Debate:Why is RationalWiki so misandristic?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by signed users.

I was surfing through the pages on gender, feminism and the infamous "men's rights advocacy" and couldn't help but notice the blatant misandry coming from this Wiki. Allow me to point out some examples that outrages me:

In the final paragraph:

"In some feminist circles, the term 'misandry' has been reclaimed to denote a contempt for men who would cause women harm with their sexist nonsense, or to jokingly parody the bizzaro-world that MRAs create where they are the oppressed and women are the oppressors. While it is true that most sane people would want to punch someone who thinks they are subhuman in the face, the difference is that many men are socially encouraged to harm women, but most women who use the 'misandry' meme are really are only joking."

How the hell are men "socially encouraged" to harm women? Domestic abuse and rape are blown way more out of proportion when a man abuses a woman than when a woman abuses a man!

Or in the second one:

"Because the term "sexism" is most legitimately used to denote discrimination against women in a larger system of power, no equivalent term exists for men; perhaps this is because men, as such, are not actually oppressed in Western society"

Absolute fucking bullshit. See the reference for more info.

I thus pose two questions:

1. Is RationalWiki dominated by angry women who wish to promote the feminist movement while descrediting its male counterpart?

2. IS RationalWiki misandristic?

[1] — Unsigned, by: ‎The Commander / talk / contribs

"Misandry." LOL. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You do know that RationalWiki is pre-dominantly male, right? And if you read the rest of that HuffPo article, that study is far from absolute. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Because men are biologically disposed to compete for sexual attention from females which leads them to fear attacking systematic assaults against their gender in the interest of promoting themselves as the most desirable partner. It's a primate thing - one which our powerful frontal lobes allow us to conquer - but which some men never grow out of - like a belief in a deity. Exposing misandry is dangerous to one's sexual selection potential because it shows women that you're not willing to baby them and goes against an ideology which many women actively promote and demand capitulated to in partners. Many feminists try to promote an ideology that implies that misandry and pedestalling women is gender equality. It is not. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
perhaps the article is quoting beliefs from its sources rather than being the authors own opinion ? feel free to edit it as long as you can support the changes you make. Hamster (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A year later[edit]

Ha, I've tried that before... They just get rolled back - even when I directly cite peer-reviewed academic sources. Everyone knows to have peer-reviewed sources on male issues, you must first have academics who produce that literature. Since the only academically acceptable form of gender study is anything that's not "heteronormative male" due to the false feminist assumption that, because a bunch of straight guys run most of society, all of society is dedicated to idolizing all straight men. All you have to do is sit down and watch a few hours of prime time TV (especially sit-coms) to see how men are regarded in society. I haven't seen a sit-com that treated men with much dignity since "Mad About You." Of course, I don't watch that much TV, so maybe I'm just missing it. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
A few points... (1) Your citation does not support the claim that men face systemic discrimination in society. The source said that the disparity in grades is believed to be due to different approaches taken by boys and girls, not by the way they're treated. (2) You misunderstand patriarchy. It's not "idolizing men" so much as enforcing a separation of the ways in which men and women, and masculine and feminine people are treated. Patriarchy generally rewards men and masculinity, not universally. (3) TV sitcoms are just that, sitcoms. Their purpose is to make you laugh. One of the easiest ways to get a laugh is to have a really stupid character. This does not say anything about how the writers actually view men, or people of any group in particular; they just need a "moron" character for laughs, and when they need a generic character "male" is always default. Furthermore, even if there were evidence of disparity here, TV shows are simply not reliable sources for any serious argument. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
A few more points I forgot in the above post. (4) Criticizing the concept of "misandry" does not equal hating men. I have seen no evidence that RationalWikians in general hate men. Can you produce any? (5) You claim that your edits "just get rolled back - even when I directly cite peer-reviewed academic sources", but I can't find any time that you did that, at least not in the edit history of the article we're all talking about. The closest I found was your citation on the talk page, which didn't get reverted, though we did disagree with what you said. And that was just to Wiktionary, not a scholarly source. Can you give an example of when we censored you despite your having provided citations? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
How dismissive of affirmative evidence of systematic misandry in the media. On the contrary, if women were always portrayed as a dolt, feminists would be up in arms (as they once were) over the media portrayal. Your dismissal of the caricature on the media is like if I said the same of feminist notions of "obectification" of women by portraying them as sexualized objects. Sure, you could tell them "it's just to make money" - but - like when Thunderf00t made the same argument about the Damsels trope, the person would be severely criticized for denying it. I haven't tried to alter gender relation pages because the ones on MRAs and the like indicate that I would be enormously unsuccessful. Only spent some time cleaning up Islamic apologetics and inaccuracies. I would agree with you that "patriarchy" or, rather, society in general, and, overtly, feminists, have a tendency to treat men and women as different.
Perhaps you don't buy into the "media effects how people think" argument, but you would be dismissing a huge swath of feminist criticism as complete nonsense. Of course, it is all nonsense - the media doesn't affect how people think - otherwise, most certainly, there would be companies that spent millions and millions of dollars trying to advertise products and services within media. Maybe I'll take a few swipes at the atrocious MRA pages and the like and see how long it takes to get reverted. User:Weaseloid is my main reverter. Some of it was fair, some not. There was some other guy - I don't remember who. I haven't edited for a while, so it's just based in experiences from several months back.
The MRA page is misanristic. It is full of ad hominems. It suggests that men have a "responsibility" to take care of unwanted children - relegating them to a place of indentured servitude. It actively promotes "The Good Men Foundation" which implies by its name that people who do not follow its anti-male (feminist) agenda are "bad men."
Ironically, there's not one mention of Warren Farrel on the MRA page. As he's N.O.W.'s deconverted, "damnatio memoriae," bastard child - I find that unsurprising. It leaves out all statistical arguments regarding why men have been disadvantaged in comparison to women such as warfare, job deaths, higher victimization rate. The very term "mansplaining" is as insulting as the term "bitching." And, finally, the idea that all heterosexual white men have "privilege" that exceeds that of all white females is simply false - unequivocally. You start from an assumption that is not a given and that is the foundation for the general misandristic disposition of the site. On the contrary, as far as white women go, western society has almost invariably endowed them with a myriad of benefits simply on account of their sex that have been completely denied men. I gave up on this site, however, when I noted that it was so "pro-Islam" which indicates that it's about as "rational" as climbing in a pit of cobras naked. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
"It suggests that men have a "responsibility" to take care of unwanted children"
In the end someone has to take care of the children once they are born, unwanted or not. Who is to do that? The father and the mother, obviously. Why would you see that any different?
"as far as white women go, western society has almost invariably endowed them with a myriad of benefits simply on account of their sex that have been completely denied men"
Well maybe. But how do you quantify those benefits? In the case of benefits that men have, those have at least been quantified by statistical studies of sexual violence, career prospects and other quantifiable things like that.
Maybe you should try to bring some scholarly references to back up your claims or show us where you have done so on this site (you can link the diff, you know). Nullahnung (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
80% of "sexual violence" cited by feminists has no violence component (force, restraint, or threat), this is one of the many ways feminism is misogynistic, by denying the agency of women. You can get that by analyzing the FBI's statistics on forcible rape in society which shows that about 4% of women will be raped with a violence component in their lives. Men, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly the victims of actual violence.
Whereas women were not allowed to engage in upper-class careers (something most men were denied as well, black and white), overwhelmingly they were not relegated to dangerous, violent, or harmful work whereas men were and still are relegated to that position. The position of women in society has always been one of comparative ease. And, no, men have no obligation to support a woman's choice to have a child when he doesn't want it - indentured servitude is a crime. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The amount of violence men are exposed to is often claimed as a feature of patriarchy, you know, just like the amount of sexual violence on women. Also, placing a limit on both how high women can climb and how low they can fall (in terms of dangerous jobs) is still placing limits on them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
About children. Children obviously have a need and a right for a father and a mother. The child should always come first in every decision, you see, once it is born, that is. If the father didn't want it, then maybe he should have used a condom. Once the baby is out, it has a right to live a decent life with adequate support by its parents. Is it fair that the mother can decide on having it, but the father has no say? No it isn't, but somebody needed to make the decision, and it's best if that somebody is the one who is actually giving birth. But once it is out, the responsibility is laid on both of them because this is a baby, a human being with basic rights. Nullahnung (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
A great deal of contemporary crime problems come from lack of fathers which is a direct result of feminist devaluation of marriage and proper child-rearing. 70% of minors who are incarcerated come from fatherless homes. 70% of single mothers live in poverty due to the denial of a 2nd income in their household. Currently, feminists have worked to make education unavailable to men at greater numbers than before by creating a hostile culture on campuses for men. This too, increases crime. Violence is a factor of the fact that society doesn't take men's issues seriously. Men resort to violence primarily when they have no other options but force. Violent victimization of men has doubled since feminism destroyed family structure and misandry became the norm. It is relatively normal for people who do not understand they are being systematically victimized by society to lash out in different ways, similar to how black crime is more frequent due to their severe continued oppression by whites. Of course men are somewhat more inclined towards violence by nature (not towards women - they primarily victimize each other), but there are no solutions that feminism or "patriarchy" can invent that does not transgress the rights of them as humans. Once again, I stress that the increase in violent crime is directly linked to the breakdown of traditional family structure which leaves boys with nearly no male role models other than the TV "role models" which are anything but. Men and women evolved together and woman evolved as a natural stabilizing factor in males. When feminism removed that, they were well aware that they were causing serious problems for society because they were attempting to subvert millions of years of evolution. Fortunately, they are seldom the victims of male violence. Additionally, men in Britain have been found to be the primary targets of domestic violence, not women, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics cites a nearly 40% rate of male victimization in intimate partner homicide - completely negating the assertion that violence is a "male-only" phenomenon. It is not. If women ruled all of society, things would be just as bad because violence arises primarily out of disparity and disparity arises out of economics which is inherent in the physical structure of nature.
A father should have an absolute right to deny paternity within a reasonable period of time of discovering he is in such a situation. You're a victim blamer - there's no reason a man should pay 18 years for a child he doesn't want for any reason. This is a systematic exploitation of men that puts his future at the mercy of someone who owes him no obligation to participate in the choice to be a parent. I'm pleased you could admit it wasn't "fair" that the man had no say. You can then see why it follows that it is reasonable to not force a man to work for 18 years and pay a woman who may or may not want anything to do with him when he was unprepared to be a father. All paternity obligations and rights should be renouncable by the male within 9 months of discovering that he has fertilized an oocyte. Sex should not obligate a man to pay a woman for 18 years any more than it should obligate a woman to pay a man for 18 years. There should be a time for both parties to decide individually if they are prepared to be a parent - anything short of that is extortion. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: college, for the most part men are "discouraged" from going to college well before actually starting to consider things like campus atmosphere: (the presentation/English of the link is not the best but it's just an overview and the facts seem good). -- (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
So because men are (in your warped biodeterminist view of the world) inclined to violence (and there's a misandrist statement if I ever saw one!), women have to assume a certain role in order to avoid that? How is that in any way fair! Basically, you're advocating blackmail on a societal level! If men have problem with their attitudes, then that's their problem, any spurious psycho-evo arguments be damned. It's telling that you see women as nothing more than tools, as "stabilizing factor" for men. Well, what about their own needs, and their own agency? Women don't exist for the sake of men - and it's exactly that what feminism is about. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people, too." Octo8 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say all men are inclined to violence. I'm pretty peaceful myself - never been in fights - like reading books (in many men's view I have been referred to as: "sissy," "geek," "fag," "loser," etc.). Women are rarely subjected to violence and it's usually men who protect them from it - sacrificing themselves - sometimes their lives - because he has been forced into a position of disposability for her . Feminists, as opposed to "the patriarchy," have no set of morals, ideals, and concern for their relationship to the opposite sex - they simply want independence - which is fine - but it also breaks the social contract which should allow men to also break the social contract. Whereas men have always scorned violence against women in society - women often avidly support female violence against men (for example on The View when the ladies laughed about the man whose wife chopped his penis off because he "dared" to file a divorce - or the advocacy of premeditated murder against alleged "abusers" - "premeditated" being the key word). Yes, all species have some inherent mating expectations programmed into them - humans are no exception - otherwise there would really be as large of a demand for pornography with a focus on the male as there is for pornography that focuses on the female (for example). Females in most primate species are takers and men givers and protectors. Females are usually much more idle than the male since she often is the primary caregiver for the young and must expend energy on that. Contrary to your assertion that "women are tools" - men are treated as tools in traditional "patriarchal" society. Women sit around and do whatever they want - similar to now - except they're now also misandristic and cruel to men rather than simply idle. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Careful, you're slipping towards self parody. You can only troll if you present as credible. Placeholder (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I could concentrate on the obviously silly part of your comment ("Grab your tinfoil hats, it's a conspiracy of cruel, misandrist, idle women!"), but you manage to become even worse than just silly. What do you mean with that men should also be able to break the social contract? If you mean by that they should not be expected, simply on account of them being male, to take over material support and protection for women, then feminism would actually agree with you there. After all, the basic idea of feminism is to break us out of social gender expectations. But that your next sentence is about men and violence on women makes this much more ominous. It makes it sound as if you say "If women don't fulfil their traditional roles, violence against them is justified." Octo8 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Since you resorted to a "tinfoil hat" ad hominem, I will no longer gratify you with responses as you are incapable of discussing things without resorting to personal attacks. However, I was raised in a group where the women controlled men's rights: Japan is currently exterminating its population because of feminist ideology. None of the women want to marry. As a result, their population is expected to collapse within the next 70 years. It will be the first culture utterly destroyed by feminist insistence that reproduction isn't actually important.
Oh yes, that bastion of feminism, Japan. That's totally whats causing the demographic problem. Totally not the combination of the First world slowing of childbirth, combined with an extremely casual racism that prevents any serious immigration. It's the Feminists. --Revolverman (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
80% of incidents which feminists define as "rape" have no force component. That's plenty for me to realize they're nothing but a bunch of abusive totalitarians. I think any man who falls victim to a "rape" complaint that has no force component has a full right to kill his abuser. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thats rather forceful there buddy. Good job! --Revolverman (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It's the only reasonable response to standards like this - any man who falls prey to abuse by proxy under these kinds of standards has an absolute right to self defense:
In self-defense of WHAT!? Reputation? Last time I checked those who are found guilty of Libel/Slander arn't hung. --Revolverman (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Their victims are when it comes to calling everything and C-sections "rape"... When 80% of all supposed "rapes" don't involve any force elements - it's called mass fraud and a crime against humanity. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, now I have to question where you got that 80% figure from. It seems like you are sloppily lumping all feminists into one big group and then trying to draw conclusions from it about them. Nullahnung (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Look up the FBI's statistics on forcible rape (threat, force, and/or restraint = forced). You'll come to the conclusion after analyzing the numbers that about 4.3% of women in their lives will be forcibly raped. RAINN puts the number at about 20%. That means for just under 80% of "rapes" - the "victim" is free to leave at any time whatsoever. I don't know why it doesn't sit well with me that 80% of "rapes" involve no force at all, no intent to rape on the part of the accused - but the whole thing seems fishy to me. Even if we're generous and say 20% of those "non-force" are statutory/child-abuse - you're still left with a large number of "rapes" where there is absolutely nothing done to the plaintiff to force her to be a part of any sexual act. That's problematic and extremely disturbing and it reeks. As far as I'm concerned, any and all men are perfectly justified in using force to protect themselves from female violence by proxy in sex that is not forced. If the government doesn't want to define rape in a way that includes the idea that women can be responsible for their choices - like the choice not to leave an unforced sexual activity - the burden falls on the people subject to state violence to defend themselves against injustice. No woman is hung or abused or thrown out of school for being promiscuous - men's lives are destroyed just by an accusation. I still cannot figure out why feminists advocate for a view of women's sexuality that precludes them from making any choices whatsoever in it. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
"That means for just under 80% of "rapes" - the "victim" is free to leave at any time whatsoever."
That's not what it means. It means that the victim is passed out (drugs, alcohol et cetera.), meaning that no force was required to rape them, or was, as you said, statutory. It's still non-consensual sex and therefore rape, but it wasn't done at gun point, knife point or while the victim was being forcibly held down. I also agree with you that people should be able to defend themselves, regardless of gender. I also fully understand your point about women being promiscuous, then lying about it later. This IS a problem and it DOES happen, often without punishment and sometimes with false imprisonment. Personally I think that any accusation of rape should carry the weight of that accusation, meaning that if it can be proven that the accusation was a lie then the accuser should face some jail time. Especially as some of the larger studies on false rape accusations have put the number anywhere between 2% and 24% of cases. obviously we need a more conclusive study, but this is most likely impossible. Hobby (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Women are responsible for their own choices when they drink. Every man has an absolute right to use any and all violence to prevent violence by proxy from a woman he sleeps with. Unlike you, I believe women have agency and choice and are responsible for their choices when they drink. The idea that a man should go to jail if he gropes his wife while the two of them sleep is sinister and a crime against humanity. All those who advocate it should be disposed of. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's hilarious how you fail to realize that your impotent violent posturing undermines any chance of your issues being taken seriously. Just in case it's not posturing: Do have in mind that once you get rid of freedom of speech, it cuts both ways. And it doesn't take much upper body strength to pull a trigger.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I'm defining drunk as anything from tipsy to jumping in the pool with your clothes on, while intoxication is anything from the inability to stand, to passed out. I have to agree with the nutter on the point that "women are responsible for their own choices when they drink". This does NOT however extend to someone passed out or unable to consent due to rape drugs or alcohol intoxication. If a person agrees to a sexual encounter while drunk, it's not rape. She agreed to it after all. There is no reason people cannot consent while drunk and conscious, even if they regret it later. Then the whole thing becomes a case of blaming the male victim who is accused of a crime he didn't commit. Anything beyond that however is rape. I don't really get where he's going with violence though. Seems a bit of a leap of logic. - Hobby (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Drunk people have... impaired agency. They are able to decide things, but not very competently compared to when they're sober. You should try to refuse sex from a drunk woman or man. Taking advantage of them in that state isn't right. Nullahnung (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well exactly, in fact, I've never met a person who has tried to press rape charges after sleeping with someone whilst drunk, but I have met many, many people who have been flat out groped by individuals they were not involved with under the excuse that they are both drunk, and even a few who have been raped due to them being in that state. All spreading this false narrative is putting more pressure onto women not to press charges --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
What in the fucking fuck. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This should be moved from Debate: to Mystery:. Minoreditor (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit puzzled by this discussion. If a woman is coerced, or unable to consent (drunk, drugged, sleep) then any man who has sex with her risks a rape allegation. SO what ! If you cant tell if a woman is consenting then keep it in your pants. Hamster (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I do think the article is wrong to the extent that it suggests that men are not 'oppressed' by conventional sex roles in Western (and just about every other) society. And though some people here are not fans of this style of explanation, it follows from the facts of evolutionary biology. If three quarters of the males of the troop die, the remaining males are likely capable of stepping into the dead males' roles, and the troop survives. If three quarters of the females die, that's a grave calamity that puts the survival of the group at some hazard. It's that simple: as Darwin sees it, women are precious vessels of life and males are disposable drones.
The universal social consequences of this truth are many and unpleasant: cultures (not just "Western society") tend to demand physical hardihood of men, and reserve for them the dangerous and dirty jobs, even while the competition for rank in social status hierarchies is mostly a guy thing as well. Even in the presence of equal opportunity laws, politicians and garbagemen will still mostly be male. The overweening importance of male-oriented status hierarchies in contemporary culture is, I admit, a problem; but rather than "patriarchy", I blame the two greatest catastrophes the human race has ever suffered: the agricultural revolutionWikipedia and the industrial revolutionWikipedia. These are the true enemies of egalitarianism.
There are social burdens that come everywhere with being a human male. And now you can see why complaining about them ain't going to do a lick of good in most places, and is likely to get you mocked like you've been mocked here. You're arguing against something beyond the reach of mere argument. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Who exactly are you answering? The original poster seems to be no longer around. The new one is likely beyond reason (check that part about killing above).--ZooGuard (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Anybody who wants to read it, then, I guess... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the read Smerdis. I certainly agree that "patriarchy" is not the problem. The idea that men being in charge ruins everything is a failure to grasp that men were not only put there by men, and women also being in charge does nothing to disperse basic physical attributes that encourages stereotypes. All of them have supporting wives and people who vote them into power. Why is it so impossible to get a female president? Women are voting now aren't they? Oh, that's right, they don't want the women put up for the role. I also encourage you to watch a documentary on this filmed in scandinavia (which is being torn apart by feminism btw). I'll try to remember what it was called. I'm also not sure that these burdens stem from the revolutions. I think it's far more closely related to averages and stereotypes that reflect a population as a whole but not an individual. Anyway, just my thoughts. - Hobby (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
File:Male tears.jpg
- David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Nobody gives a fig about what men complain about, nobody ever will, and it's useless to imagine this could change. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Violin.gifCry2.gif ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That's blatantly not true. There are support groups for men. Nullahnung (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I hear there are support groups for autists too. Way to miss the point. --Someon (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Bad analogy. We're talking about gender-specific support. Nullahnung (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)