Feminism v. Conservapedia: What's in a name?

When a classmate told me about Conservapedia, I was apalled. An alternative online encyclopedia, the site guidelines "are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia." This sounds funny, but if you Wikipedia "Conservapedia," you will find it described as:

"a conservative, wiki-based encyclopedia project whose articles are broadly pro-U.S., socially
conservative and supportive of conservative Christianity and Biblical literalism (including Young Earth creationism). The project was founded in response to an alleged liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias in the articles of Wikipedia."

In the spirit of free information, if you Conservapedia "Wikipedia," you will find a series of listed scandals and foul-play on the part of Ol' Wik, which are too extensive to quote concisely--however you may read them here.

Anyhow, I feel as though nothing can function in the name of equality with the gross contradiction of a bias name, and found the very notion of a conservative encyclopedia vying for objective coverage quite hypocritical. After all, I would understand claims against "Liberalopedia" if that were the name.

I continued to think about this, and then I thought of a parallel: Feminism. Defined by dictionary.com as "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men," feminism advocates equality between men and women (also including sexual/gender oppression as well, and racial/economic factors)--it is NOT a policy of female domination.

So there you have it. Feminism has committed the same crime as Conservapedia. Both posit fairness and equality.

Back in the day, I wanted to begin gender neutralism. I was set on this because I found feminism to have its limits--but then I came to realize that feminism is consciously and unconsciously stigmatized to impede the movement, (and of course people are ignorant, or should I say mal-informed?). I did not want to abandon the rich history of the women's movement because it has been grossly exploited, misrepresented, and is full of conflict among feminists themselves. People also fail to realize the different forms of feminism, (social, marxist, cultural, radical, etc.).

Anyhow, as I said, I could not abandon feminism nor its pioneers whom I so admire. But the more I think of it, by the same logic I condemn Conservapedia, the title Feminism is faulty.

Maybe I am just being too hard on Conservapedia (although I don't think so).

I still identify with neutralism because I advocate gender neutral socialization, which escapes sex dichotomy all together. But it is still a battle how I will deal with my ideological problem with the title (not the beliefs of) Feminism.