RationalWiki universally pushes radical feminist dogma, which isn’t “rational” at all

Don’t get me wrong. I love a lot of the concise, reference-supported articles I find on RationalWiki, especially when it concerns pseudoscience such as the HHO/water-powered car. It’s a handy shortcut to refuting ridiculous things that aren’t scientifically accurate, and nothing makes me feel much more joy than when a bunch of Internet conspiracy theorists are told that they’re wrong and it really rustles their jimmies.

Sadly, rational thought and scientifically backed information dissemination are thrown out the window with a ferocity when you start looking up anything that touches the feminist agenda. Look up “feminism” on RationalWiki and you’ll immediately find weaselly, highly subjective statements that lean squarely in the favor of a radical feminist’s perverted perception of reality.  For example, the section entitled “Academic Criticism” begins the heading “Seeing rape everywhere” with these two sentences: “Feminists have in the past, and continue in the present to emphasize the importance of addressing modern rape culture. Something no one but the most aggressive MRA types think is a bad goal.” For one thing, there is no such thing as “rape culture,” as seen by the fact that I can drive for four hours and not only see no one being raped, but not even be exposed to anything that comes remotely close to mentioning rape….that is, unless we’re re-defining “rape” as feminists are constantly attempting to re-define it, where it effectively becomes “being a male near a female,” at which point the term “rape” would become irrelevant to most people and lose all of its power and importance. The other thing that’s quite ridiculous is the notion that “the most aggressive men’s rights activists think stopping (implied rape) is a bad idea” along with all of the notably absent supporting references attached to it. Hmm…

But wait! Let’s not jump to conclusions based solely on the fact that no substantive criticism of feminism exists in a criticism section of a feminism article on a “rational wiki!” Let’s see if the same treatment is given to articles that cover opposing viewpoints! Aha…we’ll look at the text for misandry, the antonym for the oft-used and heavily abused term “misogyny.” Uh-oh…it doesn’t look good at all, since there’s an entire SECTION of the article entitled “Concise explanation of why the concept is bullshit.” Let’s see what’s under this damning title…oh, here we are: “Sexism, like racism, is an institutional oppression on basis of sex.”

No, sexism isn’t institutional oppression on basis of sex; in fact, there’s nothing “institutional” about it. Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster agree: “sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex.” I don’t see anything institutional about that definition; do you? “Oh, but you’re ignoring OTHER DEFINITIONS!” the clever feminist might bleat, to which I respond with the other definition: “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.” Wait, that doesn’t support “institutional oppression” either, does it? D’awwww, call in the waaambulance because the astute feminist needs to fill out an Internet butthurt report form to squelch the horrible feeling of one’s religion being proven wrong in yet another increment.


I could go on and on ad nauseam discussing why every facet of modern feminism is wrong, but that’s not the point of this post, and other people have said it far better than I have said it. I should also point out that while I’m disappointed at a lack thereof for the “Feminism” article, the “Men’s rights movement” article does make a valiant (and perhaps a little rational in some places) attempt at presenting some points and refuting them. Unfortunately, almost all of those points are misrepresented at least partially, and it’s quite clear that RationalWiki’s articles that involve any gender politics are effectively ruled by a feminist matriarchy; in other words: “no male-positive opinions allowed.”

The bottom line is that RationalWiki is mostly rational on most topics, but they’ve chugged the Feminazi™ Kool-Aid and you simply can’t trust them to be “rational” in any concept that might be “explained” by feminist pseudoscience. RationalWiki people, if you’re reading this, take the time to correct this egregious mistake. I’d rather not have people leaving the so-called “RationalWiki” and saying pure bullshit like this:

If you support gender equality, you’re a feminist. Oh, wait…

“Mothers who breastfeed boy babies need to stop. We need to empower more females in this world and by breastfeeding them we are giving them a good start in life which they deserve over a baby boy [sic] which are already physically stronger than baby girls. I have feminist views and I am not ashamed to admit that. No baby boy will ever be fed from my breasts if I am unfortunate enough to have a son. Formula for him and circumcision to take away sexual pleasure from him when he grows up.”

7 thoughts on “RationalWiki universally pushes radical feminist dogma, which isn’t “rational” at all

  1. “Rape culture” does not refer to seeing rape on billboards or in public places; it refers to the way that people who are raped are treated after the fact, and a general denial or ignorance of what is going on (as borne out by the evidence). While I once interpreted this feminist buzz phrase in the manner that you do, I have changed my mind and I believe it is a fair characterization–indeed, considering that I myself was confused and appalled by the term, and said precisely what you’ve said here.

    1. You will need to explain what you mean in more precise terms. The comment is vague enough to be interpreted many different ways. A common tactic used by the people who hammer the term “rape culture” is to avoid being logically pinned down to a single meaning for their words; in effect, they refuse to make an actual assertion because concrete statements can be debated and refuted.

      Convincing a person to think as you do will require taking a position and maintaining it.

  2. “Don’t get me wrong. I love a lot of the concise, reference-supported articles I find on RationalWiki, especially when it concerns pseudoscience such as the HHO/water-powered car. It’s a handy shortcut to refuting ridiculous things that aren’t scientifically accurate, and nothing makes me feel much more joy than when a bunch of Internet conspiracy theorists are told that they’re wrong and it really rustles their jimmies.”

    So basically, you enjoy it when it puts down things you don’t agree with and hate it when it puts down things you do. Then you accuse THEM of being butthurt.

    RationalWiki is trash for a lot of reasons. You just want to pick and choose which ones, based on your own beliefs. Kind of like…everyone else?

    1. You cannot generate enough hydrogen and oxygen gas by electrolysis from the electrical lines of an internal combustion engine to be of any statistically significant value to that same engine. This is easily demonstrated with fundamental chemistry equations almost everyone learned in high school. Fields like sociology and philosophy are different; they are not “hard sciences.” If someone says that women in the United States and Britain are oppressed people whose voices are silenced, what fundamental scientific equation is telling them that? Here’s a gem from their “Feminism” article: “Many more MRAs, though, are a lot more interested in misogynistic ranting.” This is not an objective fact supported by evidence obtained through application of the scientific method. It is not simply an opinion; it is a phrase that is loaded up with an ideological label, hidden implications, and takes an accusatory stance towards “the men’s rights movement” with no science to support it. That is not “rational,” it is subjective at best and dogmatic at worst. The weasel word count in that single article is staggering.

      RationalWiki claims to spread rational thought and instead spreads scientifically unfounded propaganda in an opinions-as-facts manner. This is not “picking and choosing based on my personal beliefs.” This is an easily demonstrated fact. I enjoy only those parts of it that correct scientifically ignorant ideas by using science and hate it when it strays from scientifically sound facts into dogma.

  3. I’ve observed that a common tactic of the radical Left is to conflate their agenda with topics of scientific rationality in order to borrow their legitimacy. The idea is to convey the impression that their agenda is founded in scientific fact, which allows them to take the position that any opposing agenda must be founded in superstition and delusion. In reality, there is no scientific basis for any political agenda; science isn’t concerned with how people treat each other, it deals only with physical phenomena.

    The disingenuousness of these vicious ideologues in using these tactics has largely discredited them in my view; their misuse of science to push their agenda is no different to the Nazis misusing science to promote the putative superiority of the Aryan race. For this reason, I refer to RationalWiki these days as “LiberalWiki”, and as far as I am concerned, anyone resorting to it as a source to cite in an argument immediately loses the argument. My usual response to such is along the lines of “LiberalWiki? Really? Does that mean I can start citing Conservapedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica in response? Because that’s about what it’s worth.”

  4. Atheists, rationalists, freethinkers, etc, too many of them just mean that they’re skeptical about gods. When an atheist subscribes to feminism, experience has shown me that they quickly become just like the ‘thumpers’ they normally look down on. I am an atheist but a lot of us are about as skeptical as Christians who don’t believe in Zeus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *