What happens when MRA’s can’t hold their own on Wikipedia? They just make another wiki where their ideas won’t be challenged and they can link back to their own echo chamber. Curious innit? WikiMANNia started as a German project. AVFM is now on board to translate and add articles in English.

Dean Esmay introduced WikiMANNia to AVFM a few days ago. He tells MRA’s that this operation isn’t about ‘fucking their shit up’ but just the opposite. It’s more about totalitarian censorship and exclusion of any possible criticism.

The creation and expansion of a reference explicitly excluding gendered ideologies is the un-doing of vandalism and censorship in other sources. So, meine Herren und Damen, go forth and help restore un-corrupted knowledge to the world!

What passes for uncorrupted knowledge? We shall see.

I surfed the English version. What I found was ridiculous. What passes for sources are sparse random news articles and links to MRA blogs. On the introductory English page there is a featured article called ‘Mate Choice Behaviour.’ The article talks about women being hypergamous, the nice word MRA’s use for gold digging whore.

Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as “marrying up”) is the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher looks, socioeconomic, caste or status than oneself.

The term is often used more specifically in reference to a perceived tendency among human cultures for females to seek or be encouraged to pursue male suitors that are higher status than themselves, which often manifests itself as being attracted to men who are comparatively older, wealthier or otherwise more privileged than themselves.


Hypergamy isn’t a gendered definition as MRA’s present it. It’s about class. They’re wrong, as usual.


What’s used to justify this flimsy concept of hypergamous women are anecdotes about a few German women who married rich men. What a great scholarly source! There is only one other source to support their view and the link is broken. This is what passes for serious scholarship in the Men’s Rights Movement.

When I clicked on ‘mate choice behaviour’ there are more anecdotes about a few women in China who train to serve tea and learn how to spot wealthy men. The fact MRA’s think this is a feminist conspiracy based in biology is misguided because millionaire men sign up for services where they can peruse women and choose. If you search Google for ‘find a wife’ you get 2.1 billion results. Not only that but plenty of women and men marry people they love, not necessarily people that are more wealthy than them.

To show that women are biologically programmed to gold dig the MRA’s at WikiMANNia linked to an article about online dating whereby men and women ranked qualities they looked for in a potential mate. ONE study that looked at Lonely Hearts online dating service is supposed to pass for scholarship? I don’t think so.

He asked 200 university students to rate the appeal of ads containing different categories of words. When Dunbar analysed the results, he found that men and women attached very different levels of importance to the five categories.

Two hundred students in MRA-land is generalizable to the entire human population. We’re not dealing with scholars when we engage MRA’s.

MRA’s constantly complain that feminists can’t handle criticism but I think what they really mean is that they can’t handle it. Running off of Wikipedia in a tantrum to start their own site is something we can all laugh at. Especially when on the main page it warns:

All entries must be based on reliable sources.



5 thoughts on “WikiMANNia

  1. Oh god, their entry on feminism is great:

    Feminism was by 2000 a huge, diverse social movement, comparable in political visibility and numbers involved, to Islam and Christianity and in 2011, arguably significantly larger than the Marxism from which it arose in the third quarter of the 20th Century.

    Clearly our public schools have done their jobs. A+ history right here.

  2. They don’t think they have enough control over Wikipedia? Men and especially Christian conservative men, pretty much run it. There articles all over the web about how they harass women out of participation. Wikipedia is an extremely misogynistic environment – as one tiny example, they have completely marginalized famous women authors into a virtual ghetto there in favor of male authors.

    There’s, also, a lot of harassment of anyone who doesn’t hold a Christian view-point, which is why the entries on atheism and occult subjects are highly inflammatory and void of facts.

    Nothing satisfies these creeps… they’re a bunch of control-freaking dick-tators.

  3. Pingback: Exploring the Manosphere #3.5: WikiMANNia | Bread and Roses

  4. Why are sources so important? They all have to come from somewhere until you end up with the most important source with no other sources. Large encyclopedias usually don’t have any particular source. They say things with authority. If I write something in Wikipedia it’s true. You don’t have to verify it.

  5. Pingback: A Voice for Men Aligns With Trans and Pro-Exploitation Lobby Against Meghan Murphy | Mancheeze


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s