- I have a bit of personal experience with this issue, as I belong to a field that also suffers from a dearth of women, and is also dedicated to Truth: philosophy. Yet we philosophers have decided, like the rest of society, that we have an obligation not to actively exclude women (and other under-represented groups) from our field through creation of a hostile, unwelcoming environment towards them, and speak up against this kind of attempt at intimidation and exclusion, by ramming a completely
not-notable Internet forum with a minuscule number of users on to Wikipedia and allow them to pretend the illusion of a movement. There is no movement, this is not a notable phenomenon. 1-2 news articles or blog posts about this vulgar sexism hardly makes it notable. There is no room for this trash on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does have a moral obligation to make sure they are not excluding women via their policies. Women are no less intelligent than men and no less able to contribute to the project of collecting the world's knowledge, and thus, if there is a dearth of them, we have fair grounds to assume that perhaps unconscious biases and discriminatory behaviors are chasing them off and showing them they are not welcome here. Here is most obviously one, this reporting on an absolutely completely not notable small band of Internet sexists, written by the owner of the forum. This is a complete waste of time for all involved , and bad for the encylopedia in all possible ways.
World Champion Editor (
talk) 20:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not seeing the connection you're making where hosting an article like this one on Wikipedia would discourage women from participating. It's completely plausible that it could have the opposite effect, women could take more interest if there's more controversial articles related to gender. Maybe it would have no effect either way. It's more of an empirical question than anything else. I also haven't seen any evidence that the person who created the article is the owner of the mgtow dot com forum. Even if he was, it's been modified so much from his initial version, I can't see how it matters. All of that being said, as important as being inclusive is, it's not an argument related to AfD criteria. -
Scarpy (
talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- That, and World Champion Editor's description of the MGTOW people seems rather hateful and inaccurate. As far as I can tell, they're just guys who choose not to date because they think the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. I've seen no evidence of "locker room penis-waving", or "vulgar sexism", and the existence of this article is clearly not an attempt to drive women off Wikipedia. The notion is completely ridiculous.
Reyk
YO! 21:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I really don't want to be drawn further into this dispute, because, honestly, who cares whether some hate-group men's forum gets a Wiki page? But here goes: they are obviously a sexist organization looking to spread their bigoted ideas, such as, for starters, these two, mentioned right on the page: 1. Women commonly falsely accuse men of rape (actual fact: nothing further from the case could be true. Most women who are raped do not report their rapist, and there are very few false accusations of rape. You are doing real harm by allowing this utter nonsense on your website.) 2. Women, unlike men, are inherently "hypergamous", I.e by there very nature they are looking to "marry up" and use men for their money. (Actual fact: women have been excluded from most professions for, oh, say the last 4000 years. They don't need this vulgar pseudo-sociology making claims based on anecdotal evidence and evidence gathered from periods when women were systematically excluded from earning their own living.) if you want to support these know-nothing, anti-women groups started by what appears to be an 18 year old strangely cowering in fear that he will "falsely be accused of rape" spreading the vulgar sexist canard that women do this every day , be my guest. But again, when you later ask "why do no women edit here" please do Remember what I told you: it's the fact that you allow angry sexist males a platform to spread distasteful hate speech against women.
World Champion Editor (
talk) 22:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- World Champion Editor appears to be engaged in deliberate trolling. No one should reply to him, and a good case could be made for removing his comments entirely.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I am not "trolling" because I am pointing out the obvious: that the notion that this bizarre, pathetic Internet forum which promotes the
canard that women commonly engage in false accusations of rape is in any way "notable" .
World Champion Editor (
talk) 22:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I could only even consider supporting a "Keep" if some sort of Tag marking them as a "Hate Group", or "Groups which spread Discriminatory Canards" were added, so it is clear that we are only reporting on them in the same way we report on to other such Bigotry-promoting, anti-social organizations. Thoughts? Evidence they are a hate group, spreading intolerance and bigotry, straight from the sources you cited: "Women are, by nature, manipulative, attention-seeking, inconsistent, emotional, and hypergamous. Accept this truth" User:World Champion Editor|World Champion Editor]] (
talk) 22:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- My thoughts are that you are someone who is deliberately trolling this page and that it's not going to be long before you are blocked as
WP:NOTHERE.--
Jorm (
talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
- would someone care to explain how it is not bigoted to state "women are, by their nature, manipulative, etc"? That is open and shut evidence of bigotry.22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
World Champion Editor The presence of a Wikipedia article isn't an endorsement of the article topic. No one is saying you have to like or agree with this group, any more than you have to like or agree with
Heaven's Gate because they have a Wikipedia article or like to eat
Nattō because it has an article or like to listen to
Yanni because he has an article. In fact if you dislike this group so much, it's perfect opportunity for you to use every
reliable source available to make the world aware of all of it's foibles in an encyclopedic manner. And, again, None of this is relevant to AfD. Not continuing this conversation further per @
FreeKnowledgeCreator suggestion. -
Scarpy (
talk) 23:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
reply
|