Talk:Feminism/Archive3

Hobby is edit-warring.
Mr. Hobby, please don't use the article to soft-sell MRA nonsense. Thanks. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As oppose to hard selling feminist nonsense? Look, this website is obviously very pro-feminist, and while I don't have a problem with that it would be nice if less of them were radicals. Sorry for standing up for equality and all that but I think asserting that an entire group of people from varying degrees of radicalism are all equal to the most extreme segment of that group is ridiculous. There are plenty of groups who are actually trying to get things like equal child custody, equal treatment of domestic violence cases etcetera. Lumping them together achieves nothing. As for edit warring, bullshit. In future give a valid reason or your revert is as useless as your arguments. Hobby (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe after setting us straight about the good work done by the MRA movement, you can tell us how we don't recognize the good work that Stormfront and Metapedia do against the excesses of the anti-racist movement. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Equal treatment of domestic violence cases is Hitler? What a piece of work you are --82.128.250.221 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell you what. Add up all the men unjustly affected by unequal treatment re: domestic violence, and I will add up every woman who gets beat up, raped or murdered by her boyfriend/father/husband/some fucking stranger. Then you can piss off. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take you up on that. Just give me a couple of weeks to tally the statistics. We can add it to the article. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well aside from what you asked for being incredibly one sided, maybe you should look up the UK Office for National Statistics that ran an advert about a week ago on domestic violence and how it's not taken seriously when a women is the perpetrator. How often do you think these women are prosecuted? You see, what you fail to grasp is that we have laws in place to protect women from rape, domestic violence and murder. We don't have laws protecting MEN from domestic violence. We don't have laws protecting MEN from rape. Women get justice, men get laughed at. THAT is the double standard that feminists fail to acknowledged or fight. Then you have child custody cases which frequently give the mother custody over the man. Men have higher rates of unemployment and suicide. What about women's shelters? Ever heard of a men's shelter? Didn't think so. Simply put, you are ignoring men while shouting that women have it worse. You are glazing over the rather serious levels of unreported climes and injustices against men. Hobby (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what country you live in, but most of them do actually have laws protecting men from rape & domestic violence. Men's shelters also exist. This isn't an article about those things & won't be turned into one. 00:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just look up the FBI's old definition of rape for starters. It was changed only 3 years ago and stated that rape is "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will". Literally IMPOSSIBLE for a man to be raped until 2011. Then you have this shit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM), showing quite clearly that people don't take male domestic violence victims seriously. Finally, where are these men's shelters? Please, show them to me. Statistically speaking, for every 1 you point out I can easily label 10 women only shelters, even though the levels of domestic abuse are estimated between 30:70 and 40:60 for women and men. Not that you care anyway, it's not like anyone else does. Hobby (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 07:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In future you can just say no Weaseloid, you don't know of any. If you did you wouldn't need to google it. You also haven't even addressed the ratio problems with the number of shelters and the levels of domestic abuse. Again, this is simply because you don't care. How about you put some effort in and find me some shelter numbers? Especially as those are all homeless shelters, not domestic violence ones. Try again, this time with feeling. Hobby (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about I don't. This isn't the place for it.  It's an article about feminism.  Trying to wheedle it into an article or discussion about men's problems isn't going to work.  12:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't even bother looking at my edit Weasel. All I changed was the part about MRAs that claims that ALL of them are dicks, when in reality there are some who use the MRA label for genuine men's problems. I was then supporting this claim with evidence. You obviously didn't know that, did you? As I said earlier "I think asserting that an entire group of people from varying degrees of radicalism are all equal to the most extreme segment of that group is ridiculous." Learn to read Weasel. Hobby (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dude, there is a reason why people who are legitimately concerned about men's issues (http://goodmenproject.com/) tend to avoid the label of MRA. It's because the label is associated with people like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/, who'd rather spend their time bashing feminism and complaining about women than building support groups for those who need it or generally being constructive. Nullahnung (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not true. The good men project uses the label MRA. (http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/whats-up-with-this-mens-movement/), so thank you for making my point for me. Hobby (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more Dan Moore here than the whole website, which, the website hosts a variety of differently opinionated people who can come together to discuss. A few comments down in the comments section we have an MRA complain about how The Good Men Project is too feminist for his liking, accusing it of having a "blame culture" against men. Nullahnung (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the website varies a lot. I've seen people from that site asking for more feminism and the complete polar opposite as well. In all honesty there needs to be a group of people that simply don't subscribe to this idea of patriarchy without being giant dicks about everything else. Is that so much to ask for? Where is the group that says "these are the problems and feminism has the wrong idea"? Hobby (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are lots of individuals that criticise feminism, it just happens that most of the groups that organise around this particular sentiment also sadly happen to be quite misogynistic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the problem is with the fringes, can you please provide an example that is a) representative of the less "extreme segment", b) popular, and c) explicitly identifying as MRAs?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FVOB, that section is not written very well. This doesn't mean that Hobby's edit should stand, but the section needs a rewrite, preferably by someone who knows what they are writing about.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Womanism?
I think there should be a section on it. If you don't know what I am talking about: Womanism is a social theory deeply rooted in the racial and gender oppression of black women. There are varying interpretations on what the term womanist means and efforts to provide a concise and all encompassing definition have only been marginally successful. The ambiguity within the theory allows for its continuous expansion of its basic tenets.

At its core, womanism is a social change perspective based upon the everyday problems and experiences of black women and other women of color, but more broadly seeks methods to eradicate inequalities not just for black women, but for all people.[1] The self-authored spirit of activism, spirituality, and the women's relationship with herself, other women, and her surroundings comprise an essential part of the ideology. The term womanism was first coined by author Alice Walker in her 1979 short story, "Coming Apart". Here Walker describes the protagonist of the story as a womanist. Although Walker is credited for the term, there are other contributors to the womanism movement. These contributors developed their own womanist theories independently of Walker's womanism. They include scholars such as Clenora Hudson-Weems and Chikwenye Okonjo Ogunyemi. 10:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Wikipedia article on this is actually pretty decent: --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I linked to that above! ;) 10:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, I missed the WP link at the end, sorry. I agree that we should have a short section on Womanism and Intersectionality though. One of Feminisms greatest strengths is the way that it deals with the issues of its whole demographic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think we need a section on Intersectionality if we have an article already? 11:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I still cannot imagine what womanism is. If womanism is a sub category of feminism, then I guess we could have a section here, but it would have to explain with examples and the necessary consideration towards varying interpretations. A strength that a RationalWiki take would have over the Wikipedia take is explaining the concept in simple, less boring and effective terms. Who knows, confused people like me might even be able to understand what womanism is a little if we have a good section. Nullahnung (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Womanism is feminism that doesn't exclude black women. It's pretty simple. 12:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: Because feminism has a history of excluding them. 12:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PPS: This might not help, given the above quote didn't — but maybe others will find it useful. 12:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the idea of Intersectionality crosses over with Womanism quite a bit, I'd say it's a type of Intersectionality. It's definitely worth a mention either way. Feminism has had issues in the past with excluding anyone who isn't a white straight cis woman (disclaimer: I definitely do not mean men here) and it's probably worth a mention tying into these things. We could also do a section on Transfeminism that ties into these ideas --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, check out the triple oppression link I added to Intersectionality. These things are all joined up. 12:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I'll have a look into that soon. I agree, different types of oppression influence each other. In terms of defining Womanism for Nullahnung, in the way that I understand it, it's pretty much the idea that black woman face both sexism and racism in society, that is to say, a type of racism that is also sexist, and a type of sexism that is also racist, so it would not be accurate or useful to discuss and try to fight societal issues that face them as if they were exactly the same to that of white women --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My only disagreement with that definition of Womanism is that I would add (as I think I did implicitly above) that they face discrimination within society at large (yes, of course), but also and most importantly within the Feminist movement. See previous links for more info. 12:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that's probably the most important thing. It's an essential moment in Feminist history in the movement becoming more inclusive. It's probably worth including a little about Black Feminism that slightly preceded Womanism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Harding
I think Sandra Harding is being mischaracterized, which is unsurprising, since the only citation is to a non-feminist's criticism of what he thought she had said. In context it seems less an attack on Newton and more an attack on claims that apparent misogyny in (for example) 15th- to 20th-century scientific literature is mere metaphor -- Harding was turning it around, suggesting that one could also interpret the science as metaphor for misogyny. But I don't want to add that if I misread the original (quoted here, also criticism).Calieber (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the text but I'd suggest being bold and removing it if that is the point being made. Feminism hardly needs more fallacious attacks and the whole "feminists seeing rape everywhere" thing has always rubbed me the wrong way considering that the movement puts so much of its resources into supporting rape survivors --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's even feminism. It's just postmodern psychoanalysts being stupid, example #144567388. See also: everything written by Luce Irigaray, everything written by Jacques Lacan, Susan McClary's "Beethoven's 9th is RAPE RAPE RAPE" thing. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Red rose 02 -.jpg.svg|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] All you need is some monkey magic, and all will be alright 19:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Mandela's Quote
Given the subject it is kinda ironic that Graça Machel chose to keep her late husband's surname instead of taking on Mandela's. For Mandela to take the Machel surname would have been simply absurd in this circumstances. I'm not sure if his comments were some sort of political joke, considering Samora Machel was such an important man in neighboring Mozambique. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 81.193.65.128 / talk 06:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting A Rename From Feminism to Equalism
I mean there isn't the NAACP calling them selves Africanists for the empowerment of Africans. 02:59, 17 October 2014
 * [[image:yawn.gif]] 07:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * From a realistic standpoint, that's never going to happen. If only because they call themselves feminists, and there's not a damn person who looks for feminism under the title of "equalism." Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that we rename the feminist movement? I don't think RationalWiki has that sort of influence. Somebody ask the moderators --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would start with actual feminists (rather than MRA concern trolls) wanting to rename the movement. Also, the NAACP analogy falls flat: is "advancement of colored people" (what the abbreviation stands for) much different from "empowerment of Africans"?  13:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe he means using "Africans" would mean they weren't talking about any other groups who have similar concerns. Still a shit example, what he's actually saying is more like "Why isn't it the national association for the advancement of humans?"King Skeleton (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was joking with my previous comment. Gender inequality predominately affects women so renaming it from feminism to equalism would obscure the issue at hand and effectively neuter one of the movements successes, namely getting people talking about women's issues --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't help that most so called "Equalists" keep promoting the same MRA talking points and their entire line of logic focuses on false equivalences and oversimplifications.--BlackProg (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Radical Feminism"?
I've been hearing the term "radical feminist" thrown around a lot on forums. Think it's actually a thing? Greatnecro (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's enough of a thing to have its own Wikipeadia article. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I might object to calling it A thing. Typically "radical X" tends to mean taking X ideology and coupling it with plans for extreme, rapid, and dramatic changes to society, and a belief that compromising ever on X is universally unacceptable.  This tends to come in many flavors of radicallity for any given ideological system.  As an example, in rad-fem that can mean things like banning marriage as a facet of patriarchy, whereas standard feminism might see it as a historically patriarchal concept that can evolve to be better.  Ikanreed (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Greatnecro: Radical feminism can refer to different things depending on who said it in what context. Read our article on it. Nullahnung (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a specific ideology and movement called Radical Feminism, I'd recommend following up some of the links on the Wikipedia article rather than reading the article itself, it's been under attack by MRAs for a year or so (check the talk page for evidence of this), or reading our article. However, the term itself is generally used online to refer to feminists that are seen as "radical" in some way, with this notion of what makes a feminist "radical" differing depending on who is being described. Some MRAs tend to see radical feminists as feminists that dare to be critical of masculinity or men as a group rather than just prejudicial laws (that is to say, feminists who don't call themselves "equity feminists"). Really though, there are many different types of feminist groups, with radical feminists being just one of them, and the way their ideologies differ are interesting. I'd recommend looking more into the topic if you have the time --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this article
Thank you for this fine article, doubtless written entirely by women. It trulu exposes how all male culture is assholish and destructive, and the good that only women can do. 92.232.117.212 (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, mate. After reading what you've written, I think you might also be interested in our strawman article. 05:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * StrawMAN? Disgustingly sexist, think of the women, please.92.232.117.212 (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping us evaluate gender-specific language in modern culture. After reading your edit, I think you might be interested in our article on Concern trolling. 10:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but by removing my name you are enforcing patriarchy by making me a mere object. #yesallwomen
 * Berta Lovejoy, Feminist, promoter of equality, world peace 92.232.117.212 (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

new section on peer-reviewed studies
I'd love to delete this articles new BoN-written section "Peer-reviewed studies in gender and behavior". It's written sloppily and has a point of view that clashes with the rest of the article. However, the links I actually followed (on colors and toys) are legit. Is there anyone more ambitious/knowledgeable/opinionated than I am to change/revert it? MarmotHead (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the text in question:

The problem is that a) it tries to pass off those studies as academic criticism of feminism, instead of incorporating them into something about gender differences; b) tries to make broad claims based on those studies that don't necessarily reflect the specific questions studied in them; c) it's difficult to base a judgement based on a spoonful of articles without following a field and understanding where these articles fit in context. And the summary doesn't quite match what the sources say...--ZooGuard (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That's the problem I was seeing, but couldn't fit in to words. It's a critique of gender stereotypes and tendencies, but not of feminism. I'm not sure where it fits, but I don't think it fits here. Maybe it belongs in one of the other articles in the broader category of gender. MarmotHead (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's incorporated, definitely don't keep the vervet study. It's really dumb. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys. Just a head's up that this issue was pretty much settled in a different article gender and I no longer consider my objections relevant to this article where I originally proposed them, as in the article on gender, we were able to come to a reasonable compromise that includes the biological argument for gender roles while carefully making sure not to leave any slack for subsequent use of it for the purpose of misogyny. Parogar (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo Feminism and the Scientific Basis of Feminism
This is a preliminary rationale/outline for a Pseudo-Feminism section. Issues related to feminism are touchy subjects, so I thought I'd bring this to the Talk section first. These questions and such are just ideas for a new section, of which just seems to want to be made.

Does pseudo feminism work against the progress legitimate women's rights activists have made? Feminism needs a strong basis in empirical fact, while each argument is presented through a case-by-case manner. Pseudo-feminism as opposed to feminism is done under the guise of "feminism." Such mistaken methods merit the label of pseudo-feminism. Pseudo-science is given this label for the same or similar reasons. Also, I thought of including an exploration of this question: Is subjecting feminism to the same rigor of science, fair or practical?

What do you think? I feel arguments are made or broken due to whether they are consistent with demonstrable fact. Social sciences are not an exception, but tend to be considered softer. I would say that science gives the best opportunity for social acceptance. People don't usually take a scientific perspective when dealing with social issues, unfortunately and in spite of this, they also have a lot to say about it. Not entirely sure what the exact reasons for this are, but I have a few guesses that I'm just going to keep to myself so as not get too off of the main topic. EMosso (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "pseudo feminism" an existing concept or something you've made up? Who decides what qualifies? Any examples? 23:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Feminism needs a strong basis in empirical fact, while each argument is presented through a case-by-case manner." No. I don't need to prove that I deserve basic human rights.Vajrapani (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I say go for it. брэндэн (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology is not Woo
No matter what excuse you want to use to justify your disagreement with that particular field of study, it comes across as disingenuous when you label it as "woo" then justify it by saying it's SPOV. I don't mean to be a prick, but I'm calling out any of you who supports this.

To begin with, it is not an "obvious" joke and the article very much intends to label that branch of science as "woo." And in doing so, you are lessening the problems caused by ACTUAL woo, such as homeopathy, magnet therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic treatments, and every other non-scientific field of study not based on empirical evidence or data.

Completely regardless to weather or not you feel that the science supports your position more strongly than it supports the position taken by evolutionary psychologists, it still does not change the fact that they use the proper method even if they arrive at incorrect conclusions

What defines a science as being "woo" is not whether or not it is wrong or even the extent to WHICH it is wrong. Something is "woo" when it fails to adhere to any standards and instead resorts to the same pseudo scientific bullshit that we see astrolgers doing.

Science deserves a bit more respect than that, doesn't it? Please leave that out of the article. Parogar (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the prefix "pseudo" which appears in front of the words evolutionary psychology in this article. Evolutionary psychology isn't woo, but the pseudo evolutionary psychology pedaled by some in the antifeminist  movement sure is.   It's essentially "just so stories" illustrated, if at all, by the flimsiest of research.  Marlow (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Marlow, do you have ANY evidence to support this conclusion? Or are you saying this because of your ideological opposition? Parogar (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to Google around and the only instances of MRA and evolutionary woo I could find were articles on here saying that that's what they believe in. Specifically, what pseudoscientific basis are MRAs using for their arguments against feminism? You say it is pseudo evolutionary psychology. What makes it so? What part of EP are they twisting? Do you understand what woo is? Where is the connection? Who believes this, is it representative of the larger demographic, and why is it wrong? This is what I'm looking for. If you can't show me this, then you're bullshitting in your article. Parogar (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I have no love for MRAs, but the whole reason I'm an atheist is the very idea that we can't just claim something is true because it has been written down. Feminism must hold up to the same amount of scrutiny as anything else in this world. Parogar (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is your reminder that Parogar hasn't made any edits except nitpicking in favor of MRA nonsense since at least October. Ikanreed (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Once more, and for the last time: fuck MRAs. I am not an MRA. I am not in favor of MRAs. I do not care one way or another what happens to that movement. If downplaying such disgusting showings of dogma and extremism makes me an MRA, then so be it. I do not care for, support, or believe in the MRA cause. I can't state that enough.

Not only is this true, but I can prove it as well. My name is Kevin Weinberg. I am a 26-year-old writer from Staten Island New York. I am a writer with a following of about 30,000, though my books have been read over a million times.

The following is an article I wrote specifically condemning MRAs, in which I used material FROM Rationalwiki (source checked) to further ridicule them publicly.

If this is not enough to convince you that I'm not an MRA, then the problem is in your brain. Fix it.

http://www.wattpad.com/80889657-hgh2-hate-never-dies-hate-11-men%27s-rights Parogar (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of being an MRA. I'm accusing you of being a single-issue editor who's obsession is nitpicking specifically in favor of MRA nonsense.  I, like any sane person, support rights for men.  The problem isn't the label, it's the arguments you're making.  Ikanreed (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're not an MRA, but you're obsessed with gender essentialism and shoe-horning it into every gender-related issue. Seriously, genes don't decide 100% of people's behaviour. Feminism is not invalid for focusing on the part of gender that's socially constructed. Get off your high horse already. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course genes don't decide 100% of people's behavior. That is ridiculous. There is a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that genes play a contributing factor along with environment, the extent to which is unknown. Anyone who says they know had better put up some evidence or stop asserting it. You know, sometimes it's okay to say "I don't know." Scientists do so all the time.
 * In the case of gender roles, scientists really don't know whether or not nurture is stronger than nature (though they tend not to use the terms nature vs. nurture anymore, as we've moved on to epigenetics). I can't prove to you that biology plays a stronger factor than the environment does. And even though I wish I could, because that's the outcome I'm hoping to see, I can't prove it, I won't say it does, and I won't pretend that the environment isn't important. What I will say is that there is a significant -- an ABUNDANT amount of evidence to support the claim that biology factors significantly into gender roles. HOW significant? Fuck if I know. I just don't know. I might never know! But I'm not going to pretend I know just because of some ideology preaching to me that I have to. The truth is we DON'T know. You don't know, I don't know: no one knows. Can we know? That depends on how the science progresses. Parogar (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No one here is claiming to know with certainty exactly how strongly genes or society play a role.
 * Why exactly would you want genes to play such a prominent role? Whether it's biology or culture, neither is under your controle, you can't be blamed for the way either one has shaped you. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's in human nature to want to be correct, and that's the opinion I've taken based on my own interpretation of the evidence, which by no means makes me correct. One of my most immediate and pressing issues with feminism is the unscientific claim that nurture is a greater factor than nature is. This is a guess. It's not a bad guess, and it has no less chance of being correct than mine does, but it is not a scientific fact, and it's not even close to being on the road to becoming one. In fact, the way things stand as of right now, the role of nature vs. nurture has all but been abandoned by modern scientists, most of whom feel that there isn't going to be an answer at least within our own lifetimes, so they've moved on for now. I hope we get an answer, I really do. But the only thing most scientists seem to agree on is that both play a significant and important role, and that both factor into things. Feminism is largely preaching that gender roles are a social construct, and some even extend this to gender identity, which is ridiculous because otherwise transgender individuals wouldn't exist if that were the case. That's one of my top five issues with feminism. Parogar (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Parogar, when "Googl[ing] around", did you try "evolutionary-psychology"+"mra"? WHTM even has a whole category for evolutionary psyhcology. 00:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the article now. As a side note, I made a huge deal out of assholes who voted AGAINST the Violence Against Women Act. I'm only bringing it up because this article mentions it, and I still can't believe that that thing almost didn't pass. I was stunned at that. The VAWA is a no-brainer, or should be, regardless of whether or not one identifies as a feminist. Parogar (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But since we don't know, it is reasonable to act like problematic gender roles are social constructs in the context of effecting positive change. Because if they are, they can be changed far more easily than if they are a product of human biology.--TiaC (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess this leads me to asking the real question here @TiaC: is it really worth the cost in potential damage (however minor) to scientific accuracy? Also, before posting this, I did take a moment to ask myself if my Asperger's could be skewing my perspective here, and I've determined that that is not possible. I do obsess on minute details on things that interest me (this being one of them). Because I feel as though the pursuit of scientific knowledge trumps all other needs. That's why, I must again ask: is feminism's goals REALLY worth the chance that it could in some ways negatively impact scientific accuracy on certain issues? I'm not saying that WILL happen (though, to be fair, it has in a few ways, though nothing major yet). But can we really place the needs of human beings above science? Science is the most important thing we have in this world. Parogar (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But even if you hold that as your highest goal, feminism's efforts to remove barriers to women in many male dominated fields (such as science) will do more to advance science than it could possibly hold it back. Also, we do in fact place the needs of human beings above science in things like research ethics. You could learn a great deal about diseases and the immune system by infecting people in controlled studies. If you argue that we actually should do this I will judge you to be a horrible person. --TiaC (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @TiaC Okay, fair enough, but I definitely don't approve of murdering people in the name of doing scientific research. I more meant that in the pursuit of keeping science accurate, if the social implications of a particular scientific revelation were such that they posed a very real and credible danger to a group of people, would that justify keeping it secret or diluting it? Parogar (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My "race realism" senses are tingling.-BlackProg (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What in all the world's fucks does race have to do with this? Why does the race card always have to be played in any discussion regardless of topic? I'm really not in the mood to talk to fight with you about this. Just because I was born Jewish doesn't mean my opinions are wrong. Don't judge me based on my race tyvm. Parogar (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He's not, he's saying that your argument sounds very similar to ones used by race realists. You are receiving a lot of opposition because a common argument is "This disadvantaged group underperforms in some measure. (Income, IQ, criminal behavior...) It must be some inherent quality of that group. Therefore, they are an inferior class of person." What you just said sounds like a conspiracy theory straight out of Stormfront about how studies that show other races to be less intelligent are being suppressed.--TiaC (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, Parogar, taking into account the above discussion: What criticism(s) of the article do you have? What change(s) do you suggest? 21:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing, nevermind. I changed my mind about feminism. A friend of mine set me straight. Also, question: can I create an article about feminism? My friend is a really influential feminist and I want to write about what she's done to help the movement. Parogar (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we already have an article on feminism. But feel free to write your own ESSAY on feminism. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's COMPLETELY unreasonable. If Anita is allowed to have her own article, then why can't I make one for Anne? Is it because I have bias? Because Anne has done WAY more than Anita has to fight against authoritarianism. So much of it isn't on any Wiki page that you wouldn't even know how much she has done to fight for gender equality. Did you know her son is gay and is also a very vocal and well known supporter of the gay rights movement? If Anita and MEGAN FOX get their own articles, I need to insist that Anne should get one too, because otherwise that's just unfair and irrational. She's done WAY more. Parogar (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Parogar, you may write an alternate "Feminism" article in your userspace or in essayspace, either by writing in "User:Parogar/TITLE" or "Essay:TITLE". If you wish to write an article about your feminist friend, please do. Nobody is preventing you from doing so. What Inquisitor objects to is the creation of a new "Feminism" article in mainspace, which you can avoid by writing in userspace or essayspace. 00:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. That's not what I meant. I want to create one for Anne. Anne forgave me for the horrible things I said about her back when I was being a jerk to her. She is the kindest most sincere person I've ever known, and discovering she is a feminist has completely changed my perception of feminism. She wields that kind of power. She can make people who hate feminism change their mind. To be honest, I'm surprised it never "clicked" before. I was too absorbed in my own world most of the time to realize she's a feminist. I asked her about it, and she is a feminist, and if feminism is good enough for Anne, it's good enough for me, too.
 * http://smashingreader.com/Parogar_Says_Anne_Rice_Too_Old_to_Read_i54289459
 * ^^ I was a complete jerk to her, and it was all over blogs, but she chose to forgive me anyway. She is a shining example of everything the feminists on this Wiki claim they believe in. Far more so than Anita or anyone else I can imagine. Parogar (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Parogar, your initial query asked about creating a new article on "feminism". Though you may have meant to say "Anne Rice", that's not the question you asked. And up until the point you created the article on Anne Rice, we had no way of knowing who "your friend Anne" was exactly. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry my bad Parogar (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No harm. 01:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What matters more in the end?
What's more important: who's correct, or whose belief will cause the greater good? I hate to say it, but I think the only thing that should matter here above all others is who is correct, and I believe this decision should be made without even the slightest regard to any negative consequences that might befall anyone as a result of stating so. I thought that's what "rational" meant in the first place. Parogar (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words, even if I know that the correct idea will bring disaster, it's still the responsibility of the skeptic community to always choose what will bring about the correct ANSWER. This responsibility even extends to the point where loss of life could potentially be incurred as a result of it. It's the reason why, in some ways, I feel feminism has harmed the skeptic community. Because feminists are trying to do what is morally right, and sometimes the morally right thing to do isn't what's logically or scientifically correct. Sometimes the correct answer can cause extremely, overwhelmingly negative things to happen to people. But that's still the answer, and don't we still have an obligation to accept it? Parogar (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My human rights are not contingent on your ethical dilemma.Vajrapani (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Feminism vs Egalitarianism
Hi there, first time contributor. Something I think that could be a valuable addition to this article is if the answer to the common criticism of "Why call it 'feminism' when we have 'equality' or 'egalitarianism'?" I know that I could point out in any potential edit that egalitarianism is more broad in scope focusing on all different inequalities, but what else could I put about why the use of "feminism" is preferable to "egalitarianism"?

Also, it would be good to have a section in the article about "Why are you complaining about X that women are going through when other women are going through Y in these parts of the world?" TSparkle91919 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I recall, Feminism is about gender/sex equality, whereas Egalitarianism is much broader and generally covers social classes. That's about it, really. I've seen people use this question and it lead to responses about how Feminists are blatantly all about female domination and the conversation just turns dark after that. In response to your second section, I think that's relating to the "not as bad as" tactic. Traditional "not as bad as" tactics are when you try to avoid controversies by moving the issue (e.g. Someone defending Circumcision -Jewish or otherwise- as an acceptable form of mutilation because it's "not as bad" as FMG). Other times, in regards to "why complain about this", it's a deliberate attempt to silence opposition by making the arguer look selfish for not taking the 'less-fortunate' into account. Forerunner (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned the only reason to object to calling a long-running gender-equality movement "feminism" is a complete and utter disregard for history. "Why don't you rebrand your giant international movement now that I personally consider gender equality reached?"  is such a unreasonable question on multiple levels.  You want to forgive the ignorance that feeds into it the first 20 times you see it, but then you start to wonder why so many people have the exact same ignorant objection.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a germ of an objection on those rare occasions where you encounter someone who thinks that feminism is the only egalitarian cause worth pursuing with any particular vigour, but thankfully 3rd wave feminism is all about intersectionality. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, and 3rd wave dates back to before most of people raising these objections were born(It's almost always young white males).  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already section that covers "Why are you complaining about X that women are going through when other women are going through Y in these parts of the world?": Not as bad as.
 * Not even that, but I'm not aware of any feminists who aren't concerned with the gender divide in the third world. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Oops, forgot to sign the last one) Indeed. And implicit in this complaint is the idea that while talking about women's issues in the west is unimportant because they are worse elsewhere, complaining about feminists talking about women's issues in the west is super important.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's typically from a notably Western perspective, though, so there's often a disconnect between what third-world practices Western feminists will focus on and what issues the local women consider most important. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Columbia case
Regarding rape accusations and the Columbia case, are there other sources besides the antifeminist Independent Women's Forum? I ask because this Jezebel piece sheds more light on the alleged rapist: he has been accused of sexual assault by three women and one man.

http://jezebel.com/how-to-make-an-accused-rapist-look-good-1682583526
 * Yeah, there are reliable sources on either side of the issue. Over at Wikipedia I've been trying to keep that article from devolving into a hit piece against Nungesser (which it has been at various points, and BLP applies at Wikipedia whether we like a person or not), it's not too hard to find reputable people arguing both ways. Cathy Young, Amanda Hess, and Judith Shulevitz have been fairly critical of the trial by media, and I'm sure you're completely aware of the sources supporting Sulkowicz (The New Yorker, Soriya McDonald, etc.). That said, I also think it's way too loaded and ambiguous to use in the section mentioned above, whereas the UVA case is completely unambiguous. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Feminism and false rape accusations
> Indeed, feminists founded one of the more prominent organizations advocating for fairness and due process during the adjudication of rape allegations

...except nothing in the links that were given says that FACE was founded by feminists, founders page says nothing about it; searching for "feminism" on the site returns _nothing_, and searching for "feminist" returns two results, where the word is used in the links to outside resources/citations - not to describe FACE or its founders.

Citation needed for the statement that I quoted. At the moment it's just another example of feminists trying to appropriate something that (non-feminist) women have done.

16:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Way too tired for BoN whining today. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * > While there are indeed some quite vocal feminists who actually advocate that women never lie about rape ... they do not represent the mainstream views within the movement.[48][49]
 * Links do not support the statement, and the statement itself is not true in my experience. Feminist mainstream is exactly "listen and believe".
 * > The overwhelming majority of feminists are in no way seeking to suspend due process
 * Vassar college, legal initiatives in New Zealand - there's bunch more examples.
 * > Most feminists agree that all of these viewpoints are excessive
 * Again, citation needed - or, rather, this non-informative garbage needs to be removed.
 * But apparently, all I say is "BoN whining".
 * 176.52.35.148 (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Spare me, 176. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is pretty trivial stuff, BoN. We aren't Wikipedia, we don't need citations for statements like "feminists aren't part of an evil conspiracy to castrate and enslave men"--Tanis (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Spare me, 176. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is pretty trivial stuff, BoN. We aren't Wikipedia, we don't need citations for statements like "feminists aren't part of an evil conspiracy to castrate and enslave men"--Tanis (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article says FACE was founded by feminists. Nothing on the organization site points to that. That's a false statement; what castration are you talking about? 176.52.35.148 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the FACE website, it's pretty clear that it's a rather one-sided pressure group. There's not one single article in support of rightful accusers I could find. The whole section is gone, now, anyway. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking at the URGE section on FACE's website (urging "less drinking" on campus) and after looking at their facebook page, the narrative doesn't seem feminist at all. Especially on the facebook page they even seen to dip slightly into men's rights territory and certainly into the appologist category. Shabi  DOO  19:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're jerks trying to promote blaming anyone but rapists for rape. I get why they are, but the tone they take is one of victim blamey authoritarian claptrap, which shouldn't be given the time of day.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree the previous section was way long-winded the UVA point at least was legitimate, as were the sentences on Nancy Gertner and Catharine MacKinnon. I'd be happy to try to separate the actual reasonable points out and make a paragraph out of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 15:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm thinking something like this:

"There is a very real problem with rape victims being silenced and stigmatized, which has yet to be fully dealt with. On the other hand, people who uncover or discuss simple factual problems with a rape allegation are sometimes accused of rape apology. One of the more disturbing cases of this occurred when Rolling Stone first published, when writers who pointed out that some basic fact-checking would have demonstrated a huge array of glaring inconsistencies and gross journalistic misconduct received shrill accusations of blaming the victim. When it became clear beyond any doubt that the allegation was a fabrication (chief among the blindingly obvious falsifications was that the person accused of orchestrating the rape literally didn't exist) many of these people later apologized for their condemnations, although some have refused to admit wrongdoing. While there are a few quite vocal feminists who advocate that evidence pointing to a person's innocence be actively overlooked, they do not represent the mainstream view within the movement. When Wendy Murphy, who later became notorious during the as the Faux News and cable news 'legal expert' who made reams upon reams of especially vile, speculative, wildly inaccurate, and outright defamatory statements about the falsely accused players, attempted in the mid-1980s to railroad an innocent man to prison on a preposterous rape charge, no less a feminist than Nancy Gertner assisted his ultimately successful appeal. Catharine MacKinnon also went out of her way to say that wrongfully convicting people of rape serves no one's best interests, as this can and frequently does destroy innocent peoples' lives while simultaneously detracting from efforts to fight real offenders."
 * I think that separates out the most pertinent points. If you'd like I can also track down Nancy Gertner's autobiography, which discusses the case in some detail and explains her perspective on allegations in general (and it's an excellent book, period). If we really need to include another example, I'd go with the aforementioned Duke lacrosse case because there are people who are still trying to argue that they're actually guilty of... well they won't exactly say what, just "something". Somewhat by chance I also found this, not sure what to make of it but at first glance a Harvard Law professor might have something useful to say on the matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 21:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to either remove the statement that "there are a few quite vocal feminists who advocate that evidence pointing to a person's innocence be actively overlooked" or back it up with some examples of feminists vocalising such a viewpoint, because it looks like bunkum. 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned Wendy Murphy, here as well, who explicitly stated "I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth." among her other awful statements on the Duke lacrosse case. That both she and others, including Gertner in her autobiography, identify Murphy as a feminist is indisputable. There's also this piece from Zerlina Maxwell, which rightly drew pretty much universal condemnation. There's another link I'm trying to chase down now where someone also seriously suggested that a false accusation can be good for the person being accused, I'll post it as soon as I get it (found it, and the article with said quote also explains that it's far from a universal view within the movement). I'd tweak the wording to say "there are a very few, albeit sometimes quite vocal, feminists..." as the Wendy Murphy types are mercifully on the fringe. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of those links saying "evidence pointing to a person's innocence should be actively overlooked". 03:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Murphy absolutely said and continues to say that, but I think the point can be made better anyway. How about instead saying "While there are a very few, albeit sometimes quite vocal, feminists who advocate that the standard of innocent until proven guilty should not apply to people accused of rape... " Nancy Grace would also call into that category, I can get links as needed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 03:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * John Stewart summed Grace up pretty well, and straight from the horse's mouth; also, see for the blow by blow (I trust that, for purposes of this discussion, you can click the references there yourselves). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 03:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And so this all isn't centering around one case there's also this article, which contains some rather disturbing thoughts about the assumption of innocence and blatantly misrepresents its sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 20:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally don't disagree with your assertion that a few feminists might've made some morally dubious suggestions in the context of particular rape allegations. But I have to point out 2 issues, though:
 * There is no "h" in Jon Stewart's name.
 * Nancy Grace doesn't seem to actively identify as a feminist. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The misspelling of Jon Stewart was an autocorrect misfire I thought I'd fixed, apologies. As to the second, Grace doesn't self-identify as such and other people seem divided over whether she should be classified as a feminist. She has been one of Wendy Murphy's biggest enablers, although that could just as easily be attributable to her self-proclaimed victim's rights advocacy. In any event, I'm not trying to overemphasize the point; I only think it needs one sentence and, because these views have attracted enough attention that it has to be acknowledged, the above-mentioned parts about Gertner and MacKinnon to show how fringe it is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Any other objections? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 02:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If not, I'll add it in with a few tweaks. Also, if you need another name above I'll give you Tara Levicy, a rogue SANE who, because of her view that a person would never lie about rape, deliberately misrepresented medical findings on multiple occasions in a concerted effort to make three innocent people look guilty of rape. Thankfully her plan didn't work, and thankfully she's one of the fringe types like Murphy who the overwhelming majority of feminists loudly speak out against. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 04:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)