Did you know?
"Feminism is originally an acknowledged medical condition where men take on female physical characteristics."
Distinguishing feminism as it is nowadays from its Suffragette debuts:
"This was at a time when neither men nor women could vote unless they owned property."
Paraphrasing the famous phrase "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice":
"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice."
And last but not least, my all-time favourite:
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
Conservapedia was created as a response to Wikipedia which was apparently criticized in conservative circles for its "liberal" bias, which is evidence by such horrific practices as:
- Featuring an entry on Richard Dawkins;
- Featuring entries on legal cases favourable to gay rights;
- Featuring "nearly irrelevant information", such as the fact that the president of Harvard University had to resign because of his comments on the abilities of women at math and science;
- "Supporting" abortion and gun control;
- Featuring articles about punk music;
- "Promoting" suicide (the "pro-life" folks at Conservapedia assure us that they don't have a single entry on this "depravity";
- Criticizing Fox News;
- "Wikpedia's (sic) entry on liberal former Vice President Al Gore contains no mention of the drug charges against his son" (don't be fooled: this is absolutely relevant);
- A survey of Wikipedia editors show that they identify as liberal six times more than the average American public;
- Not giving Jesus any credit for the Renaissance;
- Featuring pictures of naked people or body partws;
- Using British (or Canadian, for that matter!) idioms and spellings...
Just to give you a glimpse of how outrageously liberal Wikipedia is, let's compare both Websites' entries on "women."
Conservapedia's article about women starts as follows: "Women are the female of the human species, with the biological role of bearing offspring (pregnancy and childbirth)."
It later (i.e. almost immediately) goes on to say that: "relatively few women have had impact on history as leaders in diverse fields". So, get it? Women are baby-making machines. They should not be distracted from their biological function by unnatural activities, such as, well, anything that has to do with public life.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, simply states, as an introduction, that "A woman is a female human." Simple, accurate, and it doesn't make you sound like your having a vagina makes you some kind of animal, sub-human form of life.
I fully acknowledge that Wikipedia is an easily corruptible source of information. But at least it's not complete bullshit nor borderline hate-speech.