As I am researching the topic Cyberfeminism, there is a lot for me to explore within that realm. The information on the cyberfeminism Wikipedia page was informative yes, but not as impressive as I would have liked it to be. I felt like while reading the Wikipedia page, I was left wanting for more, different perspectives. Of course, I shouldn’t perhaps expect this from a Wikipedia page, so when I switched to the “Talk” tab of the cyberfeminism article, I was pleased to see a little discussion on the wording regarding cyberfeminists. Apparently, it had been written in the Wikipedia article that cyberfeminists “resisted rigid definitions.” Someone disputed this claim, saying that feminists could not all be lumped into the same category of people who resisted said definitions. All in all, the “talk” tab didn’t have much to contribute, so as a good little blogger, I decided to widen my search and delve into a topic that I will happily touch upon in the near future, and that is misandry.
Misandry is defined as the hatred or dislike of men. Fine. What I really didn’t like about the Wikipedia page is the additional source of Warren Farrell who compared the stereotyping of men to the dehumanization of American slaves. He even went so far as to claim that men were like second-class slaves and women were like first-class slaves. Farrell’s reason for this differentiation? The fact that men work outside and women work inside. I refute this claim based on the fact that the reason women are confined to working inside is because men have made it so. Women were considered, and are still considered, to be the weaker sex, more fragile, and men have made it their goal to protect women from the harshness of life, by taking it upon themselves to do the hard work. I think that the fact that men have the more physically strenuous jobs is unfortunate, but I think that this truth exists because of the social constructs that have been in play for hundreds of years about the capacity of a woman in a working environment. Wew. Had to let that out.
In terms of the discussion on the Misandry page, I found some of it to be disheartening, while some users spoke up and agreed that the language used throughout the article was seemingly anti-feminist. There was a lot of discourse on the matter and I don’t really think it was resolved but it is definitely reassuring to know that people realize that some of what is being said is coming from a somewhat dishonest voice.
Reading up on these topics and seeing in what light these terms are being portrayed gives me a good idea of what type of information a lot of people are receiving through Wikipedia. It’s both disheartening and inspiring because while there is still that strong voice of distaste towards feminism, there exists also a perspective in which people are trying to fight off this bias and instead replace it with a more impartial voice.