Two problematic edits that might still be salvaged
My contention in reverting these is not that they're wrong, per se, but that they represent a rather oversimplified view of the issues at hand. Specifically, I don't think anyone in feminism really disagrees with the idea that violence in porn is an issue, but that doesn't mean that the arguments against BDSM are always sound, especially when practitioners have very different opinions. Also, the quibble over the meaning of "voluntary" seems to be a bit hairsplitting. Thoughts? EVDebs (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't follow. When you say "they represent an oversimplified view of the issues at hand", are you referring to the pieces of text I removed or my reasons for removing them? Obviously not all arguments against BDSM are sound, but they're not all without merit either, & handwaving them away as the concerns of some feminazis with quack theories who conflate one thing with another is ignorant at best, if not disingenuous. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- A little of both. Might be worth going into depth on the point, although honestly I suspect it might be better covered on the BDSM page itself. EVDebs (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
More problematic edits
“”A reclaimed word is a word that was formerly used solely as a slur but that has been semantically overturned by members of the maligned group, who use it as a term of defiant pride. Queer is an example of a word undergoing this process. For decades queer was used solely as a derogatory adjective for gays and lesbians, but in the 1980s the term began to be used by gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification. Eventually, it came to be used as an umbrella term that included gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Nevertheless, a sizable percentage of people to whom this term might apply still hold queer to be a hateful insult, and its use by heterosexuals is often considered offensive. Similarly, other reclaimed words are usually offensive to the in-group when used by outsiders, so extreme caution must be taken concerning their use when one is not a member of the group." 
In 1989, twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot twenty-eight people before killing himself. He began his attack by entering a classroom at the university, where he separated the male and female students. After claiming that he was "fighting feminism" and calling the women "a bunch of feminists," he shot all nine women in the room, killing six. He then moved through corridors, the cafeteria, and another classroom, specifically targeting women to shoot. Overall, he killed fourteen women and injured ten other women and four men in just under twenty minutes before turning the gun on himself. He left a note at the end of his suicide letter stating:
“”Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive. Alea Jacta Est.
- Sourour, Teresa K., (1991) Report of Coroner's Investigation (PDF). Retrieved on December 28, 2006
- Malette, L. and Chalouh, M. The Montreal Massacre, Gynergy Books, 1991
Raymond and Helms
There's an interview with Janice Raymond on Counterpunch that mentions RW in one of the questions. Raymond denies any collaboration with Jesse Helms. Anyone willing to clarify that? And clarification in one direction or another would be nice to be included in the Janice Raymond article itself.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- She has written about some of the criticisms about here here: http://janiceraymond.com/fictions-and-facts-about-the-transsexual-empire/ it includes her mention of Rationalwiki and the Jesse Helms thing. Maybe someone in the know could fisk it real good, like we do for some of the arguments written by creationists. Dowdicus (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Several times I have run into today irrational articles, I really thought this was Rational Wiki and NOT Irrational wiki. Overall it's good but some things can be more rational. Google Feminist Utopia and or Castrate all Men day — Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs
- Google it? What for? Any movement attracts it's fair (?) share of crazies.--Arisboch (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes but the movement's name is being hijacked by people who simply hate men and or call things part of the Patriarchy when they disagree with it i.e. GTA in Australia which was actually banned, although it is a minority, this is what the term radical feminist means. — Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs
- Is it? I don't think you're explaining it very clearly. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 03:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Actually BoN, you are mistaken. GTA V wasn't banned in Australia it was pull from Target Australia's shelves following a change.org petition.--Owlman (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a good thing not everybody here is as biased, but I think this is becoming a hub of SJWS. I can't be the only one noticing.
- Be sure to sign your posts. Also you just gave us a dog whistle Bonny. The terminology is not what you declare it to be. Also I sense that more of these "I thought this was a Rational WikI!" is going to cause the drinking bottles to become empty. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- This right here tells me you didn't read the page; you just came to bitch at us. There is an entire section on this page that talks about anti-trans feminism, with a link to its own dedicated page (see: TERF) ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Persons and why?
I was kinda bumbling around this idea and then I realized this page doesn't really have any examples (except Andrea Dworkin, which isn't explained). How about including the likes of WP:Valerie Solanas?
The part about Dworkin is bullshit
I've read several books by Dworkin, and I can tell you that the way RWers seem to see her is bullshit, and you're basically buying into anti-feminist propaganda directed at her. I corrected one part of the article in this light, only to find out a bigger offense in the Nutpicking section. I don't have time right now to decide what to do with that (just remove her from that section?), and I'm not well read on the other authors mentioned there (though I have all reason to be majorly skeptical against criticism against them), so I'll leave it be for now... 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)