User talk:Theinactivist/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

sexism page

i thought the meaning of equal rights was implicit in the definition. i could cite some notable feminist theorists just to add to the verifiability? i left men's rights in there to keep things neutral, but it doesn't have an authoritative source to verify it either both within the partition or on it's wikipage. i don't see why one word is considered OR, but the other isn't. please reply on here. 86.150.166.115 (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The table was drafted up one morning without reference to a particular work, and has remained so ever since. In short, it's all OR. Most people play the guidelines loosely except for contentious or completely novel material. The reasoning for my action is simple: The men's rights page (as well as the related masculism page) is full of example of activist campaigns against inequalities toward men. The feminism page has scarcely an example to be found. I would love if you would draft a section regarding feminist actions against sexism aimed against males. Those theories need to be known much more widely. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

it has it's own page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Feminism_and_equality - i'm not arguing the reality, because that would be fraught with subjectivity (a person can choose to see the glass as half empty/full in regards to feminists campaigning for parental leave, against gender segregation, gender neutral language, reproductive health, heterosexism, against gender roles/binary, etc as they all affect men too), but i'm talking about the definition of the terms. 86.166.127.112 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You list feminism as the prominent advocate against sexism directed at men, before men's rights. You are arguing that the definition of equal rights for both sexes (as used in the context of one form of feminism which, the article suggests stands out mainly in its criticism of other more vocal forms of feminism) places feminism in this cell: under those circumstances, egalitarianism trumps all movements, as its definition is entirely unambiguous. What makes feminism more noteworthy than both egalitarianism and men's rights in this endeavor? Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 09:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

i think there's only two socially active schools of thought. mainstream feminism has always had equality at it's centre and in regards to legislative and cultural change. i didn't say it's more noteworthy than men's rights, i don't believe them to be mutually exclusive. a person for equal men's right's (opposition to conscription, gender roles, heterosexism, genital mutilation and for reproductive health and paternity leave, etc) who isn't hostile to women is feminist even if they don't label themselves. that's why i assume good faith. 86.135.144.247 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, what do you think of this edit? Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

that seems accurate. thanks.109.152.116.140 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. Please edit with your user account. Your rapid edits in response to my change of content added by you 10 days ago indicates that you are using a watchlist. You have edited with several different IP addresses unlikely to be cycled through normal use. Wikipedia calls this practice sockpuppetry and it is an abuse of trust. If you have accomplished this by sheer luck, please consider creating a user account. Thank you. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that

My apologies, I accidentally reverted you on Men's rights. I was using Huggle and clicked on the wrong field. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for dropping me a note and happy vandalism hunting. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

men's rights

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Kevin (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin. I'm flattered to be considered among the top three recent editors to that page. However I'm afraid I don't understand how sanctions such as blocks in response to personal threats and edit warring are any different from normal Wikipedia procedures. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not a giant difference - pretty much it's the same set of rules, just strictly enforced. On most pages there's quite a lot of slack on behavioral standards, but pages on probation more or less progress to escalating blocks after a warning. (As a hypothetical example, going "Dude, you're a dick" would get ignored on most pages even if said semi-regularly, but would end up resulting in a block after one warning on men's rights, or another page on article probation.) Kevin (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

child sexual abuse

the reason i removed that is because cathy young isn't a specialist on the subject. it's a columnist's opinion piece which doesn't draw on hard evidence and speaks of perceptions rather than reality. she's not NPOV either having been described by other scholarly authors as antifeminist. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rhl4ckfoeOoC&pg=PA7 . i'm not contesting the actual issue, but you're simply repeating it with another sentence using someone who isn't credible. Paintedxbird (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You removed the source "as it's a magazine blog opinion piece." It is, in fact, a news column written by a career journalist, and Wikipedia policy is clear that editorials should not be deleted as unreliable. If the authority is questioned, you are allowed to attribute it such as by "Journalist Cathy Young says..." The issue of Young's feminism (or antifeminism, if you rely on people who are not Young) is not important to the subject matter, but the article seems to contribute to the topic discussed. Lastly if you compare my version with the one you deleted, I think you'll see that it says something substantially closer to the source material. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 10:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, were you not the one who told me that is the force for equal rights for men? Your edits to the sexism page actually implied that feminism is men's rights. Why is it then that when you see a statement that boys should be treated with as much care as girls, you say it has anti-feminist bias? Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 10:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

i'm that person, but i'm not conflicting the issue, my editions haven't criticised it. i actually agree, but i want it recognise that the writer is a vocal antifeminist, certainly not neutral and whose opinions shouldn't be presented as facts. Paintedxbird (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that "has been attributed to..." is presenting anything as a fact, but I just rephrased it to make that more clear. Marking her as an antifeminist would be off-topic and judgmental of her content. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 11:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

maybe, but i think her political position should be mentioned. it wouldn't be judgemental to call her an "ifeminist" as that's what she calls herself. it'd be more inaccurate not to give an indication of the fact that her entire career has been founded on being a critic of feminism. also, you can't equate sympathising with a woman losing her children to sympathy for committing the crime. which is what it sounds like atm. even her piece describes feminists as uninvolved, rather than against the issue. Paintedxbird (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Young does equate them. I haven't researched the issue, but then, my opinion would just be OR. Looking over Young's contributions to Reason magazine it seems that maybe a liberal estimate of 1 in 5 of her articles deals with gender or feminism. As I said before, her politics don't matter. I purposely wrote her statements neutral of political bodies that are off-topic, even before I knew you considered her biased. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 11:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, feminists have not commented much on the lenient treatment of female sex abusers, and some have expressed guarded sympathy for them (some years ago on a talk show, activist attorney Gloria Allred deplored the fact that LeTourneau's husband had deprived her of contact with their children after her conviction). Perhaps it's the habit of solidarity with women. But this issue could provide an excellent opportunity to show that feminists value gender equity more."

she claims that feminists have expressed sympathy with a woman, but she doesn't "write that under-reporting is contributed to" by "expressions of sympathy for female abusers by activists." that's synthesis of a point and therefore OR. she does equate them, but she recognises that there's large differences of opinion within feminism and indicates her side. i don't see how her politics couldn't matter because she often specifically advocates her politics as an activist beyond her journalism (e.g. her authoring of books, writing of papers, involvement in consciousness raising). she calls herself an individualist feminist here http://reason.com/archives/2007/01/09/the-evolution-of-an-antifemini Paintedxbird (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't need to be written in quotes to avoid being OR. It's clear in context that she is providing evidence for her argument made earlier in the article. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

if that's so why does she write "In this instance, the bias against male victims stems from traditional sex stereotypes, not feminist ones. Indeed, before the feminist push for gender-neutral laws in the 1970s, sexual contact between a woman and an underage male did not legally qualify as statutory rape in most states."? you're the one blaming feminism. Paintedxbird (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look back at my edit I think you will see that I am not blaming feminism, nor did I mention it except in response to you, and to deny that it has pertinence to the topic. If you could write a one-sentence overview of the message of this source as you see it, what would you feel is most accurate? Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not template the regulars

as you did here. User:Slp1 is a very experienced administrator with more FAs and GAs to her/his name than most. Slp1 did not breach and was not about to breach the terms of the article probation, so the template warning made little sense. Moreover, there was no reason to assume that Slp1 needed that reminder as, unlike you, Slp1 was there when the article probation was proposed and drafted. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. Nowhere have I seen a clear explanation of the rules of templating except to say, within the template, that it is not an accusation of wrongdoing. I did not see Slp1 participating in the probation or its discussion, but I figured a user so prolific in her edits to the page and who has confronted other editors should be on notification. I will not notify any others. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)