The title quote was said by forum regular Giraffe Stapler. But is it true? Well, you only need to see what he wrote later in the same post, to realise that, perhaps without knowing it, he does hate women.
It obviously hasn't occurred to him to ask himself, wait, is that actually true?notability rules have to be the same for all genders
He just assumes it is because, well, he's obviously a man. There are very few of us men who have the ability to emphasize with women's struggles. And we typically aren't welcome on Wikipedia, because we tend to say things that established Wikipedia editors don't like to hear. Because they're mostly men, or women who have accepted that working with these men is how you help women. Gender traitors.
In their application if not their intent, the Wikipedia notability rules are rigged against women. That much is known and accepted.
So if you want to be seen as an ally to women, if you want to redress historical wrongs, a good place to start, might be to question this assumption, no?
Or is that too simple?
There is no way to relax the rules to allow more women in, without opening the floodgates for even more obscure men to be glorified.
And if you wait for the rest of the world to do what is necessary to eliminate this rigged element of the Wikipedia system of editorial gatekeeping, you are going to be waiting a long time. A very long time.
For anything to change, the rules have to be rewritten, with one rule for women, another for men.
If you object, and I would say 100% of male Wikipedia editors would, to use this useless blind to his own male privelage dork as an example, then yes, you really do hate women.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
You can't hide behind some lame idea that Wikipedia is meant to reflect the world, not shape it. You lost all right to claim that, when you set yourselves up as the defenders of democracy, particularly when you decided that you should broadcast to the world that the UK's most popular and most right wing newspaper is "generay unreliable", when no other reliable source has ever said it, or anything like it.
There is of course one women who believes the rules should be different for women - Jess Wade. But she's not trying to achieve it the way that should happen, through a proposal. She's doing it on the sly, because she's a deceitful little bitch, who isn't even doing it for her own benefit. She doesn't care about the women she writes about. She's completely unapologetic about what the effect her strategy has had on certain women scientists, who are now more well know as Wikipedia controversies, than for their own work.
How does she get away with it? Well, there's no shortage of male Wikipedia Administrators lining up to protect her. Not because they're allies to women, but rather, to take the case of Wikipediocracy member Ritchie333, it fuels their male need to have a female to protect and mentor, and hopefully mate with.
Such widespread acceptance of such a male view of the world, is proof positive that sexism is baked into the very core of Wikipedia. They don't get much higher than Acroterian and Blablubbs.
And of course, who on Wikipediocracy thinks Jess Wade is doing a grand job, and who hates the Daily Mail? None other than Giraffe Stapler. And EVERYONE ELSE THERE TOO.
Way to go Jake. Way to make sure Wikipediocracy is in lock step with Wikipedia on this important issue of women's rights (and the Daily Mail ban). Twas ever thus. A forum for senior Wikipedia editors. And we all know what they are.
You sell out piece of shit.