User talk:127․0․8․15

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, 127․0․8․15! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Nullahnung (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So much about Feminism and Equality

• RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia
• RationalWiki is not neutral point of view
• RationalWiki is original research
• RationalWiki does have a sense of humor

Apparently all that ends, when it comes to feminism and related topics. Feminists claim, their ideology was about equality, but that equality ends, as soon as it comes to anything which might be considered critical to feminism. I tried to RationalWikify the Feminist page but my edit was deleted by some admin who "couldn't see the snark". I tried again, pointing out this was probably his just his personal point of view and was not only blocked, but the Essay I was just editing was deleted too.

This is another prominent example that feminism is not about equality and feminism in fact is authoritarian ideology. From the first articles I read, I thought RationalWiki was an open minded project, apparently that was a big mistake. ^{— Unsigned, by: 127․0․8․15 / talk / contribs}

By the way, having looked at your changes, I don't see snark, i see a whine. just saying...One tin soldier (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not me, I see a snark 127.0.8.15 01:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that nobody bothered to stop said "admin" means it's not just his own opinion, but a broadly accepted opinion here that feminism is mostly right and its critics mostly wrong. Also, essays represent the wiki almost as much as articles, so if the opinion in such an essay doesn't represent the opinion of the wiki, it of course gets deleted.

And you are right, that RationalWiki doesn't consider itself open-minded as much as "correct-minded".

(Oh, and equality doesn't mean all views are equally valid, which you seem to imply.) Nullahnung (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Essay editing page explicitely states, the Essays reflect the opinions of their respective owners and not (necessarily) those of RationalWiki

But if it should turn out your opinion has a majority here, then I have to conclude the title of this Wiki is misleading and this is just another feminist, that is anti-male Website.

And no, I just stated that the Equality feminists promote is an equality where women are more equal than men, and the article about feminism is a prominent example when you compare compare it to other, non-women related articles. 127.0.8.15 00:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about the essays. However, I do have a point, see this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Help:Namespace

Where it says under "Essay": "However, we do request that essays have some tact as these essays will still be associated with RW."

Now, I can't see what you've written in your essay, so I will conclude that it has been prematurely deleted, since I expect some sort of discussion to occur first before an essay is deleted for "tactlessness". Nullahnung (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You, or any other logged-in sysop, can see the deleted essay here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Point in fact, Nullahnung, unless things have changed, essays do not get deleted, even if they are against what most editors thing. Precisely because it gives everyone a chance to say their piece, especially on controversial subjects. I do know that we sometimes put up "the opinion of this essay is bunk, so don't bother reading", but i don't think we delete. One tin soldier (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(EC)You're right. I have come to the conclusion that it was prematurely deleted, at least. If nobody chimes in here about what the deal with the deletion was, I'll restore the essay in a day or so. Nullahnung (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I support deleting it under a broad interpretation of the rubric of "Articles and redirects made by vandals whose sole purpose is obscenity and/or personal attack." ^{— Unsigned, by: Father Vivian O'Blivion / talk / contribs}

How can a site be "Anti-male" when likely 95%+ of its active editors ARE male? --Revolverman (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Because somehow we're all deluding ourselves? Nullahnung (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cause the womenz and the matriarchy has turned the menz into manginas. (actually, i've always wondered how RW escaped the typical 'atheist/rationalist/website' man'sworld that you find most other sites. also, mostly trans friendly, which is equally surprising. This site is weird, in a good way)One tin soldier (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Revolverman: How can a man have a female gender or vice versa? And it's not that those 95 % all did support feminism in the same way.

When feminists want equality they have to accept being criticised the same way others do. 127.0.8.15 01:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok... just in case you're not just trolling, but actually believe the stuff about feminism being for female superiority... I'll say first that I don't think so and that it's more about women getting equal treatment than superior treatment. Furthermore, you're deluding yourself if you think there's any significant group whatsoever out there who can accept criticism. NO group ever accepts criticism, or it would be more accurate to say that they all deal with criticism by arguing against it (or changing, in which case the criticism disappears and becomes non-existent), in which feminism is no different. You will find no group that just sits there and stores criticism without doing anything about it. This is completely irrelevant as to the subject of equality. Nullahnung (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? Nullahnung (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Because "nobody accepts criticism" is a pig-stupid thing to say & you seem to be justifying it on the basis of a weirdly specific definition of "accept". Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fair point (I mean, I did imply that I was being inaccurate with usage of "accepts criticism" by writing "or it would be more accurate to say that", but I should have probably just taken everything back instead at that point). I would hold it to 127.0.8.15, then, to specify what he/she means by "they have to accept being criticised the same way others do" and how others supposedly are accepting criticism in a way that is superior to how feminists are accepting it. Nullahnung (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

BON, you know, if you ever showed valid criticism of feminism, we'd listen. One very real criticism of feminism that held strong up until the last year or two (I do see it changing on sites like RH Health, feministing, Planned Parenthood) is the focus on middle class white women's issues with rape, access to abortion, etc. It was pointed out that feminism had a really hard time remembering not to always position from the point of view of women who have money, access to education, and whatever else white privileged brings. So, it changes and more sites push focus and access for other groups. But beyond that, I really don't know of a lot of criticism that has any merit. care to enlighten us?One tin soldier (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

First, what do you mean with "remembering"? AFAIK it were middle class white women who set the ball rolling, Suffragettes like e.g. Emily Davison.

But the real problem with feminism is: Feminism claims, men were privileged, which isn't (and never was) true. The Gender pay gap page here on RationalWiki states a 16 to 19 percent lower average income, comparing women to men. OK, lets assume these numbers actually describe differences exclusively caused by someone belonging to the male or female group.

Now please look inside these groups. E.g. there is a wage gap inside the male group depending on the body size, which can well sum up to 20 percent or more (cf. Paxson, C. / Case, A.: “Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market Outcomes”, Journal of Political Economy, issue 116, 2008, p. 499ff). Thus it's not men who are privileged, but large men - and even not all large men. There are more such issues, the social status you are born with (that's decisive even in the US), health issues which imply that affected people have to work much harder to earn an average income, and more. It does not take much research to discover, the wage gaps inside the male and female groups span far more than 100 percent.

Thus 21st century feminism in the western societies is in fact antisocial as it covers up the much more serious social differences.

Furthermore feminism is a conspiracy theory about a worldwide, concerted male effort to oppress women, feminists regularly fall to the ad hominem fallacy when criticized and so on... 127.0.8.15 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, Nullahnung, I'll try to clarify my point. I think, feminists should accept being criticised the same way, they expect others to accept being criticised by feminists. 127.0.8.15 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So it seems the real question is which criticisms are valid and which aren't since only valid criticisms are likely to be accepted. Nullahnung (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

s.a.