I came across an academic feminist article on the gender gap among Wikipedia editors (only 13% of them are women). It's a valid topic to discuss, but she takes it in a pretty scary direction, arguing that Wikipedia's policies of objectivity and verifiability are "exclusionary" and that the subjective "lived experiences" and "personal narratives" of women and feminists should be given privileged status.

Here's my write-up that goes into a bit more detail on what she says.

https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/a-look-at-one-feminists-critique-of-wikipedia-verifiability-and-objectivity/

I don't expect that anyone here will be interested in arguing for what she says, but if anyone is, I'd be happy to hear your case.

What I want to point out is that this actually reminds me of TheRedPill subreddit, which has a pretty low standard for objectivity and verifiability and is quite heavily based on (some) men's "lived experiences" and "personal narratives". If you're not familiar with it, they, uh, don't have a particularly positive view of women. I've seen "women are shit" said a few times.

It's interesting that what this feminist says would, without the note that the subjective experiences of women and feminists are privileged, legitimize a lot of the stuff on TRP as being just as valid as more objective sources of knowledge.

1. What else might this happen to legitimize?

2. Have you seen similar sentiments from other feminists?

3. What about any MRAs? I'd be interested in seeing if this is the mirror image of anything from that side.