Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Citations Needed



[Note: It's a link to Conservapedia's "Feminist style" entry. LOL not only at the content of the entry itself, but at "feminist style" actually having an entry in an "encyclopedia.]

Anyway, we'll all just take their "trustworthy" word on all those claims.

Seriously though, whenever I feel like reading crappy writing and unsupported, reactionary claims about feminists, I peruse Conservapedia. I know, it's a joke of a site. And, nearly every article on that site that's in any way related to feminism demonstrates a miserable failure to understand feminism, let alone to "counter" feminist claims.

However, even though you might not really know if the whole site is a big parody, it does reveal what certain segments of society probably believe is "truth." So, the site is useful in a "know thy enemy" sort of way.

And, naturally, the articles about feminism seem to be the usual MRA fare of throwing-wet-noodles-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach to trying to discredit all of feminism. Like, gawd forbid they concede that, even though women now have the right to vote, people still might have good, legitimate reasons for being feminists today. It's all, this one feminist one time said x, therefore all feminists ever suck!!!!

And then, well, whenever a critic is citing what Phyllis Schlafy says The Feminists Say, rather than bothering to cite what feminists actually say, you can take it as a big clue that the person is basically just throwing ping pong balls into the Making Shit Up Bucket of Bozo the Clown's Grand Prize Game.

I'm not entirely sure why, but the site continues to amuse me.

Especially the poor souls on the talk pages who try to be like, "Dudes, can we clean this up and try to be a little more objective here?" and are either totes ignored or ordered to "LEAVE THE PAGE ALONE!!"

Oh, Internet. You silly goose.

No comments: