Hacker News Reader

Comment by onreact-com | Hacker News Reader

Wow, I'm speechless. You sound like the archetypal defender of male dominance. It's actually time travel. 100 years ago men were saying using the same arguments about the right to vote for women..

Contributing to Wikipedia is a constant fight, that's why women don't participate. You contribute something and almost immediately your stuff gets deleted unless you engage in some tedious "discussion" why it shouldn't get deleted.

No wonder women don't contribute in such a hostile atmosphere.

Are you a regular Wikipedia contributor? Why do I ask? You sound like one. It's exactly this type of hostility I mean.

View on HN

I wasn't confrontational, I just asked in what way you felt that Wikipedia was preventing women from contributing. I also pointed out that Wikipedia editors are not people of large influence and not having enough women editors is unlikely to have a societal impact. And now suddenly we're talking about male dominance, women's suffrage, and archetypes. That's a pretty big leap.

I'm actually a feminist. But people like you are just as problematic as misogynistic males. Let me just give you a brief list of things to think about.

* We don't need a 50/50 split of women and men in everything.

* Men and women are different and not inherently equal in every which way (this goes both directions).

* Making ridiculous claims and accusations just hurts the cause. Note how quick you were to accuse me.

* Picking your battles is important and Wikipedia editing is probably not an important battle.

I have a hard enough time arguing for women without irrational behavior making it harder. If my comment made you "speechless" you're probably going more harm to feminism than good. You're making it hard for the average person to take seriously.

And no, for the record I have never made an edit on Wikipedia.

"I wasn't confrontational, I just asked in what way you felt that Wikipedia was preventing women from contributing."

No, you flatly denied there is a problem.

"I also pointed out that Wikipedia editors are not people of large influence and not having enough women editors is unlikely to have a societal impact."

Wikiepdia is the #1 educational resource right now for most people. When did you check your Google results the last time? No if this isn't societal impact what elese is?

"And now suddenly we're talking about male dominance, women's suffrage, and archetypes. That's a pretty big leap."

It's a small step for you but indeed it's a big issue for at least half of humanity.

"I'm actually a feminist."

LOL. How that? Let me know.

"* We don't need a 50/50 split of women and men in everything."

Who is we? We "men"?

"* Men and women are different and not inherently equal in every which way (this goes both directions)."

At least they should have the choice to determine themselves in what way they want to be equal.

"* Making ridiculous claims and accusations just hurts the cause. Note how quick you were to accuse me."

Now because I don't agree with you and you don't see a problem with women being marginal on Wikipedia my point is ridiculous? Well, you're a great feminist it seems.

"* Picking your battles is important and Wikipedia editing is probably not an important battle."

See above, tell me another single Website on the Web beside Google that has more impact than Wikipedia right now.

"And no, for the record I have never made an edit on Wikipedia."

So maybe you should try that to determine why it's actually a problem for women.

"...irrational behavior..."

Again, just because I'm disagreeing and you make me angry with your ignorance while pretending to be a feminist doesn't mean I'm irrational.

You said you're a feminist. Try reading this about self proclaimed male feminists:

""Feminist Men": Oxymorons, or Simply Morons?" http://girlbomb.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/feminist_men_ox.htm...

I read the article you linked to. A choice quote:

As a matter of fact, it's caused me to realize that most of the men I've personally known who have made a huge hairy point of identifying as feminists have been either date rapists, mom fetishists, porn addicts, or bear daddies inflicting their frustrated pseudopaternal tendencies on women.

You sir, are quite simply a joke. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in, but it must be a lonely place. If you really are passionate about the rights of women I'd advise you to reeducate yourself about the important issues in feminism today and collect a set of sources that are educated and reasoned. Based on how you've presented yourself, I'd be willing to bet the hour I spent in the classroom last month teaching middle school girls math accomplished more for the advancement of women than everything you've done in your life time. I hope that's not true, but it probably is. Sigh. People like you are the true price we pay for our liberties.

I thought tsally was saying that women have equal access to Wikipedia, which should be enough - the lack of voting rights is all about denying equality to women from the outset. I don't think tsally's saying he or she is in favour of that.

There's clearly a problem with women being put off Wikipedia and I'd love to know why(your reason sounds plausible but I'd like a proper study to be made to find out all the different factors). I'd like to know if it's the same across different countries and cultures. It's a little disturbing to think that so few women are contributing to Wikipedia.

Good grief. That's an incredibly hostile response to a mildly phrased assertion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com