Is this Wikipedia description accurate?

TheVoluntaryBeggar · 2022-07-04T09:04:13+00:00

I use the German wikipedia and then run it through the google translator, which is pretty accurate.

Many subjects, that interest me, are better in German anyway.

The wikipedia US version is a woke disgrace and deserves to be avoided.

TrilIias · 2022-07-04T09:03:53+00:00

"To be respected, women have to act like typical women, while gay people and black people have to act as if they aren't gay or black to be respected."

That should have been their first clue that women aren't and have never been oppressed like black people and gay people.

Also, men's responsibilities to respectability don't exist? I'm going to need a big citation for that.

HikuroMishiro · 2022-07-04T10:02:06+00:00

It's Wikipedia, don't expect things to be accurate on anything remotely related to politics or social matters.

AngelPhoenix77 · 2022-07-04T16:27:20+00:00

Mt issue comes from the section "In the United States" it mentions "honor-killing". The United States doesn't practice this. Only the Middle East and some Asian countries. This is a flat-out lie. Which to me makes this whole article dubious at best. Misinformation at worst.

TheSpaceDuck · 2022-07-04T18:53:26+00:00

Scientifically it's very innacurate as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that men are less respected than women, not the other way around.

2022-07-04T09:14:38+00:00

Is it so because most academics who conduct these researches are feminists? It goes without saying that even men receive inconsistent messages about what's respectable sexual behavior. It would be laughably absurd to suggest otherwise, but there's little to no conversation about this issue from them.

tiger_woods_is_goat · 2022-07-04T16:34:32+00:00

This is nonsense. Anything even remotely political on Wikipedia is pure propoganda.

TruthIsHated · 2022-07-04T17:34:08+00:00

They're just being bigoted misandrists, defining white-maleness as intrinsically evil.

Anih1list · 2022-07-04T23:28:41+00:00

The article argues that black people and LGBT+ people gain more respect when they act contrary to their stereotype. Example: Obama is "respectable" because he is an articulated, intelligent speaker rather than a frivolous womanizing criminal. Pete Buttigieg is respectable because he is an uptight, professional man rather than flamboyant and bitchy.

It then argues that women gain more respect when they conform to their stereotype. For example, modest and meek women are more "respected" in society than 6' girlbosses who can dunk. It argues that these social standards are not as highly enforced for men. Their example is the #NotAllMen response to #MeToo, implying that there is a social standard for men not to be sexually abusive, which men are comfortable ignoring...

But this is actually contrary to all evidence. The whole idea of toxic masculinity is there is indeed an unhealthy expectation for men to be aggressive womanizing assholes rather than sensitive, caring gentlemen. In addition, there is arguably stronger social pressure for men to be manly than for women to womanly. Women are allowed to dress in suits and become CEOs, Senators, and firefighters with not much social opposition. Men, on the other hand, are discouraged from staying at home, dressing in feminine clothing, or even being short. Whereas women can be "tough" or "strong" or "independent," men are not allowed to be "sensitive," "nurturing," or "social".

I'd say the article operates on a workable basis of reasoning but fundamentally misunderstands the social experience of men. This is clear because #NotAllMen and #MeToo are not contradictory in any way. #MeToo is not about protecting women against men, but protecting all people from sexual abuse.

regularcomments · 2022-07-04T18:34:47+00:00

Never trust Wikipedia when it's about political themes.

People there show their bias in those kinds of articles, even when they try to appear to be "objective".

Besides politics, Wikipedia's editors have some ridiculous stories you probably think that only happen in tv shows like "south park".

For example, there was a guy there who apparently had a no-sense obsession ( or he probably was just trolling) to make every article on the page to be related to boobs. That clearly started a controversy on the page and worst of all THERE WERE PEOPLE DEFENDING HIS EDITS.

On another occasion, there was an article on the page about a war that never happened.

Advice, if you are going to make an investigation of any kind try to avoid Wikipedia or at least make sure the sources they give you are trustworthy.

geocitiesuser · 2022-07-04T12:38:07+00:00

Society has fallen

hedic · 2022-07-05T14:48:44+00:00

That's such a weird take on #NotAllMen. How is defending yourself from false accusations not being respectful. Are we just supposed to respectfully let them lie on us?

happyness423 · 2022-07-04T09:49:12+00:00

obesetial · 2022-07-04T16:21:46+00:00

It's a good thing wikipedia doesn't have a comments section

Temporary_Spend_3111 · 2022-07-04T21:15:35+00:00

When it comes to the us version of wikipedia i just tend to only use it for terraria

Comprehensive_Emu487 · 2022-07-05T05:02:30+00:00

Wikipedia is all lies literally, and is always biased in one way or another. . . if you want true, correct and critical information, go for Britannica

BrokeMacMountain · 2022-07-06T10:17:35+00:00

haha, no in a word.

Wikipedia is largly controlled by misandrists injecting every article with toxic femininity.

Title	Is this Wikipedia description accurate?
Author	Gloomy_Ad8475
Upvotes	120
Comments	50
Date	July 4, 2022 7:41 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vr218b/is_this_wikipedia_description_accurate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/is-this-wikipedia-description-accurate.1121488 https://theredarchive.com/post/1121488

Comments