If you needed any further proof of bias against men's rights, just look at the Wikipedia entries for 'feminism' vs 'Men's rights movement'.

Ma99ie · 2014-06-22T04:53:39+00:00

There is a feminist cabal that constantly edit that page and keep out people who are not gender ideologues.

IgnatiusBSamson · 2014-06-22T01:59:54+00:00

It's because feminism has been institutionalized at the highest levels - academia (MacKinnon), politics (McCaskill), journalism (Steinem), speculative writing (Rosin), even biology (I forgot my example of that one, but she exists). Any time an ideology is enshrined there will be gaps in thinking and inevitable biases.

Not surprised, just angry.

chavelah · 2014-06-22T17:32:20+00:00

"They hold biological views of fatherhood, emphasizing the imperative of the genetic foundation of paternity rather than social aspects of fatherhood."

Those bastards, caring about the biological parentage of their children.

(I give not one tiny percentage of a fuck about the biological parentage of my children, the social aspect is what matters to me. But FFS, I don't want to be LIED TO about who made the baby.)

Akesgeroth · 2014-06-22T06:55:16+00:00

Just delete the criticism from the men's rights movements article and state in the discussion section that wikipedia is not a debating platform.

Family-Duty-Hodor · 2014-06-22T12:28:02+00:00

Maybe they give a little too much weight to criticisms, but I thought the section on Issues was excellent. Very comprehensive and extensive.

TubePincher · 2014-06-22T13:10:05+00:00

They sure do seem to think that lots of citations (regardless of what they actually are) will make there point seem valid.

Akesgeroth · 2014-06-22T07:17:05+00:00

So I checked it out and it turns out the criticism section is this:

The men's rights movement's beliefs and activities have been criticized by femnist scholars, the Southern Poverty Law Center and commentators, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.

That's it. Nothing more.

ThisIsMyFloor · 2014-06-22T09:47:21+00:00

It does say:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. (April 2014)

This article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (April 2014)

But I doubt people care about that.

freemale101 · 2014-06-22T13:28:55+00:00

I thought the Wikipedia synopsis of the MRMs was quite OK. Might be a good day though...However I'm sick of seeing this 'Southern Poverty Law Centre" mentioned again, as if its a relevant 'official' ballast. And what a bullshit name..."Southern Poverty" etc...sounds like they're trying to look like a Hospital, evangelical, ... or like John the Baptist!

MRSPArchiver · 2014-06-22T01:29:29+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Carrion332 · 2014-06-22T14:05:17+00:00

dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/70993946998/how-can-you-be-anti-feminist-do-you-not-believe-in#notes

Perhaps we should create a new section "rebutal" and remove the strawman arguments that are there now.

ThePigmanAgain · 2014-06-23T00:04:25+00:00

On anything other than popular culture, Wikipedia is worthless.

Crimson_D82 · 2014-06-22T07:32:47+00:00

In all honesty I think we'd be better off getting Wikipedia to delete the MRM webpage because it's feminist controlled. We would be better served simply by making an MRM wiki as a stand alone. That way at least someone on our side would be able to maintain control.

Sasha_ · 2014-06-22T13:33:40+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Title	If you needed any further proof of bias against men's rights, just look at the Wikipedia entries for 'feminism' vs 'Men's rights movement'.
Author	sfacets
Upvotes	91
Comments	30
Date	June 22, 2014 1:29 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/28rhma/if_you_needed_any_further_proof_of_bias_against/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/if-you-needed-any-further-proof-of-bias-against.998892 https://theredarchive.com/post/998892

Comments