User talk:DougBaker

Welcome!

Hello, DougBaker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Herostratus 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

Herostratus: Why do you have the warning about non-compliance with your standards on the masculinist's (I submit that is a better choice for a label, derived from mansculine), but not on the feminist's (which is derived from feminine) page. I have been studying feminism in depth for several years now, and can assure you that there is absolutely no gender-balanced scientific or holistic empirical evidence to support any of the movement's positions; they are all, at best, one-sided partial truths. From the first paragraph of that the article on feminism onward, I can point to repeated factual falsehoods and distortions of history and modern reality.

For example, modern feminism is not continguous with the Women's Sufferage Movement. Nor did it flow from Prohibtion, which modern feminists fail to mention was also primarily a female-activist-driven campaign that lead to unfortunate consequences and failure. There was a 30-40 year gap in which any such widely popular movements did not exist, and so claiming only creates the illusion of historic legitimacy that simply did not exist. The entry is also dominated by content that is inherently prejudiced against males and biased in favor of females. Filling a document with lots of citations from other "experts" who share the same prejudices and biases represents nothing more than one group's consensus speculations and assumptions. Does popular opinion, whether that of a powerful group of academics or the public-at-large, equate to the same thing as scientific facts? Do such interpretations of reality define philosophic truth?

It is request that the warning be removed - or at least exempt both of my entries in some equally obvious way. What I have written has citations where I feel they are truly warranted, and the rest simply draws upon commnon knowledge available within any of the specialized fields I call upon. And I challange you to point out any instances of one-sided commentary or analysis. Both of my entries do nothing but describe how the sexes are inherently equal in every underlying fundamental respect (i.e. basic characteristics/attributes) - as well as share different but still similar and off-setting qualities and traits.

Another alternative - assuming you don't believe my additions are either fully objective and credible - would of course be to put exactly the same warning at the top all of the feminist based entries, as well as masculinist related topics. While I believe most of the content I have read in the masculinist's piece are reasonably accurate, it is written from a male's perspective and there is a subtle "emotional" tone that seems to come through in most of the entries. On the other hand, the feminist entry is loaded with the "realitistic" intellectual manipulations now common in academic writing; tactics designed to give the impression of objectivity while "soft-selling" one's personal point-of-view. The best brief example I can think of is the common use of qualifiers like "some, many, and most" when the author wants to take a position and pursuade, but does not have actual data to support their argument, and s/he wants to minimize criticism.

Please advise. Feel free to email me if more convenient.

Regards, Doug Baker

re Masculism[edit]

Hi Doug Baker. I personally didn't place the tag. It was placed by User:Teddythetank. You can ask ask him about it on his talk page, but better would be to discuss it on the article's talk page. I see that he did explain himself, which is proper, but also that he only cited a couple of passages, which off the top of my head doesn't seem like enough to tag an article, generally.

Go to the talk page and address his concerns. Propose that you remove the tag. If you can get a consensus to do so (or no replies after a decent interval), go ahead and remove the tag. I say this without having read the article myself, so I don't actually know what shape it's in or have a position on it. Herostratus 21:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... however, just noting some phrases from your message above... "...there is absolutely no gender-balanced scientific or holistic empirical evidence to support any of the [feminist] movement's positions; they are all, at best, one-sided partial truths. ...modern feminism is not continguous with the Women's Sufferage Movement... Both of my entries do nothing but describe how the sexes are inherently equal in every underlying fundamental respect (i.e. basic characteristics/attributes)... Another alternative, of course, would be to put exactly the same warning at the top all feminist based entries."

At Wikipedia, we are not particulary interested in truth. That may sound odd, but consider that truth is a very slippery concept, and one man's truth may not be another's. What we are interested in is verifiability and a purely descriptive, neutral point of view. We also tend, on any subject, to lean toward the Culural Consensus, the Standard Model, the Received Wisdom, the Accepted Version, whatever you want to call it. We are not interested in breaking new ground or overturning established truths, as a general rule.

For both good scholarly and practical political reasons, it would be quite difficult to get Wikipedia to change its articles on feminism to reflect other than the general view held by the typical scholar in the field, so I wouldn't try if I were you. But that's me. You may be able to make some changes if you marshall your arguments and collect good scholarly sources. But opposing views will also have arguments and sources, so be prepared for a fight.

There are cases where a certain area is ripe for overturning, but usually only when there has been a steady and fairly lengthy accumulation of data. This is especially difficult in cultural areas, much harder than in science where evidence is usually more clear-cut.

However, if it's really true that "there is absolutely no gender-balanced scientific... evidence to support any of the [feminist] movement's positions", then you don't really have to worry; the feminist movement will presumably collapse in short order, and you'll have to wait in line to reform the articles on feminism. Herostratus 22:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

Herostratus: Suggest you might be interested in reading my two insertions. If women were not in fact lower paid than men in the 1960's or now, are now and always have been just as physically and sexually violent (esp. with repect to males), and have not been socially, economically, or politically oppressed what other major claims are left for feminists to have been and still be right about? I'm sorry to hear that Wikipedia doesn't care about the actual scientific fact or verifiable cultural truths; is primarily concerned with on reinforcing falsehoods and ignorance, as well as - yes! - supporting widespread discrimination against the male sex. How does one justify killing a single man's potential child, denying them the right to rear them themselves, or elect adoption without their permission? How does one reconcile spending billions protecting women's inequality in the workplace while 45 million men have died 5 years prematurely since the 1960's and no one has even noticed because women are the social, economic, and political majority in America. (FYI: Men lived about as long as women in the 1800's). Our forebears warn us tyranny of the masses (i.e. the majority/plurality - or FEMALES) has led to the dissolution of every democracy since the Greeks, but America has obviously stopped listening to our founders.

Wikepedia is certainly in good company because that's exactly what I believe has happened in higher education in America (as well as the mainstream media) - both have stopped seeking the actual facts and ultimate truth (illusive or not). I'm really not into spending a lot of time arguing with just anyone who has little practical experience and has done no significant research on the topics I am addressing. I will make a limited attempt to do what you suggest with this one objection. But if it is not readily reconciled, and if the same thing keeps happening, I'll just remove the submission.

Doug,

I glanced at your recent revisions and they seem satisfactory. It is in my interest to see that the article, to some extent, be expanded to represent all points of view (and not be loaded with biased academic opinion, an interesting point that you brought up). I removed the {{Noncompliance}} tag from the article page, and posted other tags on the talk page, as there are some bugs that ought to be discussed and cleared out (i.e. that "misogynist" comment in the first paragraph). As for citing sources, it is important that editors should avoid weasel words, unless they can actually provide hyperlinks or references to web-sites/publications that support those views that are held by some social group.

Anywho, thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I assure you I was acting in good faith when I disagreed with some of the assertions made on the article (i.e. I was NOT attacking you or your contributions specifically).

Signed --Ted 06:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, you've signed the actual article itself. Please amend where appropriate. --Zleitzen 09:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I do see what you are saying. And, it's not that we're against "truth", of course, its just that (a claim of) "truth" per se is not a very useful argument (if it was, we would be overrun with "the Aliens Control Belgium and that't the TRUTH"-type aruments). It's the verifiability - from (usually) neutral, scholarly, respected sources - that matters. A couple of points and pointers: Taking (for instance) your assertion above that women have never been generally paid less than men -- I don't know the subject, but I would almost swear that there have been studies that contradict that. The studies may be flawed and even dead wrong, I don't know. Anyway, in a situation where an article says (say) "Women are significantly underpaid even today" and cites a study, your best bet (just in my personal opinion) is not to try to get that statement removed (by proving that the study was flawed and wrong, because that will get into the methodology of the study and be hard to get to people to accept) but to add contervailing information (e.g. something along the lines of "The subject is debatable" or whatever, then cite your sources. Obviously if your source is the Heritage Foundation or whatever you'd better be pretty sure that the study is valid and be able to prove, or at least convincingly argue, why.

Anyway, I can see that you're kind of on a mission, and while that always makes me a little leery, it's fine as long as your edits continue to be appropriate. And there is space for some overturning of accepted truth, and maybe it is needed in that area. Just stay calm, stay scholarly, don't try to do too much at once, don't let yourself get frustrated, don't ever let yourself get become uncivil (it will be used against you), don't expect to save the world. And happy Wiki-ing! Herostratus 19:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus: Thanks for your very patient... and obviously caring response. I think I understand and also accept your counsel about content issues. If you have and are willing to invest the time, do you have any specific suggestions with regard to my actual submissions?

When I said "If women were not in fact lower paid than men in the 1960's or now" above I was not saying "women have 'never' been generally paid less than men." I was summarizing my entire entry about the pay discrepency fallasy, followed by similar short-hand to capture my entries on violence/aggression and Patriarchy. My actual entry immediately acknowledges an overall pay differential between the sexes, which is that women now earn ~75% (it was ~60% in the 1960's) of what men are collectively paid. But the content then proceeds to explain why using that disparity as proof of discrimination against women is nonsense. It is my position in that entry, however, that, at least since the 1960's, the "scientific facts and empirical truths" are that women, in general, have not been paid less for performing jobs of equal market value to those occupied by men - assuming, of course, they also perform their work equally well.

You are right. I am on a mission I guess. But it is not that of a masculinist activist, or even an anti-feminist - although I am convinced that movement is one of the primary causes of many of our culture's most troubling trends, like gender-divisiveness (i.e. non-commitment and divorce), child neglect, and widespread violations of the 14th Amendment (i.e. equal protection) with respect to men. My actual personal mission is the search for the actual facts and as close to the objective truth as I can get about as much of the real world in which we all live. My hope is to identify the causes and possible solutions for major psychosocial and cultural problems.

I also strive to be as accurate as humanly possible about what I say and write. Needless to say, I certainly do just plain old screw-up in communications at times, as well as often say things in ways that others rightfully read quite differently than I intended due to poor word choice or structuring. Hence I always appreciate constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement... so thanks for your continued interest and help.

Regards - Doug

Helpme[edit]

Hi Doug, I saw your helpme request. Is there something I can help you with, or are you just waiting for Herostratus's response?--Commander Keane 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of neutrality[edit]

This is just a small reminder that edits you make have to fall under Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Rhetorical comment like "Are our nation's gender and health priorities the way we want them to be?" has no place in an encyclopedia article which should dispassionately discuss the issues without advocating any point of view. Please make sure you are familiar with this policy in future edits you may make. Thanks. Dysprosia 01:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message removed. Doug 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DougBaker. You used {{helpme}} again. Using {{helpme}} will alert general helpers. If you want Dysprosia to respond may want to drop of note on their talk page.--Commander Keane 22:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Note that if you want to comment on the article, you can also use the page's discussion page. Dysprosia 06:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Etiquette violation[edit]

You have just left a baseless diatribe on my talk page which I believe violates a number of Wikipedia policies including ones dealing with Civility, Good Faith and Personal Attacks. You also write

I'm not sure exactly who you think you are, but you certainly are not Socrates or God, and certainly should not be spending your time "editing" other people's work in this manner

when I have edited nothing in the article merely expressed my opinion on the relevance of data within. As you have described my comments on the article personally offensive please seek immediate help in learning how to reach consensus in Wikipedia, or refrain from further editing and discussion. --Zleitzen 14:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, whatever's going on, as I said - if you are editing a controversial subject, any slip you make will be used against you and can may be banned much more quickly than another editor. Herostratus 17:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses[edit]

If you've made responses intended for the Talk:Feminism article, you should make them there, not on each person's talk page. User talk pages are intended for messages directed to users, not about articles. Dysprosia 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion but,[edit]

the article is one-sided, deliberately specious, and dubious in nature, sort of like the feminist movement itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.165.6 (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]