Post: #1

Roosh tweeted that 15 Universities in the U.S. will offer college credit as part of "Storming Wikipedia", a project that seeks to insert "feminist thinking" into wikipedia.

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=5028

I'm not sure how many people have actually read academic feminist writing. I have. The things they write are perhaps more ridiculous than the things published on Jezebel and XoJane. Any enterprising young men who're enrolled in these Universities could likely take advantage of the class to properly expose the ridiculousness of feminist thinking to the world. Also, a class on editing wikipedia is ridiculously easy, so.

The schools are:

Yale University
Brown University
Pennsylvania State University
Bowling Green State University
California Polytechnic State University
Colby-Sawyer College
The City University of New York Graduate Center
Macaulay Honors College and Lehman College (CUNY)
The New School
Ohio State University
Ontario College of Art and Design University
Pitzer College
Rutgers University
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Post: #2

Pushing back against feminist hegemony will be the social war of the first half of this century.

Post: #3

That would be a good list of schools not to send your kids too.

Post: #4

How low can society go to prop up feminism? Just when you think, "okay, this is rock bottom", they surprise you with something even more ridiculous.

Post: #5

Women use and edit Wikipedia FAR less than men, especially in the editing. I was reading a comment about this, and I agree wholeheartedly:

Quote:Wikipedia is an entirely voluntary project, if mostly men have been using it, that's not sexism. It's evidence that women don't want to use it. Artificially injecting feminist thought into as much as they can is not the way to "fix" this not-really-a-problem. Why is it women's choices are never respected by feminists, and are instead blamed on sexism by men?

Post: #6

(09-01-2013 01:59 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Women use and edit Wikipedia FAR less than men, especially in the editing. I was reading a comment about this, and I agree wholeheartedly:

Quote:Wikipedia is an entirely voluntary project, if mostly men have been using it, that's not sexism. It's evidence that women don't want to use it. Artificially injecting feminist thought into as much as they can is not the way to "fix" this not-really-a-problem. Why is it women's choices are never respected by feminists, and are instead blamed on sexism by men?

Because that makes too much sense and conflicts with the worldview that men and patriarchy are keeping women down. Feminism will not rest until the tech and corporates worlds have less men than women. On the other hand, it is completely fair that teaching and nursing are dominated by women because that's only natural. Men are not interested in those professions, so we should leave everything to its natural state.

Post: #7

(09-01-2013 01:59 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Women use and edit Wikipedia FAR less than men, especially in the editing. I was reading a comment about this, and I agree wholeheartedly:

Quote:Wikipedia is an entirely voluntary project, if mostly men have been using it, that's not sexism. It's evidence that women don't want to use it. Artificially injecting feminist thought into as much as they can is not the way to "fix" this not-really-a-problem. Why is it women's choices are never respected by feminists, and are instead blamed on sexism by men?

One of the biggest problems our society currently faces is women refusing to take ownership for their own choices.

1) No male reproductive rights -- women have 100% of the reproductive choice, but refuse to take personal ownership for those choices. They feel they should have all the choice, but that men should continue having to own the responsibility for those choices because morality, duh. The comments in bacon's recent article on RoK highlight the fact that we are obviously morally bankrupt for suggesting otherwise.

2) A woman can claim to have been raped if she was drinking. Doesn't matter if she consented, she can refuse to take personal ownership for her choice, thus criminalizing a non criminal male action.

3) Wage gap. Women earn less than men on average despite being paid equally (or being paid more) for equal work. This occurs because of the choices they make. Instead of expecting women to take personal ownership for those choices, we instead drone on incessantly about discrimination (yawn).

4) "Patriarchy hurts men too." This is women and feminists sidestepping blame for their own actions and policies having negative consequences for men. They refuse to take personal ownership for their choices so instead they say it's the patriarchy.

5) Oppression. Oppression is a dubious concept for only one reason. Women were complicit in it. The previous system was the standard because both men and women wanted it that way. The audacious characterization of the previous system as female oppression, however, is just another refusal by women to take personal ownership (in this case for their own complicity in the previous system).

6) Sentencing. Women aren't forced to take personal ownership for their choices and crimes. Falsely accuse someone of rape? No problem, you destroyed his life, but off you go, little scamp. Murder your husband? Don't worry about it, you won't have to take personal ownership for your choice to do that, we'll just assume you were abused and thus cannot be held responsible for your decision to commit murder. Did you hit a woman who was hitting you? How could you? She can't be held personally responsible for hitting someone, she's a woman for Christ's sake!

7) No abortion limits. Women continue fighting the idea that killing a fetus at 7 months is wrong. We still allow late-term abortions because women shouldn't have to take personal ownership for their previous indecisiveness and irresponsibility.

8) Alimony. Can't support yourself? No problem, Just force your ex husband to support you until one of you dies. Girl power!

9) Slut shaming, fat shaming: Yep, she's a fat whore, but she shouldn't have to accept personal ownership for that. If you don't find her attractive or appealing, well then obviously you're ignorant for buying into social constructs of attractiveness. You need to change, not her.

10) Dress like a whore? Are men looking at a woman and hitting on her? Well if she doesn't like it then of course it's their fault. It has nothing to do with the fact that she chose to display several acres of ass and titties, she doesn't have to take ownership for her choice to do that. No, she's being harassed.

Post: #8

Wikipedia itself is one of the most irrefutable arguments supporting innate gender differences. As Teedub pointed out, the Wikipedia project is entirely voluntary. There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of women who want to contribute toward it.

However, the problem is that contributing to Wikipedia is largely an anonymous and thankless job. It's the internet equivalent of toiling down in a mine for the benefit of others. And that's just something that most women have absolutely no desire to take part in.

In contrast, where do you find women on the internet? Massed up on social networking sites like Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. What are they doing there? Mostly just talking about themselves and their friends, and posting pictures. Those are the priorities women have.

The reason this evidence is so irrefutable is because it's simply impossible that the patriarchy had any hand in creating or even influencing this great disparity. The internet itself is too new and too de-centralized. Every person who accesses the internet has the freedom to choose how they want to utilize it. Thus the idea that Wikipedia is somehow sexist because 90% of its contributors are male is as ridiculous as saying that Pinterest is sexist because 80% of its users are female. There's nothing stopping people of either sex from using any site they choose. But just like most men have no interest in posting dozens of "selfie" pics and telling everyone what they had for lunch, most women have no interest in doing thankless intellectual grunt work as a hobby.

It's extremely telling that the only way they can come up with to get women on Wikipedia is to make them do it for a class. It's a tacit admission of female solipsism. They will do nothing without self-interest. The idea of contributing selflessly to advance the knowledge of mankind is prevalent within a subset of men, but almost totally absent among women. As the biologically move valuable sex, nature designed women to be selfish in order to safeguard their reproductive value. This is why as a group they are simply incapable of expressing the same sort of selfless altruism that men demonstrate every day with projects like Wikipedia.

Post: #9

(09-01-2013 01:52 PM)kbell Wrote:  That would be a good list of schools not to send your kids too.

Tuthmosis II: Dad, I got into Yale and Brown! Full scholarship.

Me: Am I hearing you properly, son? What's your major malfunction?! You know the "red pill" dictates that you be self-educated or go to Liberty University. What, are you going to go there and get a liberal arts degree too?!

Tuthmosis II: But, dad, they're some of the bes.....Sir, yes, sir.

Me: I caaaan't hearrr yoooou!

Tuthmosis II: Sir, yes, sir!!

Me: Now, eat your zinc and let's hear that cadence.

(@0:44)

Post: #10

A masculine man sees righteous accomplishment as its own reward. Knowing that *he* achieved it is payment enough. "I was just doing my job" he will say. While he may want to impress others, his conception of what is good originates from within.

A woman looks to others to decide what is right. The herd tells her what's socially desirable. And if she will labor in obscurity without reward, she won't do it. She needs the badges and the kudos from other people. This is why women thrive in the workplace.

Imagine the modest yet prodigious male engineer, say. He may very well be perfectly content knowing his invention has saved many lives, or created much wealth. But deprived of all the applause, the motivation of most women to work would wilt.

There are women who buck the trend, and certainly men too, in the other direction. That's who makes up the 10% female editorship of Wikipedia.

Post: #11

Rutgers!? More like Slutgers from what I've heard!

Post: #12

I think this feminist thinking would be forced on men that attend these schools as well. The will not only give women the assignments. So in the end more men would still be editing wikipedia.

Post: #13

Ya'll realize without delusions of male oppression, most women would drop out of the workforce upon getting married.

Feminism isn't an action, but a reaction to the system wanting to use women as producers now, so as to be better consumers. Women have no power, just the trapings of power shown off by material goods or status in faux hierarchies.

The invasion, here, is to get women invade Wikipedia to show off or show up men who work on Wikipedia. How many alphas are actively editing Wiki for free?

Exactly: mostly betas and no $ = an institution ripe for invasion by women seeking the trappings of power. They get to show up men who are not likely to offer resistance or maniuplation alphas would, all the while toiling for no pay.

But, but, these women are badass for showing men how powerful and relevant feminism is and women are!!!!!

^If you think that, your life, going forward, is going to emotionally exhausting, as you will spend most of your life justifying the status quo. No wonder women age so quickly.

Post: #14

Does anyone that matters actually read Wikipedia?

Post: #15

(09-01-2013 04:26 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Does anyone that matters actually read Wikipedia?

I would imagine so. It is the modern day encyclopedia. I'm assuming all the great men of the past had their own encyclopedias. I don't see why great men today wouldn't use the modern version.

Post: #16

(09-01-2013 02:30 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Wikipedia itself is one of the most irrefutable arguments supporting innate gender differences. As Teedub pointed out, the Wikipedia project is entirely voluntary. There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of women who want to contribute toward it.

However, the problem is that contributing to Wikipedia is largely an anonymous and thankless job. It's the internet equivalent of toiling down in a mine for the benefit of others. And that's just something that most women have absolutely no desire to take part in.

In contrast, where do you find women on the internet? Massed up on social networking sites like Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. What are they doing there? Mostly just talking about themselves and their friends, and posting pictures. Those are the priorities women have.

The reason this evidence is so irrefutable is because it's simply impossible that the patriarchy had any hand in creating or even influencing this great disparity. The internet itself is too new and too de-centralized. Every person who accesses the internet has the freedom to choose how they want to utilize it. Thus the idea that Wikipedia is somehow sexist because 90% of its contributors are male is as ridiculous as saying that Pinterest is sexist because 80% of its users are female. There's nothing stopping people of either sex from using any site they choose. But just like most men have no interest in posting dozens of "selfie" pics and telling everyone what they had for lunch, most women have no interest in doing thankless intellectual grunt work as a hobby.

It's extremely telling that the only way they can come up with to get women on Wikipedia is to make them do it for a class. It's a tacit admission of female solipsism. They will do nothing without self-interest. The idea of contributing selflessly to advance the knowledge of mankind is prevalent within a subset of men, but almost totally absent among women. As the biologically move valuable sex, nature designed women to be selfish in order to safeguard their reproductive value. This is why as a group they are simply incapable of expressing the same sort of selfless altruism that men demonstrate every day with projects like Wikipedia.

(09-01-2013 03:05 PM)basilransom Wrote:  A masculine man sees righteous accomplishment as its own reward. Knowing that *he* achieved it is payment enough. "I was just doing my job" he will say. While he may want to impress others, his conception of what is good originates from within.

A woman looks to others to decide what is right. The herd tells her what's socially desirable. And if she will labor in obscurity without reward, she won't do it. She needs the badges and the kudos from other people. This is why women thrive in the workplace.

Imagine the modest yet prodigious male engineer, say. He may very well be perfectly content knowing his invention has saved many lives, or created much wealth. But deprived of all the applause, the motivation of most women to work would wilt.

There are women who buck the trend, and certainly men too, in the other direction. That's who makes up the 10% female editorship of Wikipedia.

Masterful analysis guys, and not just the bits in bold. This forum has more intellectual honesty and intelligent thought than every gender/woman's studies faculty in the world combined. I wish there was a way for this sort of knowledge to be exposed to the masses, I really do.

Post: #17

(09-01-2013 04:46 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 04:26 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Does anyone that matters actually read Wikipedia?

I would imagine so. It is the modern day encyclopedia. I'm assuming all the great men of the past had their own encyclopedias. I don't see why great men today wouldn't use the modern version.

Post: #18

(09-01-2013 05:25 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 04:46 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 04:26 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Does anyone that matters actually read Wikipedia?

I would imagine so. It is the modern day encyclopedia. I'm assuming all the great men of the past had their own encyclopedias. I don't see why great men today wouldn't use the modern version.

Aliblahba, that's just a knee-jerk reaction.

Reliability of Wikipedia Wrote:Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors". The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica, and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections. Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology, pharmaceuticals, and psychiatry comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard.

Post: #19

(09-01-2013 05:00 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 02:30 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Wikipedia itself is one of the most irrefutable arguments supporting innate gender differences. As Teedub pointed out, the Wikipedia project is entirely voluntary. There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of women who want to contribute toward it.

However, the problem is that contributing to Wikipedia is largely an anonymous and thankless job. It's the internet equivalent of toiling down in a mine for the benefit of others. And that's just something that most women have absolutely no desire to take part in.

In contrast, where do you find women on the internet? Massed up on social networking sites like Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. What are they doing there? Mostly just talking about themselves and their friends, and posting pictures. Those are the priorities women have.

The reason this evidence is so irrefutable is because it's simply impossible that the patriarchy had any hand in creating or even influencing this great disparity. The internet itself is too new and too de-centralized. Every person who accesses the internet has the freedom to choose how they want to utilize it. Thus the idea that Wikipedia is somehow sexist because 90% of its contributors are male is as ridiculous as saying that Pinterest is sexist because 80% of its users are female. There's nothing stopping people of either sex from using any site they choose. But just like most men have no interest in posting dozens of "selfie" pics and telling everyone what they had for lunch, most women have no interest in doing thankless intellectual grunt work as a hobby.

It's extremely telling that the only way they can come up with to get women on Wikipedia is to make them do it for a class. It's a tacit admission of female solipsism. They will do nothing without self-interest. The idea of contributing selflessly to advance the knowledge of mankind is prevalent within a subset of men, but almost totally absent among women. As the biologically move valuable sex, nature designed women to be selfish in order to safeguard their reproductive value. This is why as a group they are simply incapable of expressing the same sort of selfless altruism that men demonstrate every day with projects like Wikipedia.

(09-01-2013 03:05 PM)basilransom Wrote:  A masculine man sees righteous accomplishment as its own reward. Knowing that *he* achieved it is payment enough. "I was just doing my job" he will say. While he may want to impress others, his conception of what is good originates from within.

A woman looks to others to decide what is right. The herd tells her what's socially desirable. And if she will labor in obscurity without reward, she won't do it. She needs the badges and the kudos from other people. This is why women thrive in the workplace.

Imagine the modest yet prodigious male engineer, say. He may very well be perfectly content knowing his invention has saved many lives, or created much wealth. But deprived of all the applause, the motivation of most women to work would wilt.

There are women who buck the trend, and certainly men too, in the other direction. That's who makes up the 10% female editorship of Wikipedia.

Masterful analysis guys, and not just the bits in bold. This forum has more intellectual honesty and intelligent thought than every gender/woman's studies faculty in the world combined. I wish there was a way for this sort of knowledge to be exposed to the masses, I really do.

Want to second this. The intellectual caliber here is second to none. Everything that has been said above about Wikipedia and its contributors could be said about this forum. Gives me a bit of faith in this fucked up world.

Post: #20

There is pretty much no way anyone is going to be able to insert "feminist thinking" into Wikipedia. Much like no one could insert "Christian thinking" into it.

Wikipedia is fact-based. If you try and post an opinion, the 'sperg types that run it -- to their credit -- will remove your comment or edit it with a "needs source" citation.

If they get wind of a group attempting to "storm" what they're doing, trust me, they'll double down and make damn sure no there is no bias in favor of "feminist thinking" (an oxymoron, by the way).

I once attempted to modify a John Lennon entry by mentioning Phil Ochs gave him the phrase "War is Over" because the Ochs bio says so. They wouldn't even allow that on the Lennon page and told me to take it to the Ochs page because I'd violated about three rules. So good luck to anyone who attempts to get non-factual ideas on those pages...because they're even picky about what type of facts they'll accept.

Addendum: one of my relatives is one of the top theological scholars in the country. I'm sending this to him with the note that he should have his students insert "Christian ideals" into Wikipedia, or at least write about why that is a good or bad idea. Let's see what happens.

Post: #21

They could include gems like this on Einstein's page perhaps, or the page on general relativity:

“Is e=mc2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest.”

http://netwar.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/f...stemology/

Post: #22

Another great option is to edit the Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia to include information on its inherent gender-bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

The page actually already notes that its editors are "barely 13% women" but does not delve deeply into the issue

Post: #23

Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:Wikipedia is fact-based. If you try and post an opinion, the 'sperg types that run it -- to their credit -- will remove your comment or edit it with a "needs source" citation.

That is valid only for personal anecdotes. If you cite a source, however flimsy, (example: Jezebel, or XoJane), you can easily add a line like "feminist scholar (ManHating McCow) has claimed that this is due to discrimination and body-policing".

Then you don't cite or link to any opposing views (such as this forum or Warren Farrell) and bam, the article suddenly has a feminist viewpoint. I agree that the barrier that you described exists, I just don't think it is so strong as you have described it. Particularly when Wikipedia is already under fire for not having enough female writers or whatnot.