The Men’s Rights subreddit: Fighting imaginary enemies, since 2008
To arms, Men’s Rights Redditors! Evil feminists are running riot on Wikipedia, deleting pages devoted to books by MRA hero Warren Farrell!
Oops. False alarm! Turns out WillToHave doesn’t quite understand how Wikipedia works. As one commenter pointed out several hours after the post went up, no pages about Farrell’s books have actually been deleted. The reason there are no pages about most of his books is … that no one has bothered to put any up yet.
D’oh! MRAs aren’t being oppressed by feminists; they’re being oppressed by their own laziness.
Of course, the only ones who know this are those who’ve bothered to actually read the comments. 15 hours after being totally debunked, the post, with its misleading headline, remains near the top of the Men’s Rights subreddit, with 142 net upvotes.
Posted on June 19, 2012, in antifeminism, drama kings, false accusations, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 343 Comments.
Seriously, Paul, wtf?
My favorite bit from the Wikipedia discussion:
Yes, Thomas Ball set himself on fire so that he could get a Wikipedia page. And we’d better give everyone Wikipedia pages or they’ll kill people so that they can meet notability.
andrea yates gets a wikipedia page because her trial became a national flashpoint for discussion of the mental incapacity defense, that is to say: people both for and against it were discussing her case.
nothing similar happened with thomas ball, because there isn’t that much to say- he’s just another name on the long list of angry, self-righteous advocates of terrorism. his spiritual comrade anders breivik, on the other hand, does get a wikipedia page because his actions were more noteworthy. so terrorism in defense of misogyny is totally represented on wikipedia. im not sure what you have to complain about?
Wait, what? He set himself on fire in an effort to encourage others to basically set more people on fire.
How’s anyone gonna claim that’s non-violent?
He gave instructions for fuck’s sake. Is there no lie too outrageous for these people?
“Oh, a disturbed individual,, You mean like Andrea Yates??”
Someone clearly does not understand the difference between wiki discussion pages, and wiki pages. Experiment for you Paul, ask random people in the grocery store or whatever if they’ve heard of Yates, then ask about Ball, guess which one is a household name? He’s not news and thus not notable and thus not a candidate for a wiki page.
Also, what Snowny said — links, use them.
@Dracula
They call themselves the Men’s Rights Movement ‘Nuff said
Andrea Yates is not a hero, just ANOTHER woman who got away with murder,,
Thomas James Ball was not a hero, just another example as to how men get screwed by our “justice” system.
Ball was trying to bring to light this fact and as such is called mentally unbalanced.
None of the 12 defenses that work for women never work for men.
Yates did not write a manifesto to inspire other women to kill their kids. Ball wrote a manifesto to inspire men to kill judges and their families.
Ball was asked to attend some counseling, not sent to jail for abusing his family. He was treated fairly leniently for someone who drew blood from a 4 year old child.
you’re right, andrea yates wasn’t a hero. nobody said she was. but we dont punish people who dont understand what they’re doing, because that doesnt makes any sense.
but thomas ball didn’t get ‘screwed’ by the justice system. he hit his kids. he admitted it. he paid the price. but losing his kids wasnt a punishment, it was a precaution against future violence from a dude who proved in a dramatic way that he was a danger to everyone around him
some of those’ defenses’ are just nonsense you made up. but seriously, citation needed.
None of the 12 defenses that work for women “ever” work for men and women are ALWAYS the poor “victim” .
.
We don’t call Ball mentally unbalanced because he didn’t like the judgement he got he court.
We call him mentally unbalanced because he set himself on fire in order to encourage arson and murder.
Your belief that he is some kind of martyr is exactly why he thought it would work.
i dont think you understand what a citation is, champ…
Looks like we have yet another “if I repeat the same thing over and over that means it’s true” troll.
the idea that a dude who though an appropriate response to be licked by a four year old was a slap across the face is a victim of an unjust system is so laughable that i cant believe even mras fall for it
I’m going to just ignore the debate Paul wants to have, because his question was why there’s no page for Ball but there is for Yates, the answer to which is only one of them was news.
Sharculese said everything that matters to the question about wiki.
Not just a slap, a slap hard enough to draw blood. Even a big man would have to apply some considerable force to draw blood with a slap.
and i mean, i do think it’s incredibly sad that ball thought the only way out of his situation was to end his life in a spectacularly dramatic fashion. i wish he had gotten the help he needed, that he had been able to get his violent tendencies under control and (if they were willing) repair the rift between him and his family.
but none of that makes him a victim.
Sharculese — by my reading of Ball’s manifesto, the entire problem was his wife didn’t want to get back together with him (and since she divorced him for hitting their daughter and that was legal in his mind then she had no right to leave him and yeeaahh)
Paul — the only one of those you’re going to be able to find legit citations on is learned helplessness, and I await how studies involving dogs apply only to women (you do get that that defense requires expert testimony from her psychs right? it could apply to a man if he met the criteria, but, afaik, no man has tried it yet?)
The rest are too stupid to engage with, but that one is intentionally misrepresenting psychology and y’all know that gets me annoyed.
And in what parallel reality did Yates “get away with murder” anyways? In this reality she confessed and plead an insanity defense — that was initially rejected and then allowed, not because of some feminist conspiracy but because the expert witness admitted he lied the first time. She’s been in a secure psych ward since 2006, and I’m not digging up any sign she’s ever going to get out. Wtf part of that is “got away with murder”?
So the national Organization for Women is not a terrorist organization???
i cant say, because i’m not his ex-wife, but just because she had no intention of getting back together with him doesnt mean that no level of reconciliation was ever possible, although it goes without saying that is totally her choice and she didnt owe him anything.
but even if there was no hope of any reconciliation at all, i find it sad when anyone decides theres nothing left for them but suicide.
So Paul doesn’t peddle fish???
Try connecting your red herrings to something previously said (or just go away, that would be preferred).
considering theyve neither planned or carried out any terrorist attacks, i’m gonna go with no.
are you sure you know what terrorism is?
“i find it sad when anyone decides theres nothing left for them but suicide.”
Yeah, I wasn’t arguing with that part, just noting that he seemed to think he was entitled to stay married and was only paying child support because feminists. When dude, your wife left you, that’s her damned right.
Oh, you mean like the S.C.U.M. Manifesto.
“Society for Cutting Up Men”
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas
Oooh, another troll I can just pull out the dictionary for! That’s my favorite sort of troll!!
ter·ror·ism, noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
ter·ror·ist, noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
ter·ror·ize, verb (used with object), ter·ror·ized, ter·ror·iz·ing.
1. to fill or overcome with terror.
2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation.
3. to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings.
So, which definition is it?
Whoa. Guys. I just had this wild idea.
Maybe it should be illegal for women to murder people.
that wasnt the national organization for women, duder
When did NOW endorse the SCUM manifesto? (Also, ZOMBIE SOLANAS!! RUN AWAY!!!)
Wait, is Paul seriously saying that NOW wrote the SCUM manifesto?
And here I just thought it was random non sequitur day! Do you think the rain will hurt the rhubarb?
Also, I gotta admit it’s fuckin’ hilarious when MRAs come in with their (always the same, always canned) list of female murderers. Do they want a list of male murderers? Um… okay.
Gary Ridgway. MAN.
Ted Bundy. MAN.
Jeffrey Dahmer. MAN.
John Wayne Gacy. MAN.
Lake and Ng. MEN.
David Berkowitz. MAN.
Hitler. MAN.
Stalin. MAN.
Pol Pot. MAN.
Now, are all the men around going to recoil in shame and horror that there are bad people in their gender?
“Do you think the rain will hurt the rhubarb?”
Depends how hard it rains?
The goalpost shifting and red herrings are strong in this one. Please troll better young padawan troll.
http://www.dadi.org/mp_myth.htm
Yet another MRM site with absolutely horrible site design, even if we wanted to read it, half the first bit is lost behind an ad.
Paul — do you have a point you’d like to get to? Otherwise could you run along now?
No, Paul, we are not going to address every MRM point ever, right now, in this one post, just to make you happy. It’s Saturday, man.
Yes, I have a point.
Men are being treated unfairly and as such we have the right to ask for equality.
I think we have a sock, Paul’s gravatar is getting me 0 google image hits (contra Snowy’s and Cliff’s, both of which turn up plenty of hits here, and other places as well) — he didn’t exist before he started trolling here in other words.
Ain’t nobody stopping you.
Hell, you’re doing it right now.
You aren’t asking, you’re demanding with arson (in Ball’s case) — that’s not really a point either, not one you could write a thesis on without driving yourself up a wall with how vague it is.
He ACCIDENTALLY hit his daughter, not CHILDREN and there was no sign of abuse towards his wife.
Have you even read the story about him or are you just listening to the propaganda from NOW??
Accidentally?! Did you read his manifesto? He said he meant to hit her, just didn’t mean to draw blood. Which is moot in terms of whether his wife had a right to a divorce (so did he, he just didn’t want one).
You’ll note I already said I’ve attempted to read the thing btw.
What makes you think MY wife left me??
Been together for 28 years.
@Paul:
Accident? Really? You mean his hand just “slipped” when he struck his daughter hard enough to make her bleed because she wouldn’t stop licking him? And you want to make this argument after being so upset that Andrea Yates wasn’t jailed on account of insanity…
You don’t have to excuse child abuse, dude. Please find a better martyr. A little self-awareness would be nice too…
…And he killed himself. That was his decision. Don’t act like this was an execution.
I’m gonna go with these:
1. the use of violence and “threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes”. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. ter·ror·ist, noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. 2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
“threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes”.
Yup,,, That pretty much describes NOW
http://now.org/press/06-12/06-04.html
“What makes you think MY wife left me??”
…can you read? The only place you could’ve possibly pulled that question from (besides your ass) was when I said — “When dude, your wife left you, that’s her damned right.” — “dude” was clearly referring to Ball in context.
@Paul:
What, you mean this from Argenti?
Where she’s talking about Ball?
Alright, calm down and step away from the keyboard before you make yourself an even bigger ass.
You can’t do that,, women are “victims” remember.
Now you need one of —
in·tim·i·date, verb (used with object), in·tim·i·dat·ed, in·tim·i·dat·ing.
1. to make timid; fill with fear.
2. to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc.
3. to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear: to intimidate a voter into staying away from the polls.
co·erce, verb (used with object), co·erced, co·erc·ing.
1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3. to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.
As well as one of —
threat, noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.
Wait, what the hell? Now NOW is a terrorist organization because they organized activists to help elect people who agree with them?
What… I don’t… Huh?
“You can’t do that,, women are “victims” remember.”
Who can’t do what? You can’t manage to keep antecedents straight? (10:1 odds Paul doesn’t know what an antecedent is)
NOW is having a conference, so that’s… a threat of violence that terrifies you???
Also “,,” nice evolution of the double period!
Never said NOW wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto,, But many feminist consider it to be a great read:
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
Here is an “Uncanned” list of women who kill their children,,
http://www.google.com/search?q=kiloled+her+children&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=WIs&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=Mx_mT-7NDKTs6gGNj5DfDg&ved=0CAgQvwUoAQ&q=killed+her+children&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=24bd4001b4cd61d4&biw=1440&bih=712
“But many[weasel words] feminist consider it…”
Oh right, you already displayed a sucktastic understanding of how wiki works, so let me cite that.
That website’s main page has under 5,000 hits btw, has anyone here ever heard of it before? Or did Paul just pull from the edges of the internet to weasel word?
HTML lesson for you Paul —
<a href=”put_your_link_here”>and give it text</a>
You want an uncanned list of men who’ve killed people?
I don’t think David has the server space.
What in the fuck are you trying to prove? What “equality” are you even trying to get here?
@Argenti:
I have no idea what Paul is doing, and I’ve reread this thread. Apparently, if you can find examples of women who kill there children, feminists are bad. Never mind all the men throughtout history who have killed their entire families… Is the point that some people are terrible? Because I don’t think anyone would disagree.
“killed her children” => “About 291,000,000 results”
“killed his children” => “About 191,000,000 results”
“killed her child” => “About 276,000,000 results”
“killed his child” => “About 323,000,000 results”
So um, congrats? You’ve managed to display that men are more likely to kill one child versus women being more likely to kill more than one? Or maybe that women who kill their children tend to have more than one, while men who kill their children have only one?
kirbywarp — idfk either, but after 2+ weeks of whack a troll with the glossary troll, this is almost refreshing XD
And oh, by the way, this has been bugging me.
Sharculese | June 23, 2012 at 2:16 pm
considering theyve neither planned or carried out any terrorist attacks, i’m gonna go with no.
are you sure you know what terrorism is?
Yes Paul, you actually did say that NOW wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto. No, that isn’t a direct quote, it’s just a direct implication of the words you’ve used. Though to be fair, you’ve made so many non sequitors in this thread it could be the case that you’ve just randomly jumped to a new topic.
BLOOOCKQUOOOOOTTTESSSSSS!!!
*falls to knees and shakes fist a the sky*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_of_Women
Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of ‘men’s rights’, or for any other political cause –
BTW,, My responses my be off in as much as I am responding from emails.
I have to ask, how many of you are married??
“You’ve managed to display that men are more likely to kill one child versus women being more likely to kill more than one? Or maybe that women who kill their children tend to have more than one, while men who kill their children have only one?”
Third option — women killing multiple children is more news worthy thus resulting in more hits. Those results are not attempting to account for the “About 1,330,000 results” for Andrea Yates.
No, he’s only managed to display what gets talked about more. It’s not like there’s only one page on Google per murder.
@Argenti:
Maybe Paul could use this site for his future research? ;)
Speak for yourself Paul, I don’t think I’m being treated particularly unfairly for being a man.