Talk:Feminism/Archive4

They have achieved naught
There argument that there is just as much sexism as there was in the 50s implies that that they weren't able to accomplish their coals. As with most movements against discrimination and inequality, feminism is still a long way from achieving its goals, with many prejudices and much bias persisting. In the workplace, employers pay women less than their male counterparts, and the "glass ceiling" remains in business and politics, allowing employers to deny women the promotions they might earn otherwise. So is feminism a complete failure or has society not changed a bit?--106.69.139.131 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty loaded question. 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also got a lot of particularly dumb prefaces. The suggestion that anyone says there is "just as much sexism" as 70 years ago reflects a delusional perspective so damaged that psychiatric care might be required.  Seriously though, cut out the trolling.  We're bored of you.  Do something useful or go away.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are not my words, there are my history teacher'--106.69.139.131 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)s.
 * Well, your history teacher isn't being honest about it then. Or perhaps they were attempting to provoke you into thinking about the flaws in their reasoning.  I certainly remember having history teachers who'd do that to challenge people.  Regardless, you can't offload the flaws of the argument onto other people, if you buy into it and repost it, I'm gonna expect you to defend it, warts and all.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) Okay, your history teacher is an idiot, then (said the historian & teacher). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, " So is feminism a complete failure or has society not changed a bit?" are not the only choices. Feminism has achieved a lot and society has changed a lot.  In the 1970s one rarely saw a woman on the news.  Now they are all over the place, even on the more conservative networks.   Although mostly they conform to the Barbie doll model, something feminism has not been able to adjust yet. Furthermore, (opinion) the ideas of an 8th grade history teacher carries little weight outside his or her classroom. Carptrash (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The USA is seriously considering electing its first female president and you can say feminism hasn't achieved anything? FFS! And even if they don't there's Nancy Pelosi (First female speaker of the house or whatever you yanks call it) and look at Condo Rice - I hated everything she stood for but wasn't she first female Secretary of State. Ask your mum (or mom) whether feminism has made any progress since the 50's when aspiring to be an air stewardess was the best a woman could be. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I had a fun moment at the library (where I volunteer) yesterday pointing out to another volunteer that Hillary Clinton’s newest book is catalogued under: POLSCI US PRES

I though it was, at best, a little premature and my fellow vol, a Republican thought it was heresy, or worse. The librarian I showed it to heaved a big sigh, then laughed. Carptrash (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pup? I feel like I'm missing some context here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you are missing a lot. Carptrash (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a helpful comment. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. First of all, I am one of those, "not-so-helpful-to-unregistered-editors types, but okay. In a library things are catalogued.  First in the Political Science area, as indicated by POLSCI..  Then they are broken down into the various countries, in this case US (for United States of America) then this book was placed in a category PRES, which means that it is a political science book, about the USA and specifically about a President.  Like all things, it is "obvious" (see discussion about use of the word "obvious elsewhere) once you understand it. This has to do with the discussion because Ms Clinton is woman. Carptrash (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I just thought I was supposed to see some word or acronym in there, because of how it was formatted. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is formatted to simulate the spine label on the book. Carptrash (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

When the criticism point to feminist being "white middle class", they are now not only expected to be sexist but classiest and racist. The black, Jewish and Islam feminist are no exceptions because they are just as ignorant, bigoted, politically incorrect and historically inaccurate as the liberal feminist.--106.69.139.131 (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the BoN OP has either migrated from just asking questions to out and out anti-feminism verging on misogyny, is just trolling, or is being less than meticulous in writing the latest post if it's simply garbled writing. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Werther or not I am a misogynist is irrelevant. My statement was that feminism is internally divided and that has never been verified with a response.--106.69.139.131 (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bollocks, and bollocks to the train it came in on. "My statement was that feminism is internally divided" - you have never said this - you said that feminism hasn't achieved anything. Now you are obviously trolling. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, when discussing feminism, it's actually just as relevant whether someone is a misogynist as it would be if someone discussing Judaism is an anti-Semite, or someone discussing don't ask don't tell is a homophobe, or discussing affirmative action with a racist.
 * And no, the BoN's statement wasn't that feminism was divided, but a rant about all types of feminism being "ignorant, bigoted, politically incorrect and historically inaccurate"...
 * Btw, our BoN's statement hasn't been "verified with a response", because it doesn't really merit being dignified with one... (oh shoot, I responded anyway - ) ScepticWombat (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument is whether or not feminist work together or if they are as divided as any major religion.--106.69.139.131 (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Religion? Wut? Are you "LogicMastering" feminism, now? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to TV Tropes description of the different forms of feminism comparing sub divisions to denominations. On that site, it list eight different forms of feminism and on Wikipedia it has articles of forty four different forms of woman's rights.--106.69.139.131 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And this makes feminism a religion or "ignorant, bigoted, politically incorrect and historically inaccurate" because...?
 * And no, TV Tropes doesn't have a "description of the different forms of feminism comparing sub divisions to denominations". What it does have is a list of 8 "Different Schools of Feminism", which is no different than WP listing "variants" of and neither contains any religious connotations any more than the existence of different "schools" or "variants" of a martial art makes that into a religion. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * More relevantly, let's go back to the title of this section - "They have achieved naught". The various movements within feminism may disagree over details, some of them quite important details, but that doesn't mitigate the fact - yes, fact - that one of the biggest changes in society over the past sixty years - and I speak as someone who has lived through all of them - has been the change in the role of women. This is clearly and demonstrably true. Trying to say otherwise is either pathetically ignorant or trolling. I suspect the latter. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering the content of the BoN's last couple of posts, I'd go with trolling too, though the really weird TV Tropes reference could argue for ignorance, or at least an inability to spot that the one place where TVT mentioned religion was clearly meant as an analogy, not a claim that feminism is a religion: "A good comparison to feminism is a major religion like Christianity. They've both got one essential message, but there are many divisions and subgroups with different views on how to interpret/act on on that message, and some of them don't get along so well." ScepticWombat (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Go on any site where female users are not unheard of, how often do you see them play the race card in their own nations? Or how backwards a country or a certain religion is for their treatment of women and minorities?--203.59.159.21 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Who says this?
"It is indisputable that there are a few, albeit sometimes quite vocal, feminists who advocate that the standard of innocent until proven guilty should not apply to people accused of rape."

I think this needs some explanation, context and citation. Who says this? In what context? Are there any feminists who think that, in a court of law, the standard should be changed for rape cases? Or are they saying something different, such as the standard for punishment at a school should use the preponderance of evidence standard (as the famous Title IX letter requires)?

Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just the use of the word "indisputable" alone should be enough to get this tossed out. After all, are we not here disputing it? Carptrash (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems silly. The closest I can think of are those who say 'All PIV is rape', which is not the same thing. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's mostly a myth too. Like the big bugaboos who supposedly said it never said it.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * TBotNL was arguing for adding such a sentence a few sections higher. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is essentially a straw man. There are people (feminists and otherwise) who suggest that the "innocent until proven guilty" standard is not applicable to all situations following a rape accusation. Given that civil courts don't even follow this standard this should not be a contentious claim. I doubt there are any feminists claiming that criminal trials for rape should abandon this standard.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Doubt's a tough word. A lot of people feminist and otherwise, don't quite grok common law.  Thinking no one says it is probably wrong.  Thinking it's a common belief that has any sort of serious movement attached is also wrong.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've yanked the whole pgph. Why waste electrons discussing a claim whose existence is asserted but never made real via evidence? "Indisputable." Jesus. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to parse TBotNL's line of argument, but all I got was a ringing noise in my ears. As a general point, I don't think a 'some X say Y' statement on any topic should remain unpruned. After all, "Some meteorologists call the sun Jeff Snookums" does not tell us anything meaningful about meteorologists in general. Queexchthonic murmurings
 * This ^ is the fault of the internet. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Twenty years ago, someone stood in front of the subway station passing out grubby xeroxes of a pamphlet saying something ridiculous, and nobody cared. Now that same person puts it in her blog, and it becomes "some feminists argue that...." while the argument has exactly the same merit it had in a pamphlet nobody bothered to read. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that the craziest of the crazies wouldn't have the focus to hand out fliers. Wheras posting your opinion somewhere... Oops, I just did it.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was shitty wording, OK? I sometimes have a hard time getting the right words out, even if I know what I want to get across; it's not something I can entirely control. The point is that the Wendy Murphy types (and Murphy actually did say that the presumption of innocence shouldn't apply when a person is accused of rape, on national TV and not a random blog, and specifically drew criticism from other feminists for this; I can get you the transcript if you don't believe me) are out there, and they have thankfully stayed on the fringes i.e. despite the noise they make they aren't the norm, and the entire philosophy of feminism shouldn't be dragged down because of them. I'm on your side in this, the idea is that the reader will come away thinking that the overwhelming majority of feminists don't ascribe to such views. Is that too much to acknowledge? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 21:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the removed section was useful in underscoring the minority-view status of feminist views on "assume guilty" in rape cases. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Was Wendy Murphy talking about criminal trials? -SpecialFFrog (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes; the specific context was the Duke case, and the direct quotes were "Stop with the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t apply to Duke.", "Over 99 percent of cases indicted are in fact legitimate; the guys are guilty." and "These guys, like so many rapists—and I’m going to say it because, at this point, she’s entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim". She then also said, as a more general statement, "I’m really tired of people suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don't respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you’re a liar." These are but a tiny percentage of the "reams upon reams" of statements Murphy made on the case, and if that's not declaration that the presumption of innocence is inapplicable I don't know what is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 01:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is she a professed feminist, though? As far as I can see, she's a law professor and former prosecutor with a particular interest in sex crimes. Should it really be that surprising when a lawyer-type person suggests that we don't need to see the person on trial as "innocent-until-proven-guilty"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC, @The Blade of the Northern Lights) So write an article about her already. But don't use her as a brush to tar the feminist movement.  01:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * She self-identifies as such (c.f. this lovely screed), and other feminists such as Gertner refer to her as a feminist. The point of even bringing it up here is to address the existence of such people precisely to avoid having people thinking that she's anything close to normal and getting the wrong idea about feminism as a result. It's easier to just go at it head-on instead of obliquely hiding it in a side article, although I'd be willing to throw something together if you think it's a good idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 01:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's plausible that she does, but it's not apparent from that link. The letter talks about how Gertner claims to be a feminist while weakening women's rights in favour of the alleged rapists she defends in court; Murphy doesn't explicitly state she (also) identifies as a feminist. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

With all of the things feminism deals in that this article could do more to engage with -- critiques of culture and art and literature and politics, important new scholarship in history and sociology and other aspects of the social sciences and humanities, and activism that improves the lives of women and men everywhere, why spend so much article space talking about something the original editor her/himself admits is marginal? 02:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't often do this but [[image:goodpost.gif]] 02:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple; I'd rather see it presented warts and all, and of all the criticisms of feminism this is one of the most common, so pretending this doesn't come up with some frequency strikes me as a bit disingenuous. Besides, none of these two paragraphs is preventing anyone from expanding on something else, it's not as if there's a bright line of bytes we're up against or something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 06:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually some editors were saying something close to this idea here some time ago.--Coffee (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done some digging and I still don't think Wendy Murphy is saying what you are claiming. She does not appear to be saying that people should be convicted without due process. She appears to be saying that you can have an opinion on someone's guilt without them being proven guilty, which is true. She even uses the example that Hitler was never convicted of anything. If she has said that due process shouldn't apply, I agree that is bad but citation needed. However, as with Shermer and Cosby and others, saying that there is enough evidence to form an opinion is not the same as saying they should be convicted on the basis of said evidence. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, it's still problematic; in that case she was howling about their guilt after the prosecutors declared them innocent, and resorted to making things up out of thin air. If you don't think it's enough to warrant a mention here, I at least think the sentence on MacKinnon is worth including. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the MacKinnon bits make sense without the Murphy bits. And while Murphy's comments may be problematic, it seems they are problematic on specific grounds -- she was wrong based on the evidence -- rather than on general principle. Just because the criminal courts say one thing that doesn't forbid people from stating another opinion. Criminal courts said OJ was not guilty but civil courts -- with a different standard of evidence -- said he was liable. Even with a civil trial there may be evidence that was excluded that is still relevant when forming an opinion. Murphy may be wrong and may have bad reasons for her opinion, but if she were right about the specifics and had good reasons for her opinion, would her statements be problematic? -SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there isn't very strong evidence of innocence, then barring calls for violence or a rigged trial or such it's of course reasonable to argue a person is most likely guilty. It's not what I would do myself, because every now and again what looks like an open-and-shut case turns out not to be, but as long as people aren't deliberately ignoring facts or inventing things I'm all right with them voicing their views. I can admit to having gotten tunnel vision, it's something I'm prone to. None of what I've said is intended to cast victim's advocacy in a bad light, as with anything it's not fair to judge based on the few cases where people have gotten carried away; I was only trying to highlight that while such cases can be quite ugly, it is only a relatively few cases. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 13:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This entire website is a place for feminist groupthink
This isn't a criticism. It's a statement of fact. I'm probably not going to be posting on RW for another few months, at which time I'll check in to see if the extremism has lessened a bit. As it stands, RationalWiki operates on behalf of the feminist movement and the social justice movement. Again, this is a statement of fact and not a statement of opinion, nor is it a criticism.

RationalWiki is not a place where ideas can compete and the stronger, more evidence-supported of them are selected for. RW is very much a place where only the leftest of the left are able to affect change, and only insomuch as it promotes feminism.

The "feelings" of "oppressed groups" have now gotten to the point where they outweigh fact. That's okay. But RationalWiki's mission statement should at the very least reflect the nature of the website. What we have here is a dishonest mission statement that does not even remotely convey the inherent bias. To that end, I do have an actual criticism: RationalWiki is unethical. Anyone at this point who denies the feminism bias on here is either lying or seriously deluded.

And I'm not saying that's not okay. I'm not saying RW needs to change. But the fact that RW won't even disclose this and be honest about it in order to, like I don't know, "stealth feminize" people or something is where I find it breaches the ethics one would expect of any wiki. It is immoral and dishonest, and if RW was more open about its bias, it would have fewer problems.

That is all Parogar (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When was anyone not open about being biased in favor of facts and rational approaches thereto? 09:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

What measure is a feminist
Feminist on this site call gamers "Stramen" even if they are fighting for women's rights so TV Tropes' statement that "Straw Feminist" is averted on this site is questionable.--203.59.159.21 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is RationalWiki. Not TV Tropes. Take your complaints about TV Tropes there.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 10:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears all feminist groups hate men to some degree but the Separatist feminist seems to have the most influence because they hate men the most. So are the feminist who deny misandry, homophobia, racism and reverse racism the majority of feminist groups?--220.253.192.101 (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, BoN, all your worst fears confirmed. All feminists hate men. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question are the Separatist feminist the core feminist or not?--106.68.144.55 (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to look deep within yourself before you ask again, because your question was loaded and factually wrong from the start.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 08:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Visit a women's studies class at a campus and see how they treat the male classmates including the male feminist and how they view men, it's not a pretty picture.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In that it... Doesn't conform to your world view? Are they doing something as evil as saying that - GASP - society has different expectations and treatment of people based on their genetics and background? Do you know what Zeno of Citium has to say about this? 07:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well from the start, BoN has been going on and on about how feminists are evil men-hating harpies. His example of seems to bely his intentions, as he's specifically chosen this branch of feminism which is certainly about men not being conducive even as allies, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a major movement, at least outside of the lesbian community, where even the existence of separatism is controversial and unsupported by other branches of feminism. But BoN would have known this if he actually Googled "separatist feminism" and read Wikipedia's page on it.—Ryūlóng  (琉竜 ) 21:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think they are built on the merchandise like the T-shirts "Boys are stupid throw rocks at them" or "Boys are stupider send then to Jupiter?" Because feminist academics encourages women to hate men. Just go on YouTube and search "How to Spot a Feminist" or "Vicious Feminism in the schools" and see how much influence Separatism feminism has on other forms of feminism. Men can only be the enemy or a male misandrist.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Did a feminist design those shirts? It's good to point out double standards, but can these shirts be blamed on feminism, or on schoolyard stereotypes? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Their targeted at feminist, they were plagiarised from feminist shirts and their worn by women on campuses, both as children and adults.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're doing a wonderful job of defining the straw feminist here, BoN, cause I doubt that these shirts exist or that their existence is one of sincerity rather than irony. Again, maybe you should read Separatist feminism to have any inkling of what you think you're talking about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 11:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy. I don't think the T-shirt has much to do with either academic feminism or separatist feminism.  11:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So it's MRAs being angry at something a man created that women found funny. Like that "men's tears" mug.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 12:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know of absolutely no movement of any sort which doesn't periodically get hyperfocused on such non-issues. There are plenty of examples anyone can cite, things like the above are not that profound. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 15:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The man who created the shirts was a male feminist because at best male feminist are male misandrist and at worst they are disposable.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm referring to men as disposable, but these other people are misandrist". Yep.  That sure is a human rights campaigner right there.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask any "male" feminist why there fighting for "women's rights" they would say your a bigot for not seeing men as the enemy or they have been wronged by the movement because outlived their youthfulness.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * —<font color="Coral">Ryūlóng (<font color="SpringGreen">琉竜 ) 04:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want a source I have already stated above that Women's Studies are about seeing men as the oppressor and the abuser. I know this because have researched feminism over the years, I have been to TAFE Perth Western Australia, I have watched videos of feminism, I have visited online feminist forums and know women who are bitter harpies. They don't find anything empowering to women, to them everything is equally sexist, every country is equally violent towards woman, society views men with supposition and as privileged and yes I have read the Wikipedia article of Separatist feminism.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * #NotAllMen—<font color="SaddleBrown">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumBlue">琉竜 ) 05:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone seen the recent ad "Potty Mouth Princess?" The feminist who hired the girls to swear and say misandric statements are no different than the Westboro Baptist Church were the children are told to hold up homophobic signs.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Torn between asking for lynx and giving lynx to the door... 12:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want me to make sense of my statement, then my point to the ad was "feminist" want equality but they are raising girls to demonize men because they believe all men support the wage gap and that all men are raised to be rapist.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki is intellectually dishonest
The writers of "Rational Wiki" misrepresent criticism of third-wave feminist ideology as "anti-women's rights." But that's a non sequitur. The narrative of third-wave feminism, such as the claim that there is a Patriarchy, or that masculinity is the fundamental cause of all of societies problems, is not factually accurate. Criticizing that narrative is not the same as being against women's rights. Men's rights advocacy is a Human Rights campaign, which address issues that third-wave feminism ignores or denies, for ideological reasons.

It's clear that the writers want to paint third-wave feminist ideology as "fighting the good fight" and men's rights advocacy as "evil woman-hating sexism." That is the definition of a Straw Man argument. First-wave feminism certainly did fight the good fight for Human Rights and Civil Rights for women. But women also voted for a war that drafted young men into forced service. We should be concerned with Human Rights, if we are going to live in an egalitarian society. Women have all the rights and protections they need, yet third-wave feminists use masculinity as a scapegoat, claiming that men don't do enough for women.

When a person brings up the fact that boys don't have the right to genital integrity, or that men are the majority of rape victims, or that men have longer prison sentences than women, that men are so unhappy that they are the majority of suicides, that fathers have fewer rights than mothers, that husbands are assumed to be inferior parents compared to mothers, that men are falling being in education, or any of the other myriad inequalities facing men, third-wave feminists will blame the non-existent Patriarchy.

Rational Wiki does okay challenging creationists, although the articles still have fallacies in them, but it's terrible on Human Rights.

Simply awful work, guys.

IrrationalWiki (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All of your arguments are already debunked at men's rights movement.—<font color="MediumSpringGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="Peru">琉竜 ) 10:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ahem! Drink, fellow feminists! Fun:Drinking_Game Rand0 (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How much have they accomplished
Feminist don't believe they have accomplished anything since their setback after the Second World War. They believe that men are just as sexist as they were seventy years ago.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Splendid stuff. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just love it when anon editors tell us what feminists do and do not believe. So compelling. So convincing. Carptrash (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Watch Lacigreen WHY I'm A...FEMINIST, she doesn't say how much feminism has accomplished, only how much they are oppressed and victimised by all countries equally.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even assuming you're right about what she says, all it shows if that she finds that sufficient reason to be a feminist. It doesn't disclaim any historical achievements. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

She implies all countries treat women as disposable, not some more then others but all equally.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if she does, so what? I haven't looked at her stuff so I can't comment on it but she is but one voice in a wide ranging movement. I can counter with Gail Collins who has written numerous books on the progress women have made - and "When Everything Changed" concentrates specifically on 1960 up to the time of writing - 2010. I assume the point that Laci Green makes is that, despite the undeniable progress, there is still a way to go. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm inclined to believe that this IP has just decided on a conclusion, and then just kinda wants agreement. I think you need a "feminist progress" hypothesis that tests itself on measurable results, IP.  I could give metrics to you, but you'd feel better if you sat down objectively and decided what progress meant.  Then after you've decided that, get data about those measurements.  Science me, IP.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I get sort of uncomfortable reading "She implies " because . . .. well I'd rather know what she says rather than seeing what someone thinks her words implies. Carptrash (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just checked out (a written version) Laci Green's "50 Reasons" and get NONE of the stuff that our anon poster implies. Her 50 Reasons ends with, "Most of all, I’m a feminist because I believe in gender equality. My eyes are opened.  My mind is active  I know we’re not there yet.
 * "Yet" to me suggests that there have been gains, just not enough. Yet.  Carptrash (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

How they view the media
Look at Lacigreen's video of SEX OBJECT BS, its bias against women, its bias against men and its bias against the media. Yes sex sells but not every buys it, nor does everyone sell it, appearance and intellect are not exclusive because it's not the 1960s were everyone believed that to be the case.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's... pretty irrelevant, isn't it? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Never change, BoN. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why I started a new discussion section.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't post it at the top of the page.—<font color="MediumSpringGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="Blue">琉竜 ) 10:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I got confused.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also could you please re-read what you have posted. "Proofreding" it's called and it is a good habit to get into if you are going to post here with any success. Carptrash (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Back to my argument that not everyone buys sex nor does everyone sell it. Is that all they see in the media and the target audience? That women are only be sex objects and men can only be perverts?--106.68.144.55 (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say?—<font color="Peru">Ryūlóng (<font color="Yellow">琉竜 ) 06:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that English is 106's first language and he often comes across as incomprehensible and confused. Mind you, he is pretty confused. His point here is that, because not all advertising objectifies women feminism is wrong to suggest that it often does. There are some rather interesting questions about how much advertising reflects society and how much it reinforces stereotypes but 106's "It's better than the 60s so what are they complaining about" is a bit of an over simplification. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say "it's better than the 60s", I was saying looks and intelligence are not mutually exclusive as it was encouraged by feminist back then. Lacigreen said women who care about their looks aren't taken seriously but in the 2000s/2010s we have evolved beyond the point of academics vs authenticity. Women aren't just judged on their appearance any more.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still searching for a thesis to your posts. It mostly just seems like you want to attack a straw feminist image you've pasted on Laci Green, rather than make some cogent point.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonable sure that if we told this BoNs that a mirror was a feminist, we could get them to attack their own reflection. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not attacking feminism, I'm only disagreeing with their views on gender politics. If we want to bring gender equality we should work together to reduce gender stereotypes and not be targeted and dictated by a specific group.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "If we want to bring gender equality we should work together to reduce gender stereotypes" Necessary, but not sufficient. Reducing stereotypes alone will never bring about gender equality. There are too many self-sustaining imbalances that need to be tackled directly. So what you're saying, whether you realise it or not, is: "I like the idea of gender equality but I'm uncomfortable at the thought of what needs to be done to actually make it happen, so I'm going to use the term 'gender politics' to deride all the parts I'm uncomfortable with so I can delude myself into thinking I'm still in favour of gender equality in practice." Queexchthonic murmurings 16:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding "we should work together to reduce gender stereotypes". All any person gets to do is to reduce or deal with his or her own stereotypes.  We don't get to do that for someone else.  My view about this  (like racism) is that 99% percent of the problem comes from the male (or white) side and what many folks are inclined to do is to put all their focus and attention on the 1%.  Not good Feng Shui. Carptrash (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stereotypes are also communicated by culture. Objecting to shallow portrayals of people in popular media is a common occurrence.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a fast foods place in the USA (maybe elsewhere) whose advertising I found to be so offensive that I will never eat there. Here is a sample. https://www.google.com/search?q='carl+Jr.%22+advertising&biw=1413&bih=898&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCMQsARqFQoTCIHIjKXq4sYCFcsQkgodAaYJNA (I'm not sure that I know how to do links.  No, I don't). So yes, American culture is terrible about this and I don't want to hear about what Islamic countries and conservative Hindus or any such folks do. To be the lesser of two (or more) evils is not good enough. Carptrash (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sweet Jesus on a fuck trolley. If I saw those, I'd assume they were parodies. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of racist are whites? Clearly you haven't been in a country where whites are not in control. Most sexist are male? No, women are capable of hating men as much as men are capable of hating women. Feminist have killed political correctness a long time ago to the point where it is enough to offend someone for just being alive. Why did I say focus on reducing stereotypes? Because this section is separate from "What measure is a feminist?" No I do not believe that reducing stereotypes alone will end sexism but labeling men as the enemy is not the answer either. Also sextual objectifacation isn't as commen in Australia as it is in America let alone in strict cultures like India and Saudi Arabia. Your saying the entire Islamic and Hindu religions require all women to be sex slaves and that all boys in the west are raised to see women as sex objects. Do you see were I'm getting at?--106.68.144.55 (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you really fucking try to change the Wikipedia page on separatist feminism to suit your own little world view?—<font color="SlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="RebeccaPurple">琉竜 ) 05:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My world view? The rest of the article and a lot of other feminist articles are already misandric, so why shouldn't they be mainstream?--106.68.144.55 (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You changed it to say separatist feminism was the mainstream when it never said it before that. You're a dangerous wingnut, brah.—<font color="Navy">Ryūlóng (<font color="Turquoise">琉竜 ) 05:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Read what I said above.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will when you start using indents.—<font color="DarkSeaGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumVioletRed">琉竜 ) 09:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added it on but only because I feel feminism focuses on the rights of exclusively women and girls and also feel that Separatist feminism is the base form not for women's rights but for left wing political correctness. Now that I have admitted to vandalizing the Wikipedia page will you read my response to the multiple comments prior, who are less politically correct then the average user?--106.68.144.55 (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See previous.—<font color="SlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="Orange">琉竜 ) 10:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I am going to assume that the anon editor was writing to me, so will respond to some of his (her? I don't think so) points. " Clearly you haven't been in a country where whites are not in control." Clearly you know nothing about me or you would not make such an absurd claim. Then you go one to say, "Your saying the entire Islamic and Hindu religions require all women to be sex slaves" and this is another masterful example of where someone takes something I wrote and then turns it around and says "your ("you're?") saying when it is not what I am saying at all.  Clearly, for example, I never mention "sex slaves" nor did I have anything like that in mind when I wrote what I did.  This is called "projection" on your part and I suspect that it is a serious problem for you and perhaps you should seek professional help.  Carptrash (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Watch the video "First World Feminist Against Islam" and when I wrote your, I was only following spellcheck.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't demand that we watch some shit video. You watched it already. Give us a summary or quit wasting our time.—<font color="Olive">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkViolet">琉竜 ) 06:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already stated that feminist dislike fanservice but you have not said how much of the male demographic consumes nudity or what percentage of advertisers sell sex. You only said that America is a backwards country that perpetuates negative stereotypes and that the Islamic and Hindu countries are greater evils.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That does not answer my question and you're the only on saying any of this shit.—<font color="SlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="OrangeRed">琉竜 ) 09:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC}

What question? For the record Doxys Midnight Runner is the one that said society is corrupt. I'm just saying feminist are hypercritical about what they do and have exaggerated in many (but not all) areas.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you been following the recent discovery in the USA that up to 100,000 rape kits have gone unexamined? If a feminist had said that it would likely have ended up on your list of self-serving exaggerations. However that is not the case, this is one of the rare times that the mainstream media is reporting it. Ten years after it became a problem. 106, stop looking at the feminists as if they are any part of the problem. Just let it go. Carptrash (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @106 - Woah! Unless you can produce the diff confirming that I said that that "society is corrupt" you expose yourself as one who twists things around to hear and see what they want to hear and see. Incidentally, the word "corrupt" is not used anywhere on this page until you used it. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that you might have found a cap that fits our 106 very well. Carptrash (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

By exaggeration I mean when you say that 1 in 4 women will be raped you claim that 1 in 1 men are potential rapist. The Rape culture means that all men are rapist and when I said that you believe society is corrupt, I meat that you imply that everyone tolerates violence against women.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your powers of math and deduction continue to amaze me. Please explain "when you say that 1 in 4 women will be raped you claim that 1 in 1 men are potential rapist. " to me?   Is that like saying that there are 40,000 homicides (or whatever) in the USA every year so everyone is a potential murderer?  Also your claim that "Rape culture means that all men are rapist" is way out there in the ozone somewhere.  Rape Culture (to me, today) explains how something like four hundred thousand post rape kits go unprocessed in America.  If not "Rape Culture" and a tolerance of rape what would you call that?  And "police ineptitude" is not good enough.  Carptrash (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You are only proving my point that rape is tolerated and therefore it must be committed by men as a whole.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Christianity is tolerated, therefore everybody is a Christian". Queexchthonic murmurings 11:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

So are men the enemy or not?--106.68.144.55 (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * #notallmen ...but it is always a man who rapes a woman. (female on female prison rape happens, but that's not an everyday fear for most women). Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 11:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

But not all victims are female and by saying that women will be raped, feminist have made women weaker and afraied of men.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * what absolute arse. Talking about rape (ie confronting the problem) has made women safer. I'm glad you mention that men get raped too - that's a serious problem as well, and finally it's being addressed. Or does mentioning it make men weaker and afraid? You're being illogical and inconsistent. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So are men the enemy or not? Not, very much not. In the broad spectrum of feminism there are men haters but they are far, far from the norm and, in broad brush terms, feminism is seen as a movement to help men as much as to help women. It is true that the vast majority of anti-feminists are men but that doesn't mean that all men are MRA supporters.
 * 106's biggest problem is a form of straw-manning by cherry picking examples and phrases and using them to distort the true position. Can I suggest that 106 takes the time to read and fully digest the TV Tropes Useful Notes on feminism which has a basic and simple approach. In particular I direct him to the 'Common myths' section where most of his points are answered. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What about feminist weakening women by saying they will be violated for their gender? Surely that has something to answer for.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you critically analyze your own sentences or just post whatever shit comes into your head? What do you think is the problem with this rhetorical question?  Because I think it's pretty damn obvious and you should maybe give it a once-over before posting.
 * Compare what you just asked to this sentence: "Gosh, I sure am worried about that 5th amendment, because doesn't it say you might be falsely prosecuted, which obviously causes people to be falsely prosecuted". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * When I get a response, I think how to respond and then send in the message. Sorry if I was to fast but I have already read the myths of feminism on TV Tropes but when it list the types of feminism, it doesn't cover the same amount of groups Wikipedia does. Among them are the Gender & Equity Feminist who are one of the most vocal groups of the entire movement.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is anyone else getting a bot vibe from this user? There's no human logic connecting their posts to what they're replying to.  I could easily see a format of (excuse for previous statement that doesn't address the recipient|new random babble about feminism).  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense than he does! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Are Feminist Politically Incorrect?
You have made a controversial comment yourself of hindu and muslim men, that women have no rights and that christian countries aren't much better. So you either believe all religions are evil or religion particularly hinduism and islam were created to specifically victimise women.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Sitting on a cornflake waiting for the van to come Corporation tee shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday Man you been a naughty boy. You let your face grow long I am the eggman, they are the eggmen' Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I recognize a real markov chain when I see one. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else here remember when "Logic" was taught in school. "If A = B then . . .... " sort of stuff.  Our 106 needs a pretty heavy dose, but he is a good example of . . ......something. Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying how feminist judge certain religions are no different to the trolls who spread hate.--167.30.56.14 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We're saying you're full of shit. It's perfectly valid to strongly condemn specific actions that are shown to cause suffering - assuming you can back that assertion up with facts - which is what most feminist critiques of religion do. To strongly condemn purely because some group is 'the other', with only scare-stories to back it up, is the domain of reactionaries. You will find some overlap between the two (or at least, reactionaries who claim to be feminists), but even a cursory examination of feminism-sans-reactionaries and reactionaries-sans-feminism shows that the problem is with reactionaries, not feminism. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You're just replacing the word bigotry with reactionary, in this case it's Anti-Hinduism and Islamophobia. They don't restrict themselves to just attacking the oppressive laws, they either attack half of the population of the faith or the entire religion.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're reaching.—<font color="Navy">Ryūlóng (<font color="Green">琉竜 ) 09:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And, unfortunately, not for the off-switch. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I will drop the PC card now.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, but it was better as a car. 12:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You do know that was a typo right?--106.68.144.55 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Add "Promote Feminism" to your description page
Hey Rational Wiki I saw your pages about MRA and feminism, and saw a kind of bias towards feminism. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against it, but could you please add "Promote Feminism" to your description page? Because that seems like one of the main goal of this "encyclopedia". Oh, and may I suggest another quote for the beggining of the article?

Here it is: «"Life" in this "society" being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of "society" being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.» Valerie Solanas Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas

Or maybe this one? «There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society.» Anita Sarkeesian Source: https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533445611543363585

Please consider these quotes made by feminists.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Randomguy23 / talk / contribs
 * Please consider signing your posts and actually looking up who Valerie Solanas was.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, it is interesting that the best "these types" can do to support their POV is to quote someone who was diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia. Actually, this is a perspective that "they" are probably quite familiar with, and thus comfortable with.  Carptrash (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Then what is wrong with Anita Sarkeesian's quote? ManGuy
 * Nothing. Besides being cherry picked, very incomplete, and part of a much larger article that was much different. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Randomguy23

Only feminist deny the existence of misandry.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

10:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See also
 * Nutpicking

To quote the above "There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." Do you know anyone who isn't a "feminist" who would say that.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you replace "sexism" with "racism", "men" with "white people", and "gender" with "race", then a whole lot of other people would say that. But you're the one who thinks Valerie Solanas was an influential feminist writer instead of a sociopath who tried to murder Andy Warhol.—<font color="Coral">Ryūlóng (<font color="Maroon">琉竜 ) 11:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, first and foremost, Valerie Sonas was a total joke. But I was totally serious about Anita. I mean, she is truly a feminist, and a very influential one. And I highly doubt it was taken out of context, because the quote was actually a whole tweet. There was no context to it, nothing else to really understand. It was simply a statement she said. And many feminists actually argue that no men are prejudiced against because of their gender, and very few non-feminists (those who agree with them but don't want the label, anti-feminists, egalitarians,etc.) will deny the existence of misandry. And in response to: <font color="Coral">Ryūlóng, i don't think anyone would say that : «"Life" in this "society" being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of "society" being at all relevant to black people, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking black people only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the white race.» Yeah, maybe a few people would agree, but I'd wager many people would consider this statement as racism and incitation to violence. But then again, Valerie Sonas' quote was a joke. It was simply to show that for things that people of this site didn't like (ex: The Amazing Atheist, MRA), they were happy to put up quote that didn't even represent the subject. Randomguy23

Equality not given much throught here
Given how feminism is equality, shoudln't 50% of this article be on men, rather than all of it on women? Isn't that prejudice?--92.236.212.150 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, funny trolling. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not even trolling really. No one would take it for a sincere opinion.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * [[File:Probirdrights.jpg]]—<font color="Aqua">Ryūlóng (<font color="SteelBlue">琉竜 ) 22:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm not sure exactly how we're supposed to "thrink" of anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 05:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Outside of the trolling, we could add more to the First Wave Feminism section. Many of their organisations were led, or even founded, by men. Many women in the 19th century were carefully taught throughout their childhood to avoid questioning authority (being "ladylike"), so were reluctant to join. This level of Feminism actually had a lot of help from Socialist groups, with some women leaders merging their organisations with worker's rights groups after getting the vote (one of Britain's "The Communist Party"s was founded this way).-- Forerunner (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)