Bruh fuck off.

SarcasticallyCandour · 2024-11-11T01:42:31+00:00

Its feminist view and no one else's views. Is what feminists see as equality.

TaskComfortable6953 · 2024-11-11T01:28:22+00:00

damn, we're fucked :(

Logical-Cap-5304 · 2024-11-11T01:55:14+00:00

Ofc it’s “protected”

-BatrickPateman- · 2024-11-11T01:30:48+00:00

They control the media and information we see yet it's a patriarchy.

Evanecent_Lightt · 2024-11-11T03:03:54+00:00

Gotta dehumanize so we can feel comfortable Persecuting.

Sky-kunn · 2024-11-11T03:17:49+00:00

Radical feminism has often been associated with misandry in the public consciousness. However, radical feminist arguments have also been misinterpreted, and individual radical feminists such as Valerie Solanas

Many radical feminists openly embrace misandry - you can literally just ask them. It's bizarre that this article tries to push the narrative that misandry is a "myth.".

The entire article reads more like a defense against accusations of misandry rather than an actual documentation of what misandry looks like in modern society. It's genuinely baffling. Even worse, whenever the article does mention clear examples of misandry, they're immediately dismissed as "satire" or "parody" - as if that somehow makes them not real expressions of anti-male sentiment.

Instead of actually examining the phenomenon, the article spends most of its time trying to explain away or minimize any evidence of misandry. This isn't how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work. They should document and explain topics, not defend against them.

The way this topic is handled in academic discourse is fascinating. We have clear examples of institutional discrimination (selective service, custody bias, sentencing disparities), but they're dismissed with claims that these don't count as "real institutional power" - which is absurd, because these are literally institutions exercising power through policy.

The "false equivalence" argument is really just clever rhetorical maneuvering to avoid addressing any male-specific issues. Look, historical and ongoing misogyny is absolutely real and serious - nobody's trying to play suffering olympics here. But saying "we can't discuss problem X because problem Y is bigger" is terrible logic that helps nobody.

It's like telling someone "sorry, we can't treat your broken leg because other people have cancer." That's ridiculous - we can actually address multiple societal problems at the same time. The existence of serious women's issues (which are very real) doesn't somehow invalidate the existence of men's issues. They're not mutually exclusive.

What's really telling is how identical behaviors get completely reframed depending on who's doing them. When women discuss systematic barriers they face, it's called "speaking truth to power." But when men discuss systematic barriers they face, suddenly it's labeled as "promoting a backlash narrative." The double standard is pretty obvious.

Maybe the real solution would be acknowledging that power dynamics in society are incredibly complex, and different groups can face different types of discrimination simultaneously. But that would require moving past this zero-sum mentality where acknowledging any men's issues is somehow seen as an attack on women's advocacy.

We can absolutely acknowledge both that women face serious systematic challenges AND that certain institutions discriminate against men without suggesting they're equivalent in scale or severity. When an encyclopedia article requires editorial tags questioning every assertion that supports one perspective while accepting opposing views without scrutiny, it demonstrates exactly the kind of institutional bias being discussed. But apparently nuanced discussion isn't something we're capable of having right now.

These issues are actively debated on the article's talk page

AigisxLabrys · 2024-11-11T03:22:15+00:00

They control the entire of gender discussion yet somehow are the oppressed underdogs.

ReadItProper · 2024-11-11T04:57:41+00:00

"promoted by marginalized [citation needed] men" loooool

Absentrando · 2024-11-11T05:18:28+00:00

They used to describe it as a “term invented by anti feminists to describe the supposed hatred…” lol

2024-11-11T03:06:44+00:00

It’s so interesting the comparison between misandrists and Antisemitism. They adopted each other’s deflection tactics.

MaximumTangerine5662 · 2024-11-11T06:59:02+00:00

Wow written like a 4chan post itself, and those over 40 professionals were the pigs in my garden.

Infestedwithnormies · 2024-11-11T02:13:00+00:00

The institutions are not going to acknowledge their biases. If wikipedia existed back in the 50s, it would have said the same about misogyny.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincingnthe world he doesn't exist."

DemoniteBL · 2024-11-11T02:51:31+00:00

Let's assume feminist spaces are completely free of misandry, what about misandry coming from conservatives? Expecting men to behave in masculine ways, assigning gender roles to them, viewing them as more expendable than women, drafting them for war and so on? Guess that is irrelevant, because some dude on 4chan said he hates feminists, which is clearly the more pressing issue.

Greedy-Ambition6551 · 2024-11-11T10:53:12+00:00

The fact this article is undermining men’s issues is misandrist~ how ironic considering it’s an article on misandry…

However, sadly, this does not surprise me

shopinhower · 2024-11-11T06:37:30+00:00

This is why I will never donate to Wikipedia. I mean why can’t it just be a really good source of information instead of turning into a leftist circle-jerk?

GNSGNY · 2024-11-11T07:53:07+00:00

if wikipedia shares your opinion, it's not unpopular

White_Buffalos · 2024-11-11T11:45:37+00:00

Equality looks like oppression to the privileged.

JazzPhobic · 2024-11-11T21:20:16+00:00

Always remember: Only bigots deny or downplay bigotry.

eli_ashe · 2024-11-12T04:25:56+00:00

wow, divorce laws in all societies institutionally support women. no exceptions that i am aware of at any rate. granting that there has been movement on it.

child custody laws institutionally support women, not men.

domestic violence laws institutionally support women, not men.

conscription, literally laws in all societies throughout all of human history.

i feel like whoever wrote that doesnt understand what 'institutional' means here. laws written and enforced are institutional support for.

just fucking wild shit.

PurpleBoltRevived · 2024-11-11T10:02:48+00:00

These 40 experts probably look like this:

<image>

princess2036 · 2024-11-11T14:13:05+00:00

This is on Wikipedia. You pay a few dollars and it can be changed. I did this with my high school students. We made it so Chuck Norris fought and won WW2. We also made up a place with made up creature's. There were so many more. If it wasn't changed by the end of the semester they got 10 extra points. So, take it with a grain of salt and do more research.

2024-11-11T15:43:23+00:00

Always name the people contributing to the hate: —Sangdeboeuf

May or may not be related to other online accounts using the same name: https://www.instagram.com/sangdeboeuf/

HunterRenegade09 · 2024-11-11T18:05:06+00:00

Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles.

Maximum_Ad_3576 · 2024-11-11T21:01:38+00:00

Don't worry look up the CEO and the top dogs of Wikipedia, their educational and cultural backgrounds and it will make you feel better. That being said is there anything that we can do to like give a complaint about that page? They're going to be a Karen, I'm going to be a Karen

Confident_Truck424 · 2024-11-12T08:52:57+00:00

It just say that some scholars said it…

ForsakenReporter3504 · 2024-11-22T17:40:51+00:00

WTF Wikipedia?

Title	Bruh fuck off.
Author	ZealousidealArm160
Upvotes	287
Comments	50
Date	November 11, 2024 1:15 AM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/EverydayMisandry
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/everydaymisandry/comments/1gogbxk/bruh_fuck_off/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/EverydayMisandry/bruh-fuck-off.1535367 https://theredarchive.com/post/1535367

Comments