If that isn't white knighting then I don't know what is. And I never claimed anyone to be supporting the edit. I was just surprised this thread was still alive.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 9, 2014)

klad said:


> I didn't read the thread but based on this page alone I can see some hardcore white knighting. Logically, this topic doesn't have that much to discuss unless you get into a discussion about feminism which this did spiral into, it was inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> If that isn't white knighting then I don't know what is. And I never claimed anyone to be supporting the edit. I was just surprised this thread was still alive.



Yep, can't read. No one is defending the shit the article is talking about. We're talking about how stupid and unreasonable people like you act about the idea of feminism in general. Calling things white knighting isn't a catch all defense for when you don't have an actual argument to make. 

Try again.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 9, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yep, can't read. No one is defending the shit the article is talking about. We're talking about how stupid and unreasonable people like you act about the idea of feminism in general. Calling things white knighting isn't a catch all defense for when you don't have an actual argument to make.
> 
> Try again.


I'm not about to read this 9 pages of pointless arguments.I don't to read about feminism again.  

Wait what? How do you get all these things from my post? Can you maybe stop assuming for about 5 seconds. I don't even mind the idea of feminism. I never implied anyone to be defending the article. And based your post alone about MRA and comparing it the feminism then you would be white knighting.


----------



## Lace (Feb 9, 2014)

> ?It?s aesthetically very masculine in its design,?



I stopped reading there.


----------



## EJ (Feb 9, 2014)

klad said:


> I'm not about to read this 9 pages of pointless arguments.I don't to read about feminism again.



If you didn't read the entire thread no one is saying you can't give an opinion. 

The problem is you made a claim such as this:



> I didn't read the thread but based on this page alone I can see some hardcore white knighting




When there hasn't been anyone...no I'm not going to reiterate what's already been pointed out.


----------



## Munboy Dracule O'Brian (Feb 9, 2014)

Mass Wikipedia editing... seriously?


----------

