Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting will commence shortly.

Talk:Feminism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

Women's Place[edit]

I agree on that slutty part 100% oh and here's for jokes http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/mw3-rage.jpg --Rimuru Tempest (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The person you just agreed with 100% is a troll with a history of doxxing and harassment. Christopher (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
only agreed on the slutty part, everything else he said was total bs. you should play ping-pong with his account using your banhammers XD --Rimuru Tempest (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, agreed on the slutty part so? It's interesting, depending on how you define a slut and how you define a man who does the same thing with women or would want to? Because at the same time women are criticized for excessive choosiness as entitled and hypergamous and how somehow feminism has favoured this, according to them, but heightening the success ratio of women. The two things don't stay together, I know you would like a happy medium too, but that's apparently trivial to state. Maybe there are all kinds of girls? I think the banned troll was humorous and not serious but apparently she/he was doxxing, if so, ok.--78.15.217.218 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased[edit]

lol, I was curious as to how this article compared to Mens' right movement and activism. Talk about biased. Rational wiki? Pile of shite more like. — Unsigned, by: 81.106.62.6 / talk / contribs

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 indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.
Much like yourself, dear Bon, we're not afraid to call things as we see them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Christopher (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Words[edit]

Slightly funspace, but:

Men can be described as cads, bounders, rascals, rapscallions, blackguards... (some having slight connotations of admiration).

Women can be adventuresses (which may have a slightly positive connotation).

Surely this imbalance is something feminists should address? (Unless sufficient more terms can be found - suggestions welcome) 86.146.100.44 (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What? Has anyone in the 21st century used the term "cad"? Christopher (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Writers of historical (fan)fiction?
Doesn't it appear in a song '... something of the cad about the boy' IIRC? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not exactly common though, I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to say. Christopher (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Playing around with the idea of how many words there are in the 'cads...' group and how few in the 'adventuress' group - and Something Should Be Done About It - hence, in part, the Funspace suggestion.
Cads do appear in the 21st century (and why not revive an obscure word or two?). 86.146.100.44 (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

Can we indefinitely protect this page to only allow autoconfirmed users? It's a high traffic page that has a history of repeated wandalism.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why not. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Go for it. Just make sure this talkpage stays unprotected (since it's about stopping vandals, not quieting dissent). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes There Are Mostly Misandrist[edit]

Laci Green's experience with the hateful trans cult, feminist of non white origin has revealed the true collars of feminism, that she has denied for years proves that feminism is a hate group. How are feminist not a religion when the y hate and restrict freedom? How is hating men not sexism? How is dividing feminism into race itself racism? How is are the Social Justice Warriors any different to the Red Guard, who set education back dozens of years and how men who support feminism, are at best seen as the problem and at worst seen as the enemy? Like I have argued in the past, feminism is a hate group and has a lot to answer for.--120.149.60.128 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, good sir, for telling us about feminism's "true collars." Now that you have taught us that feminism has collars, we may be led to a perfect world, one where people can always wear t-shirts and be free of the collar menace that has scourged humanity for so long.
Also, you are entirely correct. Anything that "hates and restricts freedom" is obviously a religion. And the Social Justice Warriors are quite obviously similar to the Red Guard. After all, everyone knows Chairman Mao started off on Tumblr. They talk about "whitewashing" one day, and they beat dissenters in the streets the next. Oh, when will it end?!
Thank you for your invaluable service to humanity! Sincerely, RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
If feminist don't hate men, they why are the moderate minority, such as Laci Green excluded from the movement for not hating men?--120.149.60.128 (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Is that why she's excluded? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 06:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Read: Overgeneralization. You'll have to drum up more prominent examples than Internet asshattery. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
No one is misinformed about feminism and the Social Justice Warriors don't represent Millennials, anymore than the Neo-Nazis represent white people.--120.149.64.212 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Your first sentence easily refutes your statement, particularly your statement that "feminism is a hate group", that "no one is misinformed about feminism". It feels great when you destroy your own argument, doesn't it? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!
How am I destroying my argument? I was simply stating most people's knowledge of feminism.--120.149.64.212 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, since you've come back to post your typo laden drivel, we're going to dissect your original post. "Laci Green's experience with the hateful trans cult, feminist of non white origin has revealed the true collars of feminism, that she has denied for years proves that feminism is a hate group." Firstly, learn to proofread. Secondly, appeal to authority, and argument by assertion. "...hateful trans cult..." Biology and psychology say trans, intersex, non-binary, and genderfluid people are based in evidence so... You're wrong. "...feminist of non white origin has revealed the true collars of feminism..." Whether due to typo or intent, you've stated that you think Feminism was invented by ethnic minorities to harm white people. That's patently false, and will be promptly dismissed as invalid.
Moving on... "How are feminist not a religion when the y hate and restrict freedom?" That's not how the category of religion works, which you would know if you did any amount of research on the topic. "How is hating men not sexism?" Unproven assertion. "How is dividing feminism into race itself racism?" Unproven assertion.
"How is are the Social Justice Warriors any different to the Red Guard, who set education back dozens of years and how men who support feminism, are at best seen as the problem and at worst seen as the enemy?" Hyperbolic nonsense. Red baiting. This entire sentence of yours is as flimsy as wet paper, if not more so. You've established nothing up to this point, and as such have no ability to conclude anything. I would go further, explaining how left-wing political theory is more expansive than just authoritarian Communism, but I feel that would be unwarranted and unneeded for such a flimsy excuse for an argument.
"Like I have argued in the past, feminism is a hate group and has a lot to answer for" We neither have access to those past arguments nor are they relevant unless you demonstrate their relevance here. Further, you have not proven Feminism is a hate group here, nor have you established any guilt.
In conclusion, you're an idiot, you're arguments (to be charitable and call your random assortment of words anything more than pure idiotic drivel) establish nothing, prove nothing, and conclude nothing. You can be dismissed without further noticed and safely ignored until such time as you learn anything about the subject matter that isn't pre-digested by reactionary pundits and spoonfed to your gullible maw. Fair thee well, and goodbye. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
You are not arguing with me. You are simply saying that I'm wrong.--2001:8003:8560:3D00:E10B:D9E0:BF79:43CE (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, your reply is a bit late isn't it? Secondly, no shit Sherlock. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mine is nine months late while yours is three years. Tell me this, do you deny the existence of misandry because you believe that women can't hate men and all sexism is misogyny? Or are you a feminist that singles out the SJWs for being literally everything that the feminist movement is guilty of?--2001:8003:8560:3D00:3551:AEBE:2F2F:867F (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Fourth wave?[edit]

According to Wikipedia, it can be said that the early 2010s marked the end of the Third Wave and the beginning of the Fourth Wave. Do you think we split the third and fourth waves in this article?Advicedoge (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Male Violence[edit]

Armed and Misogynist: How Toxic Masculinity Fuels Mass Shootings.
I've read scores of articles about the violence of men, especially towards women ; and not seen any explanation of WHY men are violent.

In nearly every species of animal, the males fight, and the females will only mate with the winners. This is an evolutionary pressure in favour of violence and aggression which has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. It is still happening in humans, and leads to the nastiness in politics, business, sport, and of course, warfare.

If you lived in a cave, and might at any moment, be obliged to fight to the death against a grizzly bear or some neighbouring tribe of cannibals ; then having a man who would grab his spear and ferociously attack any possible danger, would be advantageous. In today's more civilised society, this is not so, but women's attitudes are still in the stone-age.
If any single lady is interested in a relationship with a guy who is weak, weedy and timid, please get in touch.

TL;DR -- Q: Why are men so violent and aggressive ? A: Because women insist on it.
78.147.46.176 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a pretty stupid theory, I have to say. The actual discussion of how feminist thinkers assert society produces this phenomenon is covered briefly in our patriarchy article. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Alternate theory to the BoN's: Men are more violent in general because society at large lets them get away with it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This "animals are violent so human males are violent" sounds sort of persuasive. One of the more notoriously violent primates is the baboon. One would imagine this was a genetic thing. But this is what happened when the bullies were removed from one community. Which makes it look like violence and agression are socially learned behaviors.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Women's attitudes are still in the stone age and promote male violence, that's why I'm editing RationalWiki and I find a children's video game fat cartoon plumber super cute and his weak, weedy, timid brother has a sizeable fangirl base. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
When you write: "women's attitudes" - do you mean "the attitudes women in general have" or do you mean "the attitudes people generally have about women"? Because the grammar seems to mean the former, but I'm not sure if that's actually the point you want to make. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Our opinionated BON has probably not stuck around for the discussion. Here we have, ostensibly, a depressed person making the kind of conclusion about women that a violent incel might, but with a sad and incoherent complaint rather than a threat. To our BON, I'm sorry for your troubles. You should seek professional advice. Evolution has little to do with your problem. You have mixed the argument of evolution of male aggression with the free will argument for women's choices. Also, the patriarchy makes them do it is a nominal explanation. @Bob M The Forest Troop article is very interesting. But the most surprising part is the fact that when bullying was eliminated by the death of the most violent animals, violence did not really disappear. The situation that ameliorated was bullying: violence still persisted but tended to be between dominant individuals of equal size or status. After all,"We are talking about baboons here."--Dr. Sapolsky. "What most distinguishes this congregation from others is that the males resist taking out their bad moods on females and underlings. When a dominant male wants to pick a fight, he finds someone his own size and rank." It must be admitted that this is a big improvement, but also suggests that violence itself might not be a simple matter of conditioning..Ariel31459 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Genuine criticisms of radical waves of feminism[edit]

I support feminism, but there are legitimate critiques of the denial of any sex differences, eg. the denial of evolutionary psychology's findings about sex differences, the denial of sexual dimorphism in certain tasks, and other such technical areas. I believe Wikipedia has some detail on this even in their antifeminism article. Would be nice to see it included here under "antifeminism" at least.--HalMartin (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A lot of this material is very problematic. Evolutionary psychology is a contested discipline. And findings of sexual dimorphism in areas such as map-reading, spacial reasoning, etc, are also questionable: see Cognitive differences between sexes. In particular, while there may be measurable differences on average, that doesn't mean that they are innate or apply to all men and women (just because men are on average taller than women, it doesn't make sense for a tall woman to ask a short man to get something off a high shelf). I'm not sure how much of this complicated and technical material belongs here; all you could say was some scientists believe there are biological differences between the sexes at the level of population-wide statistical measurements but it isn't clear whether these differences are innate or culturally-conditioned. --Annanoon (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)