PC feminists finally got around to defacing the Wikipedia men's rights section, which used to detail the MRM, and now talks about all the supposed privileges men have over women

swizzcheez · 2011-10-14T13:17:24+00:00

According to the version history, the changes have been reverted (as of Oct. 14, 9:51 GMT ~~Eastern~~). The discussion page says that a protection request has been made.

MrStinkybutt · 2011-10-14T06:48:47+00:00

I wanted to mention, this is probably the best article on men's rights and feminism I've read in the last few months, so if you haven't read it yet, I urge you to do so.

Here's what it used to look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights&oldid=449138521

They now link to a "men's movement" Wikipedia article that, of course, does not include any of the original material from the "men's rights" page detailing what MRAs are fighting for.

I've dealt with the PC police at Wikipedia before. They're a lot like feminists in that they will decide what they think should happen first, and then search for a flimsy explanation as to why it should be that way. They've created a bunch of bureaucratic rules that make it easy for the moderators to shut down discussion they don't agree with. So don't expect the men's rights or men's movement pages ever to be allowed to return to what they were. Honestly I'm surprised it took them this long to deface the page.

And this is what I mean when I say political correctness is the enemy of men's rights. Expect further censorship and shaming from the PC police in the future (as we've seen plenty of here in the last few weeks, even from some of our own members).

hardwarequestions · 2011-10-14T07:46:56+00:00

holy shit, that's been COMPLETELY altered. not just softened and such, but the new article is far more focused on historical bullshit and all-but ignores the modern issues. if i were someone just hearing about the MRM, and wiki'd it to learn more (everyone does), this page change would certainly have a major negative affect. fucking PC bastards...

EDIT: i really have no familiarity with wikipedia's inner workings or editing system; in fact all i know for sure is that it is immensely more complex than i thought. anyway, even with that, let me know if anything can be done to correct this or otherwise support a rollback on this hatchet job.

2011-10-14T16:14:14+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Bobsutan · 2011-10-14T12:58:02+00:00

Re: Dubay v. Wells under the Reproductive rights section.

In its dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stated that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

What what what???!!! How does that NOT violate equal protection in every way, shape, or form, written or as intended?

MrStinkybutt · 2011-10-14T11:52:27+00:00

This is just more evidence that feminism is a religion and no longer about asking for equal rights for women.

They remind me so much of scientologists, resorting to completely bogus statistics and universal lies as their version of "dynatics" and their bullying tactics of attempting to attack the character of whoever is saying the truth (ad hominem attacks)

FreddyDeus · 2011-10-14T15:10:46+00:00

Marriage is now being seen by various Men's Rights Activists as economic and psychological slavery of men, and therefore many men are advocating boycott of marriage.

During the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, these are the words the feminist movement used to dissuade women from marriage. How times have changed.

Jadis · 2011-10-14T14:49:46+00:00

Did they change it back to the old page? I don't see a difference between the two.

2011-10-14T15:22:18+00:00

It has been changed back for now fortunately, see this discussion and please throw your support in for the protection feature a user called Hermiod has called for in this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_rights#Why_has_this_page_been_changed.3F

PunkRockGeoff · 2011-10-14T19:44:09+00:00

And it got switched back to the defacement again.

Godspiral · 2011-10-14T16:16:48+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape is also in permanent defaced status. In that criticism of the kanin report is not only invalid but longer than the space given to the kanin study.

the criticism is invalid because the use or threatened use of polygraphs was only a tool to get a liar to admit being a liar. If someone breaks down and cries admitting to be a liar because an officer suggests she should take a polygraph, or says the machine thinks this is not entirely truthful, then that breakdown is because she is a liar. An honest person argues with the challenge. A methodology that includes aggressive but acceptable interrogation methods, is the only reasonable way to measure the incidence of false rape rates.

There is also the ommission of the 60% false rape rate result from the air force study, also conducted by a prominent feminist researcher.

Ma99ie · 2011-10-14T17:49:11+00:00

No no no no. The proper terminology for rights for men is, "Priviledge"

winfred · 2011-10-14T18:36:33+00:00

Hey! I am all for supporting your cause but you should know this is against wiki policy and it will backfire if discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing I would advise deleting the thread and talking through PM. PS they are not vandalizing the MRM page the problem with it is they have failed to provide NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

n64mikey · 2011-10-14T15:09:55+00:00

call me crazy, but i fail to see the difference in the 2 articles. Could there be a link mixup?

nepidae · 2011-10-14T22:59:49+00:00

How do you know it was a feminist and not just some troll?

drinkthebleach · 2011-10-20T10:20:37+00:00

People sure get mad that we don't like being beaten and raped, huh?

Bobsutan · 2011-10-14T08:24:56+00:00

I think the article you are looking for is this?

2011-10-14T15:07:49+00:00

Either wikki pedia changes this or goes down.

I notice thier having a fund drive.....does any one here know how to make web pages outlining this out rage.....the first step is creating negative press for wikipedia and their hatred of men.

Just like when they removed the Thomas Ball immolation page a few months ago....wikipedia is rotten to the core.

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-has-wikipedia-removed-thomas-ball.html

2011-10-16T02:55:01+00:00

This kind of shit reminds me of the big haired guy from "Ancient Aliens". Except replace "Aliens" with "Feminists".

See that rock over there? Feminists. My hair? Feminists did it. It rained yesterday...must have been Feminists.

killwhit3y · 2011-10-15T05:08:35+00:00

this is all the MRM wikipedia page needs

eschermond · 2011-10-14T08:18:16+00:00

Meh, it's Wikipedia. If you're turning to Wikipedia for answers about the MRM, then I don't think you're serious about the MRM.

If they wanna consider this a "victory," I say let them have it. It's actually sadder than it is anything else. Instead of trying to have an open, adult conversation about things, they feel the need to resort to the internet equivalent of writing "eschermond has a stinky butt" on the 3rd grade bathroom wall. It's pedantic and immature. Personally, I don't think we should give it any more exposure than it's already gotten.

haywire · 2011-10-14T20:22:08+00:00

Holy shit it's factually accurate now. Stop deluding yourselves.

Together with the right to marry comes the right to divorce. This is a right available to either of the sexes.

Oh yeah, like right now in Islamic countries where women are married as children and are raped by men.

barbadosslim · 2011-10-14T13:18:59+00:00

idgi what's wrong with political correctness

Kill_The_Rich · 2011-10-14T13:07:07+00:00

Isn't there a feminist Wikipedia page that can be defaced? Eye for an eye bitches!

rape_apologist · 2011-10-14T17:35:56+00:00

RAPE IS OKAY

Comments