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.
@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?