Forum:Is RationalWiki under the control of Feminist activists?

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is one of many discussions that has descended into petty snipping and trolling idiocy on RationalWiki.
Here are the others, in case you are curious, bored, or enjoy pain:
- Community Standards/Revamp, January 2009 -- Community Standards/Revamp draft -- Requests for comment/HeartOfGold -- Community Standards/disruption -- HeartOfGold Sysop vote -- Site politics -- User:Copyvio's campaign to stop copyvio -- Serious Business -- Epic debate -- Cat fight -- Constitutional Convention, April 2008 -- Barroom brawls -- Voting Procedure -- Inactivity -- Property rights in WIGOs -- Nuclear Option -- Privacy clusterfuck -- The Rationalwiki Reform Society -- Community Standards/TK -- Drama dump -- The case of MarcusCicero -- Voting standards -- User rights and moderation revisited -- Make TK a sysop? -- Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union -- The mobocracy -- Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees -- Chicken coop/Archive37 -- Chicken coop -

Is it?[edit]

Many of the wikis regarding feminism cast the men's rights movements in an openly deriding and dismissive way without addressing the fact that these movements discuss legitimate and important interests. I recently updated a wiki page here and it was instantly changed back to the awful and factually incorrect description that was there before without discussion.

I thought rationalwiki was supposed to be rational. Not in support of a different kind of fundamentalism. — Unsigned, by: Iridiumoxide / talk / contribs 16:06, 15 December 2013‎

RationalWiki is managed by a not-for-profit foundation and has an open editing policy but is not NPOV. Your "updating" consisted of replacing an existing article with an entirely different one with a different POV which was contrary to the site's missions & contained some very dubious claims. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to say that RationalWiki is under the control of feminist activists. Ostensibly, our user base and the foundation believe in gender equality and other feminist principles.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The Foundation takes no position on content direction. Acei9 20:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The ratio of female to male editors at Rationalwiki is really low... there are actually very few female editors here, I can only think of 4 that are active: me, Godot, Kels, Proxima. There have never been many female editors here. I miss the other female editors who used to contribute: Toast, Mei, Dumpling... Refugeetalk page 19:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm a trans woman and moderately active. So there's that. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 11:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
"I thought rationalwiki was supposed to be rational. Not in support of a different kind of fundamentalism." Drink!
I suggest you look up our articles on radical feminism. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I do think that some of the loopier feminist doctrines are presented much too respectfully here; AFAIAC doctrines like patriarchy and rape culture are fairly elaborate examples of conspiracy theory and learned apophenia. The process of learning to believe in the Patriarchy is like the process of learning to see End Times prophecy in Middle Eastern headlines.
And, for whatever else it's worth, I'm old enough to remember when being in favor of the presumption of innocence was supposed to be the liberal thing to do. This is what frightens me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Beautifully and elegantly mansplained, Smerdis. SophieWilderModerator 10:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"The process of learning to believe in the Patriarchy is like the process of learning to see End Times prophecy in Middle Eastern headlines" You're a fucking moron. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, perhaps. Still, both require that you view the world through a filter of revealed truth that tells you what you ought to be noticing. One scans for "potential Antichrist" - "one world government" - "wars and rumors of wars" and so forth, the other for "defaults to male" - "privilege blindness" - "institutional sexism" &c. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't call privilege blindness some revealed truth, it's a form of observational selection bias. I'm not sure what your point about presumption of innocence is about - we still presume innocence in cases of rape (I assume this is what you're talking about). What the third-wave feminist perspective is that we shouldn't have "presumption of being a liar" with respect to the victim - or worse, "presumption of deserving it" (as if one was to report a burglary and for people to immediately say "well, you must have let the thieves in. Did you lock the shop? You should have locked it better. Clearly you shouldn't have had such tempting stuff in your shop."). Actually read into these concepts rather than just reading the titles and assuming you can figure them out from there. Scarlet A.pngbomination 18:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
If she says "he raped me" and you presume he's innocent, the only way that can be is if she was lying. If you presume she was telling the truth, then you're presuming that the truth is "he raped her," or in other words, "he's guilty." (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC) realize that you're responding to a conversation that has been dead for over eight months, to a comment that's over a year old, right? Noir LeSable (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It reminds me too much of "believe the victims", and I remember how well that turned out last time.
But it seems to me that most of these beliefs require both special training in identifying issues in otherwise innocuous things -- that's the link with end times belief -- and an evangelical drive to persuade others to relate to their world through the same anger-tinted lenses. These are grievances that must be nurtured, and an ideology designed to nurture them. Life's too short for such things. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's more like learning to see past our own biases. That's what the scientific method is about, isn't it? Coping with our own biases? This argument could just as easily run that "special training in identifying issues in otherwise innocuous things" is necessary to conduct experiments (otherwise the results are invalid) and so science isn't worth the trouble. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 11:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Smerdis, that makes no sense. Do feel free to try again. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense. How India gets viewed in Western news is a perfect example of this: men are essentially on the leash of their mothers, yet that is patriarchy. A rape gets highly publicized and puts people onto the streets, yet rape culture is to blame. -- (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was a well known fact that RationalWiki is controlled by the CIA/KGB/Mossad/Freemasons/Illuminati/Knights Templar/Trilateral Commission/Reptoids/Grays and shills for the Government of Liechtenstein. Why should we make an exception for "Feminist activists"? That would be sexist.--CIA (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, long for the days when the only faction in need of sycophancy and obeisances were our aspie fascist overlords. Life was much simpler then. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Or when the place was a well-known manarchist brospace. Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Smerdis, if you really see patriarchy as a type of conspiracy theory, you really aren't understanding the concept. It's a group psychology issue, among other things -- we haven't found any societies yet that weren't patriarchal, and it requires a major amount of effort to change the course of whole societies. As fair as it may seem on paper, wiping the slate isn't enough to get rid of inequality. EVDebs (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You are right. "Rape culture" is pure conspiracy theory, but "patriarchy" is either a conspiracy theory or an inevitable fact of human existence, depending on what you mean. As you note, "we haven't found any societies yet that weren't patriarchal"; mightily suggesting there ain't none, and that "patriarchy" in one sense is another human universal. A belief that there can be a human society that is not "patriarchal" in this sense is in one sense pseudoscientific, as is attributing the fact of patriarchy to some defect in human mores or cultures. The conspiracy theory comes in when people imagine that patriarchy is a product of culture alone and can be changed by politics or persuasion, in other words. I'm not even unsympathetic to attempts to diminish the effects of patriarchy, or rather, of male dominance-seeking and hierarchy-building behaviors: but we'd need to understand more clearly what we're up against. Movements that seek to resist that understanding are specifically unhelpful. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • sigh* Smerdis, last time I got into an argument with you, it went nowhere, so I'm not going to continue this conversation. Do try to find out what those terms actually mean or stop arguing against something you have no desire to understand. EVDebs (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You think rape culture is a conspiracy...and now having checked the talk page, I see you do. So you deny that normalization and excusing of rape and sexual assault does occur and is propagated in mass society? And if you do, are you American? Or a member of the anti-skepchick types? --Castaigne (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Got me; I'm an American. And, as I noted, that article is full of odd notions; it apparently considers the clinical detachment of emergency medical personnel preserving key legal evidence as a problem. (And it might be one, but not if your underlying argument is that rape is under-prosecuted.) The "normalization and excusing of rape and sexual assault" apparently includes gallows humor, and that goes much too far as well; any time an activist starts trying to tell you what jokes are forbidden, you're in trouble. "Rape culture" is an idea from Susan Brownmiller, who indeed put forth the argument that all men, by the mystic communion of masculinity, participate in rape and benefit from rape being present as a threat: and that's what I would indeed call a conspiracy theory. If we're here for debunking it ought to be in our sights. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly why RW needs to have a discussion about narrowing the mission and moving away from politics except where it obviously intersects with religion, pseudo(hard)science and woo--things like teaching creationism, letting homeopaths pass themselves off as health care professionals, etc. I am a Marxist and a feminist; I could, though I don't, make a claim about capitalists or imperialist forces that comes off much in the same way as your reading of feminist analyses of the patriarchy; make it come off like an conspiracy theory that needs debunking, instead of a historical/social force that operates independently of any individual agency. At the end of the day,unlike with talking about homeopathy or evolution, there are no numbers, no falsifiable experiments, that we can use to back up a worldview. Political arguments are not solved in the laboratory, and the humanities and social sciences do not work the same way hard sciences do. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. Nullahnung (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I would offer the particular counter that should we exclude such "politics" from the mission, it invariably would allow certain things to fester and go unchallenged. It's become clear that since RW turned a bit more third-wave-feminist in recent years that we're actually a minority. If this was taken away, we'd be opening the doors to being controlled not by intersectionalist thinkers, but your privileged-majority types with a strong persecution complex. In that respect, I don't think we can limit the politics.
Secondly, evolution and homeopathy are solved problems. There's a "party line" of sorts that self-declared skeptics can tow. As a result the quantity of actual critical thinking in some atheists/skeptics/rationalists is relatively low - they check the authorities and repeat it verbatim without really checking. I know, I've done that too. When it comes to feminism and politics, there is no party line to follow, it's a fresh game to think about. The cutting edge of the skeptical "movement" (quote-marks because I know many aren't fond of that particular word) is in this region. I think we would be stupid to attempt to avoid it. Scarlet A.pngsshole 15:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It's TOE not tow. As in "toe the line". I am so embarrassed for you. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
And I am an American as well, which makes me wonder how you don't see rape culture when I, as a white male, find it all around me. While Brownmiller first put forth the idea of rape culture, it has been expanded upon and refined since 1975. There is plenty of disagreement over what defines a rape culture and how a society would meet that criteria. Your reference to the "mystic communion of masculinity" and the verbiage afterwards indicates that your understanding of rape culture dates back to obsolete 2nd wave radfem writings. An effort to upgrade your understanding to modern day conceptuals would be recommended before you attempt debunking.
In reference to your assertion that gallows humor is to be forbidden, that is not held true across the board at all. While there factions that wish to eliminate gallows humor from the record, there are factions that do not. An argument could be made that it is appropriate to bar such humor and I think such a debate is warranted. Some jokes are not to be tolerated. Having grown up in the Deep South, I find n---- jokes to be verboten. My response to someone telling one is to follow it with a fist to the nose, then a left cross, and then telling them to get their Klan ass out of my sight. I do not consider forbidding those jokes in my presence - or in society in general - to be "trouble". I hope you would feel the same.
Or perhaps you wouldn't. For all I know, you could be terribly fond of blackface. But I wouldn't recommend engaging in that humor around me. --Castaigne (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Guys... read this:
I feel like you are abusing the term. Nullahnung (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You are of the opinion that humor involving rape or racism would not be gallows humor?...ah, no. I see what you are driving at. Very well. Black humor, then. --Castaigne (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Our nominal mission includes "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." Here we are discussing the suppression of jokes as if making an issue of such things isn't entirely out of bounds. That's a problem.

The doctrines of rape culture and sexual objectification are parts of an elaborate ideological argument in favor of censorship, because it's the universal assumption among those people that human male sexuality is dangerously predatory and needs to be shamed and tamed. There's a stiff dose of human exceptionalism and left-creationism inherent in the idea that human sexualities can be remade according to ideological agendas as well; the feminist agenda is reparative therapy for all men. It won't work, of course, but I suppose the self-inflicted misery we as a society will suffer in the course of learning so may be necessary for the lesson. It still strikes me as odd that we'd have such credulous articles about authoritarian doctrines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're just projecting your own prejudices onto feminists without understanding what they're actually saying, with what appears to be a disturbingly large amount of evo-psych determinism (i.e. "boys will be boys amirite?") as an attempt to argue that feminism is a waste of time. No one who matters is trying to cut your balls off, mkay? EVDebs (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. On the other hand, my understanding was that the main reason we can know that reparative therapy does not work is that it is attempting to change people's sexuality by conditioning and argument, but that sexuality is bred in the bone and not susceptible to change by those methods. Much of feminist doctrine - "sexual objectification", the "male gaze", and so forth - strikes me as a hostile caricature of male sexuality. But while the sexualities of gays and transgendered people can't be changed by conditioning or argument, I am apparently required to believe that it works on heterosexual men, and that the result of the campaign will be genuine social change rather than hypocrisy and petty tyranny. And so here we are, talking about what jokes are allowed to be told. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Then you're definitely missing the point. It's not that feminists want male sexuality to change -- that would be futile, as you say -- they want us to understand how women perceive it. Ultimately third-wave feminism is a "mile in their shoes" movement. We are being asked to see the world from their standpoint and moderate our behavior accordingly. The analogy with "reparative" therapy isn't really a workable one except on a very superficial level; it's the equivalent of asking gay men to wear condoms and be selective in their choice of partners, or asking a sociopath to develop a sense of other peoples' morality in lieu of the conscience they weren't born with. Judging the entirety of feminism by a caricature of an obsolete, extremist sector of the movement is totally wrong. EVDebs (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my moral compass was in fact formed in large measure from the movements that came out of the 1960s: civil rights, free speech, anti-draft, anti-war, sexual freedom, gay rights, and yes, women's rights. This new version of feminism, whatever you call it, is a betrayal of all that. It isn't liberating. It encourages a prissy sense of entitlement. It encourages censorship, and that's always going too far.
I certainly would not pretend to tell gay people how they should have sex or choose their partners. In my value system, that crosses a line nobody should cross. I hope we'd all recognize that a movement that wanted to moralize all this, to shame and blame gay men for unprotected sex, to name promiscuous gays and make their sexuality a matter of public comment, would rightly be seen as a hostile and bigoted act. Well, it is. And so's this brand of 'feminism'.
Feminist demands that men keep their eyes downcast, not speak unless given leave, and suppress their taste in entertainments, all because their sexuality is predatory and violent -- this does not look like liberation to me. What it looks like to me is an attempt to roll back the achievements we won in the fields of free speech and open sexuality. I will defend those achievements. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, we don't have to shame ANYONE for unprotected sex and promiscuity, but it would be nice to remind everyone that safe sex is the more responsible option. Nullahnung (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
No, we don't have to shame anyone for unprotected sex and promiscuity. In fact it's none of anyone's business. That's what I think we're losing sight of. (And people are also allowed to have other preferences besides the preservation of health and avoidance of disease, but that's another argument entirely.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This is why I should know better than to argue with you. You don't understand and you don't care that you don't. EVDebs (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It's strange. I've encountered this exact type of frozen thinking in regards to feminism previously. Very recently, in fact. --Castaigne (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The universal assumption of people who hold to the doctrine of rape culture and sexual objectification is that "male sexuality is dangerously predatory and needs to be shamed and tamed"? I'll speak bluntly: you're full of shit and lying through your teeth. The only people who believe that are TERFs and female supremacists and possibly 2nd Wave feminists who have been in cryogenic sleep since the death of Dworkin. That is not in rape culture or sexual objectification. That's not even common thought among current feminism, period, and current feminism in general holds to rape culture. Stop talking like an MRA.
Feminism today does NOT demand that men "keep their eyes downcast". Or forbid them to speak. Or suppress taste in entertainment. It simply gives consequences for mansplaining, for acting like a misogynistic ass in public, and for otherwise thinking that your viewpoint should be tolerated.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Tell me, what free speech and open sexuality do you think is actually being oppressed here? Are you pissed that you can't make rape jokes at work? That wolf-whistling gets you flack? Mansplaining to a woman that they don't have it so bad, because hey, nearly a century ago they couldn't vote? Let's get down to the brass tacks; you provide me with specifics. Let's get off these nebulous and meaningless generalities; what's REALLY chafing your hide? --Castaigne (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
"Feminist (sic) demands that men keep their eyes downcast, not speak unless given leave, and suppress their taste in entertainments, all because their sexuality is predatory and violent." Can you actually name some people who do this? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 01:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Smerdis can. I probably could find a few, but that's because I frequent Fundies Say The Darndest Things a lot. --Castaigne (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I've read your essays, Smerdis, and I like that we can discuss issues like these on Rationalwiki because your views on gender need to be debated. You're unfairly characterising feminism as a kind of identity politics akin to nationalism, whereas mainstream, 3rd wave feminism simply argues that we should be allowed to behave however we like no matter our sex or gender. Freedom of speech, science and rational thought are not separate from feminism; feminism has relied on them to expose traditional beliefs about sex and gender that have helped to shape our societies through the centuries as nothing more than superstition or pseudoscience.
I'm a sex-positive, genderqueer/trans human being who would be vilified by the 2nd wave 'radical feminists' you're using as a straw man for feminism in the 21st century. We've come a long way since then, and we ridicule self-proclaimed feminists when they ally themselves with the forces of authoritarianism and censorship that you hate, not because they're feminists, but because they are pathetic contradictions walking on the fringe. Vajrapani (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Examining essay. I think he's full of shit. Freedom is not always good; the freedom to murder at will would be a prime example. Freedom is simply value-neutral. Social control is not bad; laws are social control and provide order in society, such as laws against murder. Social control itself is value neutral. So right there, it's a whole lot of nope nope nope Nopetopus. And I really don't believe in that slack philosophy. Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
I don't agree with this whole "evolved roles will always out in the end" either. It implies deterministic behavior based on biology, which eliminates any possibility of control by human rationality and logic over instinctual/emotional tendencies. Which is crap; the "ease" factor of celibacy, for instance, is greatly affected by how much control you are required to exert over yourself.
Right about peasants. Wrong about gender. Obviously uninformed on the intersection of gender, biological sex, and sexual identity. And the talk page is revealing. EVDebs is right; Smerdis will never accept anything other than what he says, regardless of evidence provided. --Castaigne (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I live in a country where punishment, blaming, shaming, and fingerpointing are utterly out of control. We imprison more people for longer periods under worse conditions than anywhere else in the civilized world. We can't even suffer a hurricane without looking for someone to blame.[1]
So to hell with "consequences". And I see feminism, at least in these forms, to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. Feminism teaches people to cultivate grievances over things that are beyond the power of mere human endeavor to change. All such agitations help build a worse world rather than a better one. A "feminism" that "simply argues that we should be allowed to behave however we like no matter our sex or gender" would be one I could get behind wholeheartedly, provided that the leave to behave however we like applies equally to all. But that kind of feminism is not what I see on tap in articles like sexual objectification.
Yes, I tend to favor biological explanations; I do try to operate under a seamless web of human moral inability. I think that many of the sex differenced behaviors that feminists tend to complain about are in fact biologically based. And demanding that one sex bear a greater burden of social restraint of innate drives is not building a better world for anybody, either, and strikes me as likely to end badly. Understanding the limits set by biology, and the limits set by viable historical societies, to the kinds of human social organizations we can sustain is empirical and important. Evolutionary psychology just explains too much too elegantly for me to conclude that its basic premises are wrong. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I live in the same country, brohame. The judicial system may be out of control, though I would prefer to say it has significant problems. Imprisonment is an issue, especially private prisons. But there can never be enough blaming, shaming, and finger-pointing, for it is by the method of inquiry and assignment of judgment that Fact becomes known. No matter how painful it becomes. And that pain is necessary, because it is the purity of flame.
You state that human nature is beyond the power of mere human endeavor to change. You are wrong; it is known as the rule of law. And it works. We are not the barbarians of pre-civilization and we slowly become more refined with every generation. And your suggestion of a feminism in which everyone should be allowed to behave however they like...that's horrifying. That means that if I want to go to work, demote all the women to menial positions, and demand blowjobs every day for them to keep their jobs...well, have at it! No consequences, man! No shaming, not even a harsh word against it, because that's how I want to behave and that should be OK because I want it, according to you.
Fuck that. I WANT consequences. I want there to be consequences for guys like this.
Your charge that one sex bears a greater burden of social restraint of innate drives is unfounded and WRONG. Like, wrongity wrong. I am male, dude. No "greater burden" has been given to me. I don't find the strictures placed by feminist doctrine to be onerous or even mildly difficult to do. That you find it to be a "greater burden" is actually rather troubling to me. Why? Because it tells me you have problem controlling yourself. That you probably think you have a rape instinct. There is no such thing, you know. It takes no effort to control yourself. And finally, evolutionary psychology at this time has many, many problems with it that relegate it to pseudoscience. See the common criticisms at the very page you link. You should be immediately wary of "elegant explanations".
Try this on for size. You claim there are limits set by biology. How is it that I find it so easy to ignore those limits, while you appear to be a slave to them? --Castaigne (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not that I or anyone else is a "slave" to biology: but in the long run I don't think it's a good idea to bet against basic human drives, or expect everyone to do the same. Yes, we can use law to make war against biology and force people to radically change their habits. Once we choose to do so, it's only a matter of how much surveillance we're going to need, and how many people we'll need to kill for the cause. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree completely. The entirety of civilization is built on "betting against basic human drives" and expecting others to follow. Every single change in human nature, every change in our habits throughout recorded history is based on that. If we weren't able to be successful in that, then we'd still be naked in the forests tearing each others throats with our teeth, like the rest of the animals.
Am I to take it then that you have an issue with civilization in general, since it goes against the basic human biological drive of Nature, Red in Tooth and Claw? --Castaigne (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
In what ways has human nature changed?
Humans don't naturally sit naked in the forests tearing each others throats with their teeth; that's just Americans. We do have many social drives; we are capable of some reciprocal altruism, at least when we perceive some kind of social bond with the others. We have moral instincts, one of which enforces these obligations and a sense of fair play.
Those moral insticts are also dangerous triggers. We can also learn to turn our programmed reactions to dung, rot, and filth against our neighbors; at various times in history, people have been persuaded to turn this routine against Jews, Blacks, and cigarette smokers. We're also capable of moral panic reactions, where we mob somebody, attempting to encourage violence against them, to drive them out. Civilization is actually a process of moral calming. We do good when we tell our neighbors that it's stupid and none of their business to find Blacks, Jews, or gays disgusting. We stand up for the person who is getting mobbed and punished, not on the side of the crowd. That's what makes civilization possible, in my opinion: the dialing back of disapproval, the abandonment of excuses to hate our neighbors, or to disapprove of their behavior.
The flavors of feminism I reject, I reject because they are not helping here. They're about stirring up moral disapproval, encouraging mobbing and punishing behaviors, telling us we ought to be disgusted. It seems to surprise them when their targets are moved to retaliate in kind as well. I recognize that a certain level of this kind of agitation is probably made inevitable by human nature as well; but that doesn't mean I have to welcome it. It's a threat to civilization, a threat to its fragile foundation of civil peace, and a threat to turn back the progress we've made in freeing our neighbors from society's disgust and disapproval. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
In what ways has human nature changed? We have developed the ability to control our instincts/emotions and not be slaves to them as animals are. We have developed logic and rational thought. We have instituted rule of law (of various types) and created civilization. It's not that hard.
And I disagree with you complete. There is no moral instinct for reciprocal altruism. Or for obligations for social bonds. And especially for a "sense of fair play". History does not support this.
Civilization is not a process of moral calming. It is instead the process of enforcing order on the chaotic world of Nature by means of force, whether that be by force of arms or force of mind. Justice has nothing to do with civilization. In fact, to have civilization be "morally calming", the best method is to eliminate dissent and enforce a complete unity of thought. To eliminate disapproval entirely. But this does not mean that it is "good"; far from it. Silence of disapproval is also silence of dissent, silence of any attempt to deviate from the party line. But you know this anyway, even if you refuse to admit it.
Your vision of a "free society" is a civilization without justice, which while not totalitarian, enforces custom as law. You would turn a blind eye to injustices in order to preserve your peace, because bringing these injustices to light will not make people happy. I disagree with you vehemently and completely. Such agitation, such pointing out of injustice, of how injustice has become inculcated into society, We should be publicly disapproving of injustice, we should visit the consequences of other's actions upon them - and civilization will be the stronger for it by being tempered in the forge.
Or not. But if a civilization cannot survive its bigotries, its assumptions, its injustices being brought to the light of day, then that civil peace you so treasure is a false one and that civilization deserves to be doomed and replaced. --Castaigne (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
What if civilization is also human nature? You are quick to narrow the meaning of human nature to just be animalistic instincts. Nullahnung (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Civilization is defined as "an advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions." That isn't human nature. That's learned behavior, having to be kept up and taught throughout the generations. If it were human nature, civilization would be instinctual to us. It isn't. --Castaigne (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
You have a fair point, one may see human nature as nothing more than what is instinctual to us and not by extension what arises naturally out of our interactions (which would make civilization part of human nature). Yours is also a definition of the word that makes sense to me, though it is not the only one. Nullahnung (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that civilization is one possibility within human nature, myself. Obviously, nothing that humans have been observed doing is made impossible by human nature. And of course individual people can suppress biological drives for temporary advantage as well. I still question whether it's reasonable to bet consistently against their expression. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

*facepalm* <-- This is all I have to say to the OP. - LucidFox (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you see this as a problem?[edit]

I say to the title question: Sure it is. Why do you see this as a problem? --transResident Transfanform! 05:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the implication that it's actually second-wave radfems rather than intersectionalists. The former would be a bad thing, because of the inherent transphobia and the sexuality discrimination that comes with those people. Those types make an excellent example for MRA-types or generic misogynists to throw around as the de facto class of "feminist" because, indeed, they are genuinely awful. But that isn't the case here and we should have the ability to thoroughly fight against that straw man. Scarlet A.pngsshole 14:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
One difficulty is that most of the contested concepts -- "rape culture", at least -- are the creation of those "genuinely awful" "second wave radfems". I know Susan Brownmiller invented "rape culture". ("Sexual objectification" in its current sense is the same way, but the idea goes back to Kant, at least.) I'm not sure even that the "second wave" was that awful; I was reading Gloria Steinem in junior high school and Germaine Greer in high school, for the same reason that I was also reading Eldridge Cleaver and Abbie Hoffman and The Greening of America (lol). By my estimation, Brownmiller broke something; it didn't seem to be quite that hostile before her, or maybe this was the first time I noticed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


  1. 1

Here's an interesting experiment we could do. We have plenty of murder rampages here in the US. Many fortunately end either in the suicide of the perp, or his death at the hands of the police. I find that when the actual perp is put beyond the reach of human vengeance, Americans will start looking for scapegoats. We will blame the parents. We will blame local merchants. We will blame school guidance counselors. All of these people had better lawyer up. When the actual killer is placed beyond the reach of punishment, we draw lots.

Smerdis is still pulling it out of his ass.[edit]

Smerdis I see you've been asked at least twice on this page to provide examples of feminists demanding that men "men keep their eyes downcast, not speak unless given leave, and suppress their taste in entertainments, all because their sexuality is predatory and violent." Shit or get off the pot. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought we needed reminders of the Elevatorgate kerfluffle, which I am entirely a stranger to, and really don't have a dog in that fight. My only question is why this incident - a man makes a crude pass at a woman in an elevator, she turns him down, and they both walk away - was imagined to lead to productive discussion on the Internet. (The international human rights tribunal at the Hague would probably have been a better forum for this grievance.) And yes, it appears to me that it's an instance of men must keep their eyes down and not speak unless spoken to. How has raising this as an issue for public debate improved the store of human happiness? When you politicize basic human drives, it brings out the best in everyone, it seems.
Suppressing taste in entertainments? Here's a campaign to suppress magazines. Remember Robin Morgan's phrase, "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice"?1 The ijjit "Christian anarchists" who stole cheerleader calendars were canting that "Every day on the way to work, we had to walk by this kiosk. Each passing encounter forced a specific sexuality and beauty standard upon us, and we couldn’t take it anymore," and replaced them with signs that said “Sorry, misogyny is out of stock.”
There. I can use Google to find out things we already know. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me use small words so you understand. "Elevatorgate" is not about suppressing internal desires, keeping eyes downcat, not speaking unless given leave, or the suppression of taste in entertainments." it's about behaviour. it's about teaching creepy old men not to bother strange young women in close quarters late at night. Would you do what that guy did? That doesn't make you "acting on your natural desires" or something. It makes you impolite. Don't be impolite. Children need to learn that, and so some men.
Suppressing the "lad's mags" and anti-porn campaigns are one way to think about how to deal with what happens when power and capital intersect with the objectification of the female body. I'm sorry if your ability to jerk it while looking at a picture of tits is being threatened, but, given the way in which capital and power skew the representation of half of humanity in the media, it's a debate worth having. Don't worry, you'll probably win that debate and your Saturday nights will be safe.
So far you have a creepy old guy and chronic masturbators as the people you want to stand up for, and you've yet to actually name an actual feminist theorist. If I write thousands of characters denouncing political ideology, I tend to have the names of some of the key thinkers driving that ideology on the tip of my tongue. All you know of feminism appears to be cherry-picked from Yahoo News and an article on this website about a creepy old man and a young woman. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You missed Robin Morgan (wp:Robin Morgan). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
What did she do to piss you off, besides have an opinion on porn? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Not much. Sisterhood Is Powerful probably remains worth reading, though I read it years ago.
Still, it's interesting. You started with a request to "provide examples of feminists demanding" that "men keep their eyes downcast, not speak unless given leave," and "suppress their taste in entertainments". My response includes an overreaction against a clumsy pass, and several examples of feminists seeking censorship. There go the goalposts. You didn't even notice that I did, in fact, name a feminist theorist. I am finding, mostly, more evidence that political argument is not good for you, and doesn't contribute to human happiness nearly as much as masturbation does. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's see. The cockmonkey shouldn't have made a crude pass in the first place? I think that's a good reason for discussion on the Internet. Productive is in the eye of the beholder. Also, we don't raise issues for public debate to "improve the store of human happiness". That has nothing to do with public debate. I really don't where you get this bullshit from; care to share with the class?
Let's make this clear: You seem to have a lot of absolutes about how you think. Biology IS destiny! Genetics ARE determinism! Public debate MUST contribute to human happiness! Where exactly do you get this bullshit from? --Castaigne (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I started by asking you about the eyes downcast and the not speak unless given leave. I still haven't seen you provide evidence for that claim. The closest you came was to bring up a reaction to exceedingly inappropriate behavior on the part of an old man in an elevator. If you honestly believe that strange men should be able to walk up to women they barely know in a confined space late at night and invite them into a room with a bed and not get called out for their bullshit, you're nothing more than an entitled child. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem namecalling on top of moving the goalposts. I don't really hate to be condescending - there's a part of me that rather enjoys it, but I know it's wrong - but for me this discussion has turned into a perfect workshop on the harm done by ideologies designed to fuel and feed a sense of righteous grievance. Even as the Elevatorgate incident was a trivial matter of minor social friction until it was filtered through the doctrine of "sexual objectification" that turned it into a cause to take to the Internet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Where am I moving the goalposts? You've yet to provide evidence for your original claim. You say that men being asked to keep silent unless spoken to or to keep their eyes downcast. By whom? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I do read the Elevatorgate incident as an objection to being looked at and spoken to, but leave that aside for the moment. I take it we agree that the several incidents of feminists wanting to censor entertainment are in fact incidents of feminists wanting to censor entertainment. Your reply seems to be that sticking up for masturbators is wrong for some reason. (But, as Jim Morrison said, we got the numbers.) I'm sure this is a logical fallacy too; then again, logic is just the clip on tie your backbrain puts on when it's going for a job interview.
That it might have been impolite, I will concede. I would not do it, myself; I hate to even make people's telephones ring. Both personalities and cultures may vary widely on what's appropriate here. My chief point in bringing it up is that I do think she overreacted; that of course is pure opinion. I do think it's more certain that beliefs about "sexual objectification" led her to believe the fellow was more of a threat than he turned out to be. She was moved to take this grievance to the Internet, and arguing on the Internet brings out the best in everyone, of course.
"Sexual objectification" is a part of an interpretive framework that just about everything can be perceived through. It is designed to cultivate anger and fear. It leads people to annoy their neighbors by making political objections to pinup calendars or video games. I call that a conspiracy theory; whether it is or not, it does not strike me as a belief system that will foster domestic peace, human happiness, or progress towards equality. I think this whole body of lore is something everybody, including all women, are better off without. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please name me some feminists who want men to walk with their eyes downcast and to only speak when spoken to. Also, there is an important distinction between advocating to prohibit the production of certain commodities, like stroke mags, and demanding that someone "suppress their taste in entertainments." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
One, Rebecca Watson, apparently. Two: no, there is no difference whatsoever. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no difference whatsoever? That is a lie. You know it is a lie. Why do you lie? What is your purpose in lying? --Castaigne (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Censorship is censorship is censorship, and all proposals for censorship are wrong for the same reason. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the sale and dissemination of child porn be just fine so long as you don't produce it yourself? Why should pedophiles be required to suppress their taste in entertainment? --Kels (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It would appear that pedophiles are another group of our neighbors that we're stuck with. Whether it's better or not for us to leave them with their fantasies is IMO debatable, but I'm inclined to say may as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Christ, that's fucking sick. You do realize what you imply here? That we should not "censor" the sale and dissemination of child porn? Even though you are well aware that the production thereof involves the sexual abuse and degradation of a child unable to consent? That condoning the sale and dissemination also requires the condoning of how it's made?
Y'know it's bad enough that you're a creepy aging 1960s radical. It's worse that you're possibly a creepy aging 1960s radical pedo-raper supporter too. And in the name of "free speech", natch. Talk about shades of fucking Brett Kimberlin.
Just a random thought about how harm might be best contained. When I'm told I'm sick and unclean, I know I'm doing good. FWIW, your government probably republishes child pornography for use in sting operations; mine does. I don't see a difference. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
No, Brosef Stalin, when you are told you are sick, that does not mean you are "doing good". You are disgusting. You're all about the freedom of the pedophiles. You tout biological determinism, arguments straight out of The Bell Curve, and say that men can't help but fuck whatever crosses their path, which is the old rape instinct argument. You put me in mind of a cross between Jimmy Savile and a romanticist mourning the Long Lost Golden Age when nothing was standardized, men were men, and women where in the kitchen. No, Smerdis, it is not a good thing that you remind me of someone who idolizes the good old days of the 1960s or 1970s. Take your creepy nostalgia and pedo-love and kindly fuck off. --Castaigne (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson does not want all men to walk with their eyes downcast and to only speak when spoken to. She wanted one stranger to refrain from behaving inappropriately when she was alone late at night in a confined space. And yes, there is a difference. There are many desires that people may have that have been made impossible or difficult to fulfill. Seeking to limit the availability of a desired commodity is not the same as seeking to limit the desire itself. it's not that subtle a distinction. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever rules might be needed to put in place to prevent such offenses, can we at least agree that we're dealing with an authoritarian belief system that seeks to impose censorship? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
No. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 05:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
K. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow. You do see that that's an entirely unreasonable sort of concession to ask for, right? If that's what it's going to take to get to some sort of common ground with you, then brother you've gone around the bend. TallMan (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If they're "seeking to limit the availability" of "lad mags", I think it's been established that they favor censorship. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
1) Limiting availability of something != censorship. 2) Not sure where you're getting the idea that contemporary (non-radical, non-second wave) feminists are trying to limit the availability of lad mags. I know plenty of mainstream feminists and feminist voices who find such things offensive, but none who've tried to limit their availability. 3) Even if it was true that there was some significant effort on the part of feminists to limit availability of lad mags, there's a huge gulf between that and feminism being "an authoritarian belief system." TallMan (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If what you say is true, then I propose that we should limit the availability of biology textbooks and biology training on the grounds that biology promotes the immoral belief that one species evolves from another instead of being created by God. I simultaneously claim that this is not a call for censorship. It's just a call to limit the availability of certain immoral data as much as possible. (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved in an argument to the dictionary, but as far as I am concerned attempting to diminish the availability or visibility of any publication because of disapproval of its contents is censorship. During my lifetime, people have been prosecuted for publishing things like Lady Chatterly's Lover and Fanny Hill; I have not forgotten this, and the right remains under constant attack. And as far as I am concerned, advocacy of censorship is one of the identifying features of an authoritarian belief system. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a good thing you're not trying an argument to the dictionary, because your notions of what counts as censorship or authoritarian are idiosyncratic at best. By your definition, a bookstore owner failing to stock a certain book because of its contents would count as censorship. But that's ludicrous; the fact that an individual retailer does or doesn't carry a book is irrelevant to whether or not it's censored.
I note, also, that you haven't provided any evidence that there are significant numbers of mainstream feminists trying to limit availability of "lad mags" in a pernicious way. Looking over this page, this whole "making claims with insufficient evidence" thing seems to be a habit of yours.TallMan (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Some took the trouble to start a website and found an organization to 'limit availability of "lad mags"'; that much seems certain. A bookstore not carrying a book may or may not be censorship; if he was pressured not to by some kind of campaign I'd say so. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Who? What organization? What website? Citations, please. TallMan (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────, linked above. Nobody reads.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Most responsible governments limit the availability of pornography. The age of the participants and the recipients tends to be major factors here. The big question is where you draw the line. This is a significant debate and, even in the land of the free, there are limits imposed. Picking out a few outliers in this debate and saying, from that, that all that disagree with you are the same as those outliers is absurd - and yet it is exactly what you are doing here. Innocent Bystander (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Smerdis: We actually had an edit conflict over this; I missed the link you posted to the "Lose the lad's mags" group earlier. My apologies. I've seen it now, and having looked over the site I think you're wildly off the mark to describe it as censorship. It's a call for Tesco (and perhaps other retailers; Tesco seems to be the only one identified by name) to stop selling porn-in-all-but-name. And you know what? That's perfectly reasonable. They're explicitly not calling for any new legislation or bringing to bear novel forms of government power. They are, rather, making a moral claim, that certain retailers ought not carry certain products. Now, you might disagree with that moral claim. If you do, great; go buy yourself an ice cream. Write a letter to Tesco telling them to stock more crypto-porn. But what this group is doing is just the routine exercise of political power of the sort that happens all the time in democratic states. TallMan (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that any reasonable definition of free expression includes pornography, excluding a number of narrow exceptions. (And the sexual exploitation of living children is one of those. I don't respond to stuff I don't want to respond to according to the grace I've been shown.) A campaign demanding that a merchant remove a publication from their shelves because of objections to its contents is censorship in my opinion. Here in the United States, the First Amendment trumps any campaign to impose this sort of measure by law, and rightly so, in my opinion. To me, freedom of speech necessarily means that some things are put beyond the reach of ordinary politics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
By making those "narrow exceptions" you are agreeing that there are limits. Yours are different and, quite frankly, pretty extreme. You're an extreme Free Speechist. However, you seem to wish to deny those that disagree with you their right of free expression. Simply suggesting that Tescos don't sell pornography is, to you, not free speech but intolerable repression. It's not that you're for free speech, it's that you're so intolerant of anyone who holds an opinion you don't like.
Bringing this back to the particular, there is, on RW, a general consensus that the feminist viewpoint has a significant amount of validity. I'm not saying we all agree with all of it; I'm saying that most of us agree with most of it. However, because you disagree we must all be run by feminist extremists. Hmm... Innocent Bystander (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I second Innocent Bystander. You can't support the free speech of people selling porn without also supporting the free speech of people selling books criticizing porn and advocating its erasure. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Being called an "extreme Free Speechist" is namecalling I can live with. I don't think I have called for the suppression of literature "critical of porn and advocating its erasure," either. I simply think that some of our articles on authoritarian feminist doctrines -- doctrines that do serve as apologia for attacks on free speech -- strike me as incongruous to the stated mission of the site. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall "Unrestricted speech/publication/etc. trumps all other concerns 100% of the time" being part of the site's mission. Perhaps I should reread it. --Kels (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
And here we see another problem with you. What you think is "censorship" is NOT censorship here in the United States, by any measure of the term. And especially not in the legal sense of things. Also, your statement about the First Amendment shows your ignorance, because you're ignoring relevant caselaw that supports the constitutionality of banning that which is considered obscene - and what is obscene changes depending on the time and generation. Very mutable. Just because obscene is at a low ebb right now doesn't mean it won't pass the Miller Test.
I recommend you bone up on what the definitions of censorship are in the legal world and as applied in the real world, rather than relying on your own definitions that you made up out of your own head.--Castaigne (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't the "sexual objectification spillover effect" be an enough reason to take a more serious look at sexual material more critically? The Sexual Objectification Spillover Effect Or are you trying say that our environment doesn't affect our behaviour, despite the evidence showing that it does? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Rape and Domestic Abuse.[edit]

Just to butt in here.

See the thing I could never understand about Rape culture is, why do men not qualify?

According to

the CDC's latest report the percentage of men and women raped in the past 12 months is the same (1.1 percent).

So why isn't this mentioned anywhere on Wiki?

The same with domestic violence.

In the past 12 months 4.0% of American women have experienced violence from an intimate partner.

In the past 12 months 4.7% of American men have experienced violence from an intimate partner.

So can anyone tell me why this doesn't get talked about?

And not with "but what about the MENZ!1!11!!111" style fallacies, but an actual argument?

Because I haven't seen any.

A Real Libertarian (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

We oppose violence against men just as strongly as that against women. If we haven't talked about it much, well, nobody's stopping you from adding your voice. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, did it: A Real Libertarian (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I reverted because your source does not back up your assertions. I don't know where you're getting your figures from but page 28 clearly says one in five women and one in seventy one men. So not the same at all. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Page 28 states that in the last 12 Months 1.1% of American females were raped and 1.1% of American males were "Made to penetrate" which under the new definition of rape is rape: A Real Libertarian (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Quote you above "the CDC's latest report the percentage of men and women raped in the past 12 months is the same", quote the document you reference "Too few men reported rape in the 12 months prior to taking the survey to produce a reliable 12 month prevalence estimate"
Now, I agree that the level of "Other sexual violence" is pretty much the same across men and women but, if you're going to quote stuff don't bend their figures to suit your own agenda. If you're going to use a definition of rape other than that used in the source document you need to say so. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
"Made to penetrate" is now rape under the new definition. I used the survey because it was the latest of its kind. Would you not use a pre-1850 source in the Capitalism article merely because the word hadn't been coined yet?A Real Libertarian (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you go back to fake-reporting rapes to anonymous help lines? Hipocrite 15:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to not have read page 28 clearly enough to draw out the crux of the matter. Here it is: "Nearly 1 in 5 women in the United States has been raped in her lifetime (18.3%) (Table 2.1). This translates to almost 22 million women in the United States. [...] Approximately 1 in 71 men in the United States (1.4%) reported having been raped in his lifetime, which translates to almost 1.6 million men in the United States " Get it? It's 18.3% compared to 1.4%, not one percent compared to 1.4%. Big difference there, buddy. If you don't believe me, go read it again, slowly this time.
EDIT: Sorry, I see what 1.1% to 1.1% figures you are talking about now. You are comparing total weighted rape of women over 12 months to "made to penetrate" statistic of men over 12 months. You could argue that what you said newly constitutes rape occurred to similar percentages over 12 months of the survey on this basis, I suppose... — Unsigned, by: Nullahnung / talk / contribs

Yes, that is what I said "According to
the CDC's latest report the percentage of men and women raped in the past 12 months is the same (1.1 percent)." Now are we going to discuss this or are we just going to fling ad hominems? (P.S. Great name Hipocrite, minor misspelling, but still great). — Unsigned, by: A Real Libertarian / talk / contribs
And here's the thing - the MRA trolls are talking out of their arse, they're seeing offence where there is none. The very first entry in our description of rape culture goes
How forms of rape that don't conform to a (deeply offensive and sexist) specific set of standards aren't as important as those that do. That is, if the rape doesn't involve male stranger(s) on younger female victim penile-vaginal penetration with a large degree of force, then it's not "real rape" and can be downplayed or apologized for as necessary
So we're saying precisely the opposite of what we're being accused of. We're saying that rape is a fare wider problem than just the "It's men on women". Indeed, let's look at the second paragraph
How cases where the victim is male or where the perpetrator is female aren't generally taken seriously
So what exactly is your problem?
Maybe you want to do some reading before you spout your mouth off. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, those are the only mention in the article of non-prisoner men being raped. So I added a source detailing the numbers. It was immediately removed on the basis that
"Your source does NOT back up your assertions, far from"
and I was branded MRA for daring to do it. It seems to me that's only added in as a token mention and then its back to "Women's Issue, Women's Issue, Women's Issue". It's pretty hard for me to think of a greater manifestation of rape culture then denying rape exists and that's what male rape victims have to deal with from a lot of people.
According to the CDC in the 12 Months leading of to the survey 1.1% of American women were raped and 1.1% of American men were "made to penetrate", which is rape.
If you want more, here's plenty: Real Libertarian (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
And, once again, you don't read and/or cherry pick from your sources. Here's a quote from the Freethought Blogs article.
There are also enormous heffalump-traps here. Firstly, the research does not show that women are as likely to sexually aggress as men. Where there is a direct comparison (eg the very first reference) they tend to show that men are at least twice as likely to sexually aggress as women. Nor does it imply that a man’s experience of being sexually coerced or assaulted by a women is in some way parallel to a woman’s experience of being sexually coerced or assaulted by a man.
So, yes, there is a large amount of unacknowleged female sexual agression but the "women are just as bad" thing doesn't work. Read your sources. Realy read them, look at what they really say. Don't cherry pick, it just makes you look like all the bad things in MRAs. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't project your sins on me. I said
According to

the CDC's latest report the percentage of men and women raped in the past 12 months is the same (1.1 percent).
Fogg said
It suggested that the rates of men being forced to penetrate women over the past year was identical to the rates of women reporting being raped, each 1.1%.
So do you have any response to
The problem is, those are the only mention in the article of non-prisoner men being raped. So I added a source detailing the numbers. It was immediately removed on the basis that

“”"Your source does NOT back up your assertions, far from"

and I was branded MRA for daring to do it. It seems to me that's only added in as a token mention and then its back to "Women's Issue, Women's Issue, Women's Issue". It's pretty hard for me to think of a greater manifestation of rape culture then denying rape exists and that's what male rape victims have to deal with from a lot of people.

According to the CDC in the 12 Months leading of to the survey 1.1% of American women were raped and 1.1% of American men were "made to penetrate", which is rape.
or not? A Real Libertarian (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
If you don't know how to format your cquotes, don't use them! There's nothing wrong with the old-fashioned "...". Now the formatting is all messed up...Nullahnung (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you are going to re-add your edit to that article, you should state the scope and numbers (both being 1.1% over an observed 12 month period). Just saying "same number of men being raped as women" will confuse people of what you are actually referring to when they go to check the source (as amply demonstrated above by me and others). Nullahnung (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
OK.A Real Libertarian (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Done: A Real Libertarian (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
While I don't want to get involved in this argument, I've got to say that it's got a very binary male/female heterosexual feel to it.--Coffee (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but what can you do? It's hard enough just getting male victims counted, it's going to be harder still to start counting everyone else. Oh well, if it was easy it would already be done.A Real Libertarian (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Something doesn't seem right with those stats, 1.1% of men report being forced to penetrate in the past year, while 4.8% report being forced to penetrate in their lifetime. Meanwhile 1.1% of women report being penetrated forcibly in the past year, while 18.3% report being penetrated forcibly in their lifetime. What's up with the disparity? --Marlow (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
My theory is being bombarded by "men can't be raped, men are always eager, men want it or they're gay" make them less likely report what happened or even understand what happened was rape.
You can see it happen in the comments as Fogg goes from thinking what happened to him was no big deal to realizing what he would think if the genders were reversed.A Real Libertarian (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
But rape is more about power disparities than about sex isn't it? Isn't it more about some individual showing that they have the power to make another submit than anything else? Isn't that what prison rape is all about? If men are physically stronger and always have more power than women and everybody is heterosexual then man agaisnt women rape is going to be the standard. But if power relationships are somehow equalised or reversed, and/or if non-heterosexual relationships are considered then the situation becomes substantially more complicated.--Coffee (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a lot of "if"s there. A Real Libertarian (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

On the characterization of feminists here and elsewhere[edit]

This has likely been brought up before but there certainly seems to be some wildly divergent definitions of what a "feminist" is in the whole online feminist kerfuffle (sorry, best word i could think of for the variety of arguments, controversies/manufactroversies, and other tiffs). Almost all of the various arguments and grievances from both the hilariously contemptible parties (i.e. MRAs and their ilk) and otherwise sane and progressive individuals (not gonna name names) seems to stem from their perception of all or most feminists as being SJW esque "feminazis" out to censor, suppress, and stamp down all men and their dirty man-ness, with feminists outside this narrow category being either ignored or dismissed in some kind of inverse "no true scotsman" as being not "really" feminists.

The evidence for this tends to be either bringing up more notorious antics of certain feminists (again, not naming names) and backing this up with pointing to "feminist flavoured" SJW types as "the average feminists". What im wondering is whether there is any way of finding out just how many feminists actually fall into the category of "evil, man hating shrew-hag" via statistics or some poll of some kind, because this really does seem to be the single biggest stick used to hit feminists with in the west. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 12:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but Judge, ask any MRA and he'll tell you that anyone who dares to suggest that men are anything other than the disadvantaged victims of the femiNAZIs!!!! is a rampant feminist activist. There is no such thing as a 'moderate' feminist, why I have this web page full of green ink just proving that women won't come anywhere near me because they're all plotting, plotting I tell you, to emasculate us poor downtrodden men. It would be far, far better if we were to ignore them all together and go our own way. Why, oh why oh why won't anyone believe me. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It just so happens there is a whole branch of academia dedicated to this. But I guess they have never managed to produce anything coherent. -- (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is necessarily confined to feminism, really; just that some of the issues addressed by feminism make some problems stand out. A segment of the US left seems to dwell excessively (IMO) on issues of social representation, language, and visibility. My own preferred narrative of why this is so is that it's born of a recognition of their general political irrelevance, in terms of the kind of politics that actually has to do with government.

This version of leftism is waspish and pope-holy, focused on the acquisition and display of elaborate codes by which, through a peculiar jargon, the speaker demonstrates their zeal for equality by showing an exquisite sensitivity to perceiving signs of secret racism, sexism, or whatever in.... well, anything. (The claim that the cant phrase "privilege blindness" implies offensive 'ableism' is a particularly comical example of the kind of horseshit this generates.)

Like any other game of moral one-upmanship, it goes south very quickly. If you make a false move, you're demonstrating your secret racism, sexism, or whateverism. It guarantees that a critical mass of these believers will initiate a fission reaction; no movement in which this kind of game takes place can present much of a united front against anything. But if you deny the authority or significance of this game, you may as well join the Klan. Obviously, I'm in the Klan. The underlying assumption would appear to be that if we play enough hands of this until everyone's attitude towards every identity group consistently conforms with the most exquisite egalitarian sensibility, all that stuff about mere material inequality will somehow just sort itself out. I call that magical thinking, but hell, I'm in the KKK so what do I know?

My take at this point is that I find this entire associated mentality priggish and the opposite of liberating. The feminist form is slightly more irritating to me than others; but that's in part because I see them attacking real gains made during my lifetime for greater sexual freedom and free speech. In part, it's because the feminist segment of this belief system has taken a shine to human exceptionalism, maintaining an incomprehensible hostility towards evolutionary explanations of human sexuality. I oppose all censorship on principle. Men and women have different sexual psychologies that politics can't touch, and learning to understand and live with these differences is the only honest way forward. The fact that I support abortion and reproductive rights and equal pay, and actually think that (because of sexed differences in social psychology) we'd be better off with fewer men and more women in political office means nothing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you make some solid points here about the focus on words over material "facts on the ground" so to speak Smerdis, but I have to take issue with a few of your claims. I'll throw this one out there. You claim that feminism makes an argument for human exceptionalism and that there's a biological component to relations between the sexes. You also say that you oppose censorship on principle. Don't you think that that is human exceptionalism as well. I think we can point to a variety of non human animal behaviors that amount to censorship and it's certainly a universal quality in human societies to one degree or another. There are certainly behavioral taboos in primate societies and in the more advanced species these can be arbitrary and cultural. Like equality, opposition to censorship is a human construct, but that doesn't mean that either isn't something to strive for. Murder, rape and theft are traits universal to human societies, fundamental to our biological make up, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work together to overcome them. --Marlow (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
As to actual "censorship", that might be iffy (I think actual censorship might require language) but I will cheerfully concede the actual point: arbitrary taboos are not absent from the animal kingdom, and do appear frequently among our closest relatives. They, like a lot of behavior, have both cultural and inherited components. For me, claiming that a human behavior has a biological component does not mean that it is immutable by culture. (Because, no, I don't mean that 'natural' behavior is right. Please remember that life itself is evil.)

What I do believe is that we must temper our expectations of success when we legislate against human behaviors that are potentiated by biological drives; costs of enforcement will be significant, and backsliding is very likely. (Leaving out a bit here.) No matter how hard we try, we will not eradicate murder. No matter how hard we try, we will not eradicate rape. Greater efforts may require that we compromise other values like privacy in ways that are best avoided. And yes, these are in fact subjects that human societies as political institutions get to deal with. There is a wide scope for differences of opinion here. Political conflict in primate societies is absolutely inescapable.

I suppose what this waspish version of leftism does that annoys me most is that it undermines community with its narrow perfectionism. These bros may be full of sexist attitudes, but they definitely don't want to be drafted. These coal miners may believe in retrograde religions and they're probably not on the same page about global warming, but they have a keen grasp of the advantages of trade unions. These environmentalists are the whitest guys you know, the very picture of money, and actual privilege in the senses that prevailed before 1985 or so. These MRAs have reasons for supporting abortion rights that would give a scandal if stated in plain English. Can you make common cause with your imperfect neighbors about things that matter to you? Or would you rather be always right about everything? (There's something very sexed, and very male, about that.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Didn't this whole thing start when you said that we weren't coming down hard enough on "the loopier" parts of feminism? Why not find common cause with them rather than always being right when they start spouting off about patriarchy and rape culture? --Marlow (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ultimately, yes, because it's ultimately about the articles. It does remain my opinion that articles like privilege, rape culture, and patriarchy all (toast!) give short shrift to skeptical positions. (Privilege is particularly condescending, overbearing, and humorless.) My attempt at making an article about sexual objectification was indeed a complete cock-up; I've tried to edit it more constructively since then. Besides, being male, I can't help myself. ;) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
If you can't help yourself, you need to seek psychiatric help to get control of your rape instinct. Every male, me included, can exert control, if they wish to. --Castaigne (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
He didn't mean that he couldn't help the rape instinct, he meant he couldn't help using the terrible writing style in those edits back in August. Nullahnung (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Smerdis, what I find interesting about the concept of privilege is that it's trivially easy to demonstrate, but yet people like you resist the very idea as if it's a personal attack on your manhood. You do not get to go around defining words on your terms and then arguing against them that way; as you very well know, that's called strawmanning. That's why Kent Hovind's $250K challenge has never paid out -- it defines evolution using a series of conditions that no scientist would ever use. And yes, I am comparing you to a creationist. Whether you're being intentionally dishonest or just pointlessly stubborn is irrelevant; what I can say is that you're going out of your way to be wrong on so many levels that there's little point in doing anything except shouting you down. The point of phrases like "check your privilege" is that your own personally held beliefs are as subject to dissection and analysis as other people's. If you can't do that about your beliefs about gender, you should not be calling yourself a skeptic, and you should not be here. EVDebs (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Not to defend Smerdis too much (I still vehemently disagree with him on the core issue), but statements like "you shouldn't be here" are why he's pissed off in the first place. We all have our blind spots and if Smerdis' happens to be male privilege than so be it. I'm sure you can find common cause with him on virtually every material issue important to feminism (abortion rights, equal pay, freedom from submissive relationships etc.) and frankly he'd probably come around to issues like male privileged or patriarchy if people weren't saying "GTFO if you don't call yourself a feminist." Too many of the arguments in the current geek feminism war are focused on semantics rather than material issues. This isn't to say that these semantic debates are wholly without merit, but we shouldn't be at each others throats over them. --Marlow (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
So, what, if we didn't hurt his fee-fees he'd be just fine? It tends not to work that way. Basically, I'm going after Smerdis for assuming the status quo is The Way Things Should Be and rejecting contrary opinions for reasons that do not appear to be logical. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, because Smerdis is arguing against wrong definitions and does not appear to care. EVDebs (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you are either failing to understand my position here, or are deliberately misrepresenting it. I'm not saying that any status quo, whatever you mean by that, is The Way Things Should Be. I am saying that many aspects of human sexuality are biologically determined; and yes, my list of biologically determined, sexed things includes some that others assign to the 'gender' category. They might in fact be bad and wrong; I think so, anyways. (Remember that life itself is evil.) They're simply evils that are beyond the power of human initiative to change.

As to the "privilege" idea, I do think I sort of understand what it's saying. I will never understand what it's like to be a woman, or at least not without putting more effort into remembering the past life in which I was Cleopatra. What I do think is that 'privilege' is a poorly crafted and divisive piece of rhetoric. It may describe a worthwhile way of looking at the world, one that is useful in certain contexts. It does tend to reify various social distinctions, and gives them an appearance of substance and permanence that may not be there. More importantly, if you are seeking allies to achieve political goals, the 'privilege' concept is specifically unhelpful and belongs in the quiet box. True or not, it's rhetorically counterproductive. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
1) You are wrong. Life is not "evil".
2) Your list of biologically determined sex items is really a product of your own opinion and not supported by current science. No, the pseudoscience that is "evo psych" does not count.
3) There are no "evils" that are beyond the power of human initiative to change. If your statement was true, then we would have no civilizations - no laws, no cities, no culture, just bands of murdering rape machine animals howling in the forest. Nature, Red in Tooth and Claw.
4) Privilege exists. I have used it to my advantage. It's very easy for any white male to use to their advantage. It does not matter if it is "unhelpful" or "rhetorically counterproductive"; it is fact and that is all there is to it. Facts must be heard. Facts are the sharp sword that clarifies reality. — Unsigned, by: Castaigne / talk / contribs
I am going to regret bothering, ain't I? It is an elementary logical fallacy to claim that There are no "evils" that are beyond the power of human initiative to change. If your statement was true, then we would have no civilizations, and of course I have said no such thing. Human civilizations exist; they depend on the fact that basic human drives can be cobbled together to support them. This may not be the best conceptual level to discuss all the problems human societies face, but its presence is fundamental. Every human society is a primate social colony with multiple levels of organization.

Again, the question is, do you want to recruit people to achieve tangible goals, or would you rather be right about everything? Do you or don't you want to win friends and influence people? You go ahead and tell people they're irrelevant. I don't want to. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
1) You absolutely did say "There are no "evils" that are beyond the power of human initiative to change." I quoted it directly from the comment above.
2) Civilization requires the suppression of those "evils". Except that I don't consider them "evils" at all, see moral relativism for details. Civilization, according to the common definition of civilization, cannot exist without suppression of those "evils".
3) No shit, really, humans form hierarchies? Tell me something I don't know.
4) I'd rather be right. Why? Any so-called "tangible goals" that you achieve if you are based on false premises or lies will be immediately undone when, not if, those false premises and lies are brought to light. You cannot build castles on sand. Truth/Fact is a blinding light, a sword that cuts through all the soft tissues of falsity that are accrued over time. It is the bedrock upon which a solid future may be built. So as far as I can see it, there are no tangible goals to be attained without first being "right". Which to me, means factual.
And yes, I am the person that will tell people they are irrelevant. I tell people at my place of employment that they are irrelevant. That their skills are irrelevant. That they are obsolete. I tell them this because it is fact; it is truth. Why wouldn't I tell people the truth? Why should I lie?
Lie to people about their relevancy all you want, Smerdis. It will not save them. (Buddha will not save you either. Mappo is coming.)--Castaigne (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
(*sigh*) In that case, every civilization that has ever existed or that can ever exist is a failure. None of them have managed to abolish the sexual division of labor; it can't be done, or at least can't be done without unacceptable levels of surveillance and violence. (I'm not entirely convinced we should even want to: but if a just society contains perfect sexual and 'gender' equality, then we have no alternative but to live in an unjust society.) No one anywhere has been able to make murder or rape go away; again, not within our grasp. All of these evils are things we're stuck with.
Now, if the issue is how do we build a better, if still imperfect, civilization with the flawed materials at hand, no, I don't think it's a good idea to tell anybody they're irrelevant; maybe that's just me. I don't really see anything falsifiable in these different sets of political assumptions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
1) You say "None of them have managed to abolish the sexual division of labor; it can't be done, or at least can't be done without unacceptable levels of surveillance and violence." That's absolute crap. It can be done and it does not require either surveillance or violence. You forget that technology is the great leveler. With technology, a woman can do anything a man can do. With technology, a man can do anything a woman can do. There is no need for sexual division of labor with sufficient technology - which we have today. I can bear children, if I so feel like it; technology gives me the ability to do so. How you can ignore technology as a leveller is beyond me.
2) You say "No one anywhere has been able to make murder or rape go away; again, not within our grasp." My answer to that is "Yet."
3) You say "Now, if the issue is how do we build a better, if still imperfect, civilization with the flawed materials at hand, no, I don't think it's a good idea to tell anybody they're irrelevant; maybe that's just me." Yup, it IS just you. Just as we told the buggy whip makers they were irrelevant, just as we told the Jim Crow supporters they were irrelevant, just as we told the floppy disc makers that they were irrelevant, so we tell people today that they are irrelevant when they are. That's called technological progress. Get used to it.
4) A "better" civilization is hella subjective. What you consider "better", I would consider "being a slave to biology. --Castaigne (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I suppose I can see how the sexual division of labor might be alterable by technology -- but I'm not sure that giving men the option of giving birth is enough to achieve it. (And the tech exists to do this now? Really?) But since the sexual division of labor is a set of sexed statistical differences in the operation of various instinctual drives that affect the sort of social roles towards which the two sexes will gravitate, one that holds generally true over all times and cultures, mere anatomically modern humans will remain subject to the same sexist preferences. A true victory over sexism is going to require tech and knowledge we don't quite have yet: hormones and other biochemical adjustments (check), gene manipulation (maybe), possibly microscopic brain surgery (we may have the ability, but not the knowledge).

I agree: too many people have some kind of holy horror against tampering with natural born humans this way. The ultra-egalitarian agenda works just as well as other political agendas have to put all of that squeamish bullshit in perspective. Because, yes, if you want technology to manage the native sexual division of labor, this is what it will take. I wouldn't worry about the reproductive sustainability of the resulting population, either. We're above natural selection.

I'm no more in favor of being a slave to biology than you are. Remember that bit about how life itself is evil? If life is sexist, and sexism is evil, then life is evil: and life is, in fact, sexist. Life is sexist for every other living thing for which sex makes a difference, and I don't believe that the human race is some special snowflake. I'm just not into pretending I don't see the irons on my legs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help when you delete a report from the CDC because it contradicts your beliefs:
So what part of "Page 18-19, number of women raped in the past 12 months vs. number of men made to penetrate in the last 12 months" is inaccurate? As far as "[MRAs claimed] that 40% of women were rapists, but the CDC itself shut them down" do you have evidence? I recall the claim that 40% of rapists are women, but that's not the same thing. A Real Libertarian (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You mad? Missed typed that one, obviously it was "40% of rapist are women" here's the link [1]. --Marlow (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
"We defined sexual violence other than rape to include being made to penetrate someone else", oh yeah, that's not sexist at all.
Plus it seems to be based on assuming that most female targeted rape is gang-rape and that being bombarded by "men can't be raped, men are always eager, men want it or they're gay" doesn't have a effect on willingness to report, or ability to correctly recall what happened, "no, no it wasn't that bad, she was pushy, but she didn't force me, I, I mean I got hard, right?" A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought you wanted to use this study as a source? Now it's sexist? I get it, it's only usable after you massage it a little to say what you want it to say. Like I said, this has been done before and with pretty shitty results. I don't claim to know what the actual facts are (hell, you might be right that men and women are both raped at similar rates), but given the history of these kind of claims (especially from people who rail against "rad-fem") I don't think we should use the source. --Marlow (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The study is fine, the PR flack that gave the message you linked to is not the same thing as the study itself, and the statement that "being made to penetrate someone else" isn't rape while penetrating someone else is, is in fact sexist.
So either forcibly penetrating someone as a sexual act is rape while forcing someone to penetrate as a sexual act isn't rape, or the CDC is full of MRAs, or a third option I'd like to hear.
So which is it? A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The study doesn't say that the number of men and women being raped is the same. Therefor we aren't going to use it as a source for that claim. To me that's the end of the story. Feel free to keep yelping about it though. --Marlow (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
So you're claiming forcibly penetrating someone as a sexual act is rape while forcing someone to penetrate as a sexual act isn't rape?
Because that's the only way you can claim the study doesn't say that. A Real Libertarian (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not claiming anything about the definition of rape. You are engaging in original research. You are taking numbers from a study and using a definition of a term that differs from that used in the study to draw a new conclusion. Men's rights activists have attempted this exact tactic with this exact study in the past and got shot down by the creators of the study. If you're so sure that your conclusions would be excepted you really should contact the CDC and suggest they revise their numbers, they aren't impossible to get in touch with. I'd be interested to hear their reaction. --Marlow (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
So in your opinion, is forcing someone to penetrate as a sexual act rape, like forcibly penetrating someone as a sexual act is rape? Yes or No. A Real Libertarian (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
That is one of the main points of discussing the stats in question, but not the only one. Even if everybody agreed on the definition of everything, we'd still have a number of statistical intricacies that need to be considered between the stats themselves, which we haven't. Read the CDC statement in more detail. Nullahnung (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I did read it, hence my comments, in the comments on the source SilencingNarrative was attempting to ask about problems in the stats, but keep getting brushed off.
What are the "statistical intricacies" that need to be considered? In my mind rape is rape, it doesn't matter who is the victim or who is the perpetrator, it's still rape, and you don't get a pass because of your genitals, you don't get told "you have the wrong naughty bits, you wanted it". A Real Libertarian (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
One of the statistical things that they got wrong by posting a 40% number for perpetrators is that the stats used aren't of perpetrators, but of victims. One perpetrator could have produced multiple victims or one victim could have had multiple perpetrators, see. That is one of the things that makes the 40% number unreliable.
Another one of the big errors committed is that the 40% was derived from calculation using lifetime stats as well as 12 month stats. You can't use both like that, they don't relate directly.Nullahnung (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
1. But how do you propose to get around that? The same is true of any survey of victims, and any survey of perpetrators is inevitably limited to those that A) were caught, or, B) are willing to blab to a random survey about raping someone.
2. That's not so much an error as it is attempting to work around limited data, as for some reason only lifetime gender of perpetrator stats for male victims are available, when both are available for female victims. And well, they may not relate directly, but they're the best we've got. A Real Libertarian (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
"for some reason only lifetime gender of perpetrator stats for male victims are available" You don't know why those stats aren't available? Hmm, I wonder who might be able to tell you why? (and who actually explained it in something I already linked). This is exactly why I don't think people like you should be interpreting statistical data to draw new conclusions. I'm done. --Marlow (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The reasons given were "It's also possible the answers were not statistically reliable" which got a "Why would the question 'what was the sex of your attacker' be unreliable when asked for the prior 12 months but more reliable when asked for lifetime?", the response to that was "Too few male victims [of various kinds of rape] to produce a reliable estimate." which in turn received "OK, but 1.1 percent of men surveyed reported being raped in the prior 12 months, so we know the sample size is not too small to then ask whether their attacker was male or female. So I still don't get it". It's all here in the comments.
It's because men are shoved into the "made to penetrate" category rather then the rape category
That's why "separate, but equal" is bullshit, in this case "made to penetrate" isn't rape, therefore it's not as serious, therefore it's not as important to keep detailed statistics on, therefore because men are very rarely raped the MRAs screaming for this info to be keep are whining about a non-problem, therefore anytime this is brought up it's just trolling.
You can see how this works.
I think this is a problem, so if you disagree, I'd like to hear why. A Real Libertarian (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, perhaps yes.[edit]

"The doctrines of rape culture and sexual objectification are parts of..." Those two articles are badly written and totally "off mission". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you know what's worse than being under the thumb of feminists? Human's decline from a once-great, respected and productive editor to angry pissant who pops up once in a blue moon just to shit on us. Thanks for the new year's present, Human! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything out of place or wrong with those articles. Military dealing with rapes in their own little court, and everyone going along with it? Colleges having their own secret rape procedures that allow the offender to still sit in class with the victim? And for the second, ever see a beer commercial/magazine cover/television show/music video? ROPChain (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh look, Human turns up to whine about feminism articles. Quelle surprise. SophieWilderModerator 08:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Any reason for necroing the discussion after six months?--ZooGuard (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I have a bad habit of not looking at dates ROPChain (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Gaaah. Only on my first coffee. SophieWilderModerator 08:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a Few Things[edit]

This conversation seems a little skewed, so a few things:

  1. All feminists aren't women. It really doesn't matter if there are a few female editors or not.
  2. Feminism has a strange overlap with neoconservatism that many people don't pay attention to, including the MRM. That is many feminists are anti-intellectuals who are stuck in their ways and bent on ruggedly individualist work ethic. You especially see this in the consumerism debate where neocon feminists will prefer pop culture before "hipsterdom".
  3. Counter-stereotyping and discrimination against honest men usually takes this anti-intellectual route. It's actually a form of conservatism in liberal clothing. Many men believe in individuality and equality, but those very same men are NOT anti-intellectuals. Neocon feminists will end up calling them wimps and say their refusal to endure suffering makes them selfish. When those men expect to be treated with respect, they get told they're imposing their morals on others. It's similar to the hypocritical claim that conservatives will sometimes make about how tolerant people have to tolerate the intolerant or else they're intolerant themselves.

In reality, a lot of feminism actually discriminates against liberals, but feminism plays word games to hide behind liberal ideas while claiming those liberals are upholding "Judeo-Christian" principles. It's really bizarre. --Nolidor (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about. Can you point to some examples of the things you're describing? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The biggest instance I've seen of this is feminists calling sensitive men Islamofascists who should move to the Middle East. It's what I would call "fourth wave feminism" in that it takes the riot grrrl movement of third wave feminism, but then synthesizes it with everything that's happened since 9/11. Men who expect women to behave themselves like anyone else are accused of being oppressive as if they want to send women back into the kitchens of the '50s. In turn, feminists embrace moral emotivism, but it's really just a guise for anti-intellectual rugged individualism.
The biggest reason I guess this happens is because feminists tend to deny objective reason or morality or the general concept of human nature being rational at all because there are arguments out there for capitalism which embrace these principles, and feminists view capitalism as patriarchic. Therefore, they look at moral emotivism as the appropriate counter-position to take, so they become anti-intellectual rugged individualists in the process. What's ironic about this is how often liberals will criticize capitalism as being an anti-intellectual and ruggedly individualist movement that's insensitive to the welfare of humanity, but then feminists drop the ball.
As an aside, this sort of feminism actually seems to be somewhat racist too (which is no surprise due to how neoconservatives treat Arabs). That is the "rational" defenses of capitalism (which I admit to taking sometimes to oppose socialists who appear socially conservative at times) will embrace ideas like internalism, individualism, free will, and universalist necessitarian deduction. These are the very ideas which are used to recognize ethnic diversity as well, but then feminists will claim this sort of thinking is epistemically patriarchic. In turn, they'll say people should be judged externally, collectively, fatalistically, and by particular possibilistic induction... which are all the thought processes used to be stereotyped and prejudiced.--Nolidor (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
So the only example you have is that there are these women (somewhere) who call men Islmofascists (cause men like Islam and are also fascists, you know). I don't even know where... so who are these "sensitive men". cause far as i can tell, a vast majority of feminists LIKE and WANT sensitive men, and push to open up the gendered stereotypes to encourage more sensitivity. In fact, a generic complaint of manosphere about feminists is that they are making manly men all sensitive, or something. One tin soldier (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
All feminists aren't the same. I agree that there are many feminists who want sensitive men, but there are also many feminists who just want the right to recklessly act out their emotions and expect society to put up with it. In fact, a classic academic feminist argument about patriarchy is that men are traditionally treated as rational while women are traditionally emotional. Therefore, patriarchy's role in society is the oppression of women's rights since women don't know how to think straight. In reality, this is totally backwards since the traditional role is that men are barbaric brutes with tempers that need to objectify the fairer sex in order to relax. Again, you're right. However, there are many feminists who expect men to man up and not complain about affirmative action, abuse of process, being expected to conform to social norms, etc.--Nolidor (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong about a whole lot of things. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not to play pop psychologist, but it sounds to me like you just want to be angry at women. You classify one group of feminists as bad for one thing, then turn around and classify the other group, the opposite group as being bad for being opposite. While it may be true that there are a few (and please, point them out to me so I can be enlightened, if it's mroe than a few) women who write about how icky men are, how brutish they are, how sensitive they are, etc., the vast majority of us talk 1) about society and how it frames both genders, 2) the fact that things traditionally associated with women (emotional, easy to cry, intuitive) as bad and the ways men "supposedly" approach life as "good" (rational, logical, scientific). There are serious repercussions to these out dated stereotypes, like little girls being dissuaded from going to STEM careers, or men feeling as if they do not know how to bond with kids, that feminism challenges. making the world "more equal" if you will. 3) How the power structure is build around, and for men, and some of them are finding it hard to give up their power to women. 4) That feminism and equality do not stop at boobs and wombs, but talk about perceived race, economic status, access to education, cultural biases, and other forms of both discrimination and inequality.One tin soldier (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Eh... I said all feminists aren't the same. What are you talking about, and what does that have to do with my views on women? Heck, you were the one who brought up sensitive feminists. I was talking about insensitive feminists, but then you just said, "While it may be true that there are a few women who write about how icky men are, how brutish they are, how sensitive they are, etc..." Likewise, you referred to traditional associations of women being emotional which I recognized as the academic argument, but earlier, I said, "In reality, this is totally backwards since the traditional role is that men are barbaric brutes with tempers that need to objectify the fairer sex in order to relax." Sorry, but you have me very confused right now. Heck, what you said about STEM seems suspicious since STEM is what neocons usually focus on in context of the military industrial complex. --Nolidor (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You do have a hard time reading in context. I'm also not sure you say anything, beyond just using words. Yes, STEM might be part of the military industrial complex, it's also part of our daily lives. I LIKE computers. I like new drugs (medical, not recreational, though i'm sure those are STEM, too) I like space and the new theories on black holes, and discussions about how life might have started, and while I don't like math, i like the idea of math - it's rather weirdly amazing to me to think about the vastness of numbers. So why would telling boys and girls that STEM are good fields, be bad? I don't know where i brought up sensitive feminists - but, ok. You never mentioned feminism with insensitive or sensitive - those labels you left with men. and rather haphazardly. You really are not addressing feminism, you are addressing a straw woman you've invented in your head. and then dressed her in political clothing that doesn't make sense on a boy or girl.One tin soldier (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I said suspicious, not convicting. Of course there are other applications of STEM. Likewise, if someone's neglecting sensitivity, that makes someone insensitive. A feminist who's neglecting sensitive men would be an insensitive feminist.
Anyway, your pop psychology tactics seem suspicious too in light of how neoconservatism advocates Zionist foreign policy which is about the self-determination of Jews: You seem like you have an ulterior motive here. I'd strongly advise you to discuss the topic and stop discussing me. --Nolidor (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The amount of mutual misreadings and consequent talking-past-each-others between the two of you is hilarious. Please stop responding to each other before this conversation becomes even more of a mess. (and I'd suggest Nolidor to hurry up and provide a linked example already) Nullahnung (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, this is more of a cultural phenomenon. It's just something that comes up in the course of ideological debate. People don't record everything that's said or heard in the course of their lives. It's like the saying, "If a tree falls in a forest, but nobody hears it, did it really make a sound?" Of course it makes a sound, but there's no record, so it can't be proven. Likewise, of course people hear the debate I'm talking about, but people don't constantly record what they debate with video cameras out of their eyes or microphones our of their ears (can you imagine someone doing that? Someone would get made fun of for being awkward and paranoid of those around), so there's no proof. Those who debate that way just hide behind plausible deniability and blame the victim.--Nolidor (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, I've no idea what you're talking about. What appear to be your core arguments — that feminism is anti-intellectual and there is a strong overlap between feminists and neoconservatives — remain bare assertions that you just keep repeating rather than something you've said anything to demonstrate. I, for one, do not accept these premises. As for pulling oddball comments about Jews out of nowhere, that doesn't bode well. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Look. If you wanna be a conservative empiricist who expects people to present concrete good works to satisfy ruggedly individualist work ethic in advance of having their ideas respected rather than being openminded to creative thinking and engaging in a dialectic exchange of ideas to construct consensus, be my guest, but don't claim I'm just making bare assertions. The fact of the matter is people can engage in abstract thought rather than being wise guys who are stuck in their ways and tear ideas apart just for their own self-interest. That said, I agree that the sources I mentioned don't bode well for everyone either. There's good reason to be concerned about psychological corruption between feminism and neoconservatism. --Nolidor (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Like what? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously, neo-conservativism and feminism are fundamentally divorced concepts, in just about every meaningful respect, but you seem to be outraged that we're questioning the alleged connection. Ikanreed (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You're not questioning anything though. If you were, then you would have addressed what I previously wrote where I discussed how feminism and neoconservatism are connected. I don't mind you being skeptical of what I've claimed, but if you don't address what I previously wrote, then it seems like you're just denying the obvious and asserting the inane which obstructs the construction of consensus. It's like I said something, but you're just going, "Yea... no." That doesn't really help the progression of intellect. Instead, you should relate the groundwork I laid out differently, or substitute your relationships into the groundwork. --Nolidor (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You haven't said much coherent. You've been asked a couple of times to make your point more clearly & specifically, but just came back with more long-winded waffle that makes no more sense than what you've already posted. You haven't described much that I can recognise as feminism, and the connections you draw with neoconservatism, rugged individualism, anti-intellectualism, racism and "the right to recklessly act out their emotions and expect society to put up with it" don't appear to be backed up with much more than assertion. My question is still the same: what the hell are you talking about? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to be harassed by redundancy from reckless skepticism. If you want to just keep saying, "" over and over, whatever. Maybe you don't understand what's being said because you're obsessed with a specific model of cohesion instead of being openminded, but that doesn't entitle you to push anti-intellectualism onto others by tearing ideas apart for your own self-interest. --Nolidor (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. Or maybe it's because you touch yourself at night. Since we're not bothering to back up our assertions, we might as well say whatever we like about each other. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Following on from Weaseloid's apt surmise, when writing, the first thing to consider is the audience, and how your ideas can most effectively reach them. Opaque tendentious soliloquies give pleasure to no one but yourself. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm having a bit of trouble figuring that out myself. If I were to liken any of the threads of feminism to any sort of conservatism, I'd say it's more like the religious right; both seem to be mighty interested in judging other people's sexual thoughts and behavior. Even I consider myself a feminist, after a fashion; though most feminists would say I'm a bad one. My problems with some strains of contemporary feminism are that they encourage various sorts of prevalent nonsense: the idea that power stems from language and social imagery and representation, rather than control of resources; and human exceptionalism, the notion that human sexual and 'gender' traits are more malleable than those of any other organism. To the extent that they judge other people's sexualities or seek to stifle their self-expression, they have betrayed the ideals of the counterculture that fostered the movement.

I suppose my point is that while I'm not 100% behind contemporary feminism, I've been able to articulate my points of disagreement with it to the extent that other people have at least partially understood where I'm coming from, and actually argue about the merits of these ideas. I'm nowhere near as clear as to what your issue with it is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't get his point either and while I could excuse most of the people on this site for not listening, I'm actually against several ideas behind the feminist movement and even I don't get it. Don't get me wrong, I see what he's claiming, the evidence however seems to be falling very short. Hobby (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
So, you don't believe that feminists think that power derives from language and social imagery? What about the "ban bossy" campaign? Anita Sarkeesian's career is based entirely on getting the video game industry to self-censor imagery that feminists don't like. (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Troll Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why we're focusing on evidence here unless we're being conservative empiricists. Heck, feminists themselves often focus on plausible deniability when discussing domestic abuse or public humiliation. The concern is how to deal with abusers when no evidence exists. The discussion at hand is ideological which means we should be discussing ideas, not things. --Nolidor (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You've made various statements about the nature of feminism which contradict most people's observations and experience, and said various things that are difficult for other people to make sense of at all. Hence there's an expectation for you to 1) explain yourself more clearly and 2) back up your assertions with some examples. Of course, you don't have to do either of these things, but if your intention here is to have a meaningful discussion rather than just wasting everybody's time, these would be good moves to make. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
To Ikanreed above, I'd like to point out that TERFs tend to associate with Religious Right, ancap or neocon groups rather than leftists ones, so he's accidentally kind of probably a little bit right. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 17:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
If someone needs examples, then someone's a closedminded conserative anti-intellectual who's hiding behind empiricism to get away with being stuck in one's ways. Intellectuals have imagination. We realize the limits of evidence, so we don't expect ideas to be necessarily concretely proven. Instead, we engage in creative thinking. I really don't see a reason to discuss anything further with those who expect examples. Besides, being openminded is something someone has to be done from the inside. We can't engage in conservative "attitude adjustments". --Nolidor (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh noez! I have to back up my claims with examples and data! But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALwiki! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die. 17:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
If you're talking about concrete events, yes, you need examples and data, but when you're discussing ideology, no, you don't. Congratulations for being a conservative empiricist instead who confuses social values with the scientific method. You can take your Evangelical proselytizing else where and stop expecting people to perform good works to satisfy ruggedly individualist, anti-intellectual, closeminded work ethic. --Nolidor (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Jesus. Do you talk to people like this in real life? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
[ec] It is not anti-intellectual to ask for clarity of exposition. Well-aimed simple words are a sign of intelligence in my book. Nolidor has written of "constructing consensus," which is a worthy goal. Shared understanding is a basic requirement in that process. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Kind of. If someone asks for clarity in something that's already clear, it's just harassment by redundancy. Likewise, there is such a thing as oversimplification. Simple words can communicate ideas efficiently, but they can also sacrifice details for the bigger picture. --Nolidor (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Barely anything you've said is "already clear". You talk in riddles & word salad. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
(EC) That's an alright attitude in principle, except you're making claims about the real world as though they hold merit. If you're going to say "feminists are X" or "feminism is about Y" then that becomes a claim that can be tested against real evidence. Your dismissive attitude and assumption that you're the only intellectual in the room is preposterous. I've had many discussions with fellow physicists about the interpretations of quantum mechanics that fall outside of testable science, and that kind of creative thinking is quite stimulating. However, we don't start making truth claims about testable science without backing it up with evidence. If you're going to cross that threshold by making claims about real world feminism, evidence and examples are necessary. - Grant (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Feminism is an ideology, not a thing. Why would you need concrete examples for something that's abstract, not concrete? --Nolidor (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
A lot of ideologies become things when they are put into practice. Why should feminism be any different? I recognize that there is a difference between an ideology and its implementation, but ideologies (by their nature) are also fairly nebulous things. You've picked a definition of "feminism" that, in my experience, no feminist actually believes in. Given that this seems to be nothing but a strawman, it's not surprising that you would be asked to provide examples of people who actually think/act like this. I could tell you that capitalism is wrong because it advocates genocide, but if I can't provide any sort of proof that adherents/supporters of capitalism hold such views, then it's not really a valid criticism, is it? - Grant (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Why would we make appeals to experience though? Just because people have experienced how an ideology might exist doesn't mean we've experienced how an ideology must exist. Heck, this is one of the problems conservatives usually have when discussing ideology. They engage in stereotyping from being inductively biased. Furthermore, just because experiences happen doesn't mean evidence exists from those experiences. Again, this is another conservative problem. They're closedminded against imagining other ways that things can go wrong. Instead, they remain stuck in their ways because from personal experience, things have gone right so far. I mean referring to practice is fine and dandy... IF you've experienced EVERYTHING possible, but that hardly, if ever, happens. Instead, we should rationally justify ideologies abstractly before jumping to concrete practical conclusions. --Nolidor (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point[edit]

I think it's clear that getting a lucid answer from Nolidor is nigh impossible. They had their say, now please ignore this forum.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that you're playing neocon psychology games and saying that someone's not "lucid" because it doesn't satisfy your obsession with empiricism. In other words, you want people to have the right to be abusive wise guys, hide behind plauisble deniability, and get off the hook while blaming the victim. --Nolidor (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's clear that you are using labels as a blunt weapon without regard whether they fit. Aside from that, it's possible that your writing makes sense to you, but it's apparent that it doesn't make sense to anyone else. You really need to improve your writing skills. Not to mention your reading and reasoning skills.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
And social skills. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's clear you're illiterate. You don't say what's right. You only say what's wrong. As I said before, that denies the construction of consensus by denying the obvious and asserting the inane as if you're trying to say that words have no reliable syntactic relationships across semantic contexts. Instead, words only mean what people want them to mean according to their cultural prejudices. Congratulations on being a conservative who believes in practical anti-intellectual folk community common sense instead of being openminded to creative thinking. By any chance, do you believe people are autistic just because they aren't willing to be intimidated by cliques into fitting in by conforming to norms?--Nolidor (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
As I see it, yes. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Is that you JimJast? TyJFBAA 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In order to be a feminist; by definition you would have to actually care about at least 50% of humanity, other wise your just another elitist.[edit]

I'm just going to guess that most people concerned with women's rights vote democrat. But even if rational wiki were for some illogical reason controlled by a right wing minority of feminists, you would think even a right wing pro life feminist would have added information on the gender inequality in animal testing; given the rights general fondness of safety and prescription drugs. Left wing pro choice feminists would have mentioned there aren't any studies on embryonic stem cells that investigate when they are parented by the patient. They would have also that there isn't even badly written erotica or hentai about this is equally as mysterious; given dismemberment hentai is available uncensored. I'm guessing the founder of rational wiki isn't all that active; and in their absence that no one runs rational wiki, beyond maintenance. So no, feminists do not run rational wiki; or if they do they are rather incompetent, overwhelmed with fear, generally apathetic to or elitist. That or I'm actually fairly intelligent; and attuned to the issues, but I somehow doubt that. Also a shadowy manipulator of the masses feminist probably would have mentioned that a large percentage of those with PTSD are rape victims; when the page for PTSD or Ratwiki doesn't even mention rape. Wheres Hideo Kojima when you need him? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dunno. In Japan? Also, what the hell are you talking about? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Stem cells are the only exception to Rule 34, dontchaknow?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually any form of educational pornography is apparently non existent despite being a valid teaching method used by the ancient Greek Mnemonics experts as part of the method of loci. I mean educational in teaching anything other than sex. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Eh... feminism is elitist: (focus on 8:00 - 20:00, but there are tidbits throughout).
The ideology since its conception was a mass media psychology campaign to encourage consumerism and manipulate democracy. --Nolidor (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
"This series is banned on YouTube because of the secrets it contains." heh.hehe.hehehe. One tin soldier (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
More or less. The series is banned on Youtube because it contradicts the interests of the media. The media won't tolerate criticisms of itself. It simply shuts out people's general freedom of speech when it contradicts their specific exercise of it. Another thing is that as anyone with a brain between their ears knows, the internet is an extension of the Zionist military-industrial complex, but the fact of the matter is Jews own the media:
On top of that, let's not forget that Jews vote mostly Democrat which is the party that endorses feminism:
On top of that, let's again not forget that psychology is both feminist and Jewish. (See what I sourced before.) The bottomline is that as much as feminists like to clamor that Judeo-Christian tradition oppresses them, their ideology depends on it.--Nolidor (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think isms are Orwellian newspeak designed to be meaningless. Political terms are rather non descriptive of anything; pro life means pro death penalty as well most of the time; and pro choice really means pro first trimester; but not later because that would involve changing laws. Talking about isms is a defintion game like posing questions about god. I seriously doubt the first woman president will actually do anything for women's rights; but if it's Hillary Clinton I'll probably vote for her anyways. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"...psychology is both Jewish and feminist"[edit]

What the hell? Just look at that quote. How can anyone say that and go "Yep, this is the kind of idea that is valid within skeptical inquiry"? Just... what? I mean, if you ever wanted evidence of the anti-feminist/uncritical-bigot connection, look no further than this thread. Ikanreed (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Just look at the rest of Special:Contributions/Nolidor. I don't think they are a representative of skeptical inquiry.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Jews are evil elitists, Jews vote Democrat, the Democratic party endorses feminism, ipso facto feminists are evil elitists, can't get any more rational than logic. --Marlow (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Use in a sentence: "Just the other day I logicked that Jews are behind the scenes of everything ever, because if they weren't, then I don't have a brain. Since I have a brain, they must be behind the scenes of everything ever." Nullahnung (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I have not been in a psychology class since basically Freud was alive, but way back then, I know the feminists in my group were rather anti-Freud and his rather obvious sexual obsessions, infantilazation(sp) of women, penis envy (vs., womb envy) etc. has that all changed in modern feminism?One tin soldier (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
What Nolidor just said was blatantly racist; every race nationality and gender has a minority who are xenophobic. Being anti religious is what's expected of a bunch of skeptics, being racist is not. Please differentiate between the religion of Judaism and the Jewish people when making statements such as those. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not racist when it's sourced. Read them and weep. These are facts, not stereotypes or assumptions. Furthermore, there's no focus on the "Jewish race". It's on the Jewish community. For example, many people are religious Jews, and many people are descendants of religious Jews who didn't come from previous Jewish ancestry even if they're not religious themselves. Heck, it's arguable that the real problem of psychology comes from the Jewish community itself since Jews believe they're chosen by God to bring light to the world. That fatalism is comparable to the psychological practice of behaviorism where free will is denied. --Nolidor (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, so we've all been playing along with the troll, but do you really expect anyone to have any sort of humorous response to neo-nazi bullshittery? Really? Ikanreed (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Ikanreed, you need to just stop responding to this lost cause. The only way to maybe stand a chance of convincing Nolidor he's wrong is to go through the things he linked and said one by one and debunk all of it in detail. If you think that is a waste of time or not worthy of wasting your precious time on, then just stop responding. Nullahnung (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Look. I'm all for having a rational debate that's independent of evidence, but you guys didn't want to do that before. --Nolidor (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me rephrase Nullahnung's comment: Nolidor is a jerk. Ignore him and wait for him to go away. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)