[LouieG]

Posting this not to get anyone heated, but because it's Friday and you could probably use a laugh.

Via Jezebel:

Quote:

Despite being one of the most heavily visited sites on the web, women comprise just 13 percent of all Wikipedia editors. Why is that? Oh, you know, the usual — gender bias in general, extreme gender bias in tech, and the hostile culture that can create for women.

To put a finer point on it: Wikipedia's anonymous, non-exclusive, completely open editing system, which in most cases doesn't even require registering with the site to edit entries, is hostile to women.

There are just no limits to the self-parody that's possible when you insist there's no difference between men, women, and the stuff they excel at.

On the plus side, the author did recommend reading Wikipedia's list of unusual deaths, which is a great page. Now if she could muster a little gratitude for the men who went to the time and trouble of writing it, then we'd be making progress.

[Teedub]

Serious question. Why do feminists REALLY want there to be no innate differences between the sexes? I thought they wanted to be unique special snowflakes, so why this insistence of biological gender conformity?

P.S Their reasoning is literally like something from a satire, its hilarious.

[Asaxon]

How about the jizzbell writers just put in a few hours a day on wiki instead of complaining?

[Tuthmosis]

I can't find it right now, but an article (from a reliable source) came out a few months back documenting how much Wikipedia--despite their best efforts--struggles to get female writers to contribute and, even when they do, how much shorter and less thorough their articles tend to be. Also, women tend to write about less serious topics, like celebrities and fashion, in this perfunctory style.

EDIT:

Here it is.

Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List

[durangotang]

(01-25-2013 01:38 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Serious question. Why do feminists REALLY want there to be no innate differences between the sexes? I thought they wanted to be unique special snowflakes, so why this insistence of biological gender conformity?

P.S Their reasoning is literally like something from a satire, its hilarious.

It's a case of sour grapes. The fuglies become feminists because they don't benefit from their looks (female privilege), or they are just lesbians. So yes, if they can destroy the competitive advantage of better looking females through fat acceptance and redefining the female role in society to be undifferentiated from the role of men, all the better for them.



Edit: This is why Roosh's tactic of labeling feminists as ugly is so perfect. If we can create the association of ugliness and societal rejection with feminism, we can make it unappealing for your average girl. Maybe not this generation, but hopefully the next. Ultimately, no girl wants to be associated with lower tier societal rejects.

[j r]

That article is the perfect example for someone wanting to understand the difference between research and propaganda.

[WesternCancer]

(01-25-2013 01:51 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I can't find it right now, but an article (from a reliable source) came out a few months back documenting how much Wikipedia--despite their best efforts--struggles to get female writers to contribute and, even when they do, how much shorter and less thorough their articles tend to be. Also, women tend to write about less serious topics, like celebrities and fashion, in this perfunctory style.

EDIT:

Here it is.

Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List

Something similar was brought up in this norwegian documentary "brainwash" (Roosh wrote about it a few weeks back)

In norway the overwhelming majority of nurses are female and engineers male. The host asks the sociologists whether or not they think this bias is innate and they just laugh at him. Then he says "well since our country is so equal wouldn't it be unfair to force women to be engineers and men to be nurses, wouldn't this take away their freedom of choice/be wrong. If they have no one telling them to be a nurse yet so many of them become nurses why should we tell them not to be nurses if thats what they want to do" The sociologists said "thats not interesting"

[scorpion]

This is a case of women biting the hand that feeds. Wikipedia contributors are part of the mass of beta men who make and operate the modern society and technology that women rely on. Every time these women google something and click on a wiki link, they're enjoying the labor of some beta herb who had nothing better to do than meticulously write up and document a wiki article. While he was doing this, the woman was no doubt doing something very important, like running in the park with her dog, texting her friend, or watching a reality show. But now, thanks to that nameless beta, she can quickly find the information she needs to plagiarize her research paper.

If wikipedia was run by women there would be nothing but articles about celebrities, fashion, food and parenting. Women aren't obsessive enough to produce the detailed output on the most arcane subjects that beta men can. As a whole, women simply do not understand the contributions that beta men make to society. They think that things just happen. It's part of their infantile view of the world, and will never change, because women are biologically programmed to invest the vast amount of their energy on practical matters that further their reproductive potential. This is why fashion is so important to them, because it increases their attractiveness and status in the female hierarchy. It's also why interpersonal relationships/gossip/celebrities are important to them, because through observing these dynamics at play their come to understand social machinations much better than most men do, and can therefore more easily manipulate men to derive resources from them. When women gossip about other women, they are essentially exchanging information about what does and doesn't work in regards to manipulating men. Reality TV has the same appeal for them, which is why it is like chick crack. They can't get enough of it, because they think they are watching the social dynamics of the most successful women and learning from them. Of course, this is all subconscious. They don't know they are doing these things, which is why women cannot explain their appeal and refer to them as "guilty pleasures".

It really is hilarious though to see women complaining about exclusion from the world of the beta male. They're so out of touch with reality, they don't even understand what beta men do. Their innate disgust toward the beta is runs so deep that not only is the beta man invisible from a mating perspective, but his societal contributions are not even attributed to him in the female mind.

"Wikipedia? Oh, it's just like this thing with a bunch of information on it. Women should totally have control over it! Grrrl power!"

[tmason]

Ahh, the overreach. Keep going, feminists.

Tell us how the NFL is sexist because of no female quarterbacks, the construction industry is sexist because of mostly male foremen, etc. etc.

This is a good thing folks; their movement only goes downhill from here.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I left a comment.

The process on Wikipedia is non-gender specific. You choose a handle like "BurglarAlarm" and they have no way of knowing if you're male or female.

This article really does verge on self-parody as someone said above. They seem to be looking for things to complain about. Maybe the read Roosh's "Blame the Patriarchy" blog entry and took it seriously, thinking that's the way to write.

[Andy_B]

Women are attention whores. Wikipedia is anonymous and its writers don't get any credit for their contributions. That's why there are hardly any female wikipedia editors, it's not a particularly useful way for a narcissist to spend their time.

[Tuthmosis]

^Not just that, a smaller percentage of the type of chicks who are active online are "content producers." Just look at the websites that are popular with today's average girl. Tumblr, Pinterest, etc. are sites where you simply re-purpose other people's material with little contribution of your own. Picture heavy, text light.

You can't do that on Wikipedia.

Just look at this forum. This place is like 95 percent text-driven. Go on equivalent female forums, and the signatures are huge pictures and there are so many animated .gifs that you want to have a seizure. The average post is like one line, and then a series of pictures like this:

   

[Sombro]

(01-25-2013 01:38 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Serious question. Why do feminists REALLY want there to be no innate differences between the sexes? I thought they wanted to be unique special snowflakes, so why this insistence of biological gender conformity?

They want the benefits that come with being a male, but none of the responsibilities or risks.

[HeyPete]

This is a little off topic, but fits in with female laziness and contribution. I can see 10 co-workers computers when I stroll to the restroom.

I'm off today, but I make mental notes in my head when I make the stroll once a day.

Six of the screens I see are those of men. The other four, women.

This is what is on their screens pretty much every time I pass.

The men
Guy in 60's: work related material.
Youngest dude in the office, 25: work related material.
mid 40's: work related material.
Another mid 40's: OTB stuff or some type of betting website.
Guy in early 30's: work related material.
Guy in mid 30's: work related material.

The women
1) Obese, loudmouth, late 20's: Entertainment weekly, tonight type crap. Perez Hilton. Or the menu from a nearby restaurant.
Talks about lunch right when she gets in.
Side note: Has a hot sister, 100-pounds lighter, who meets her every so often for lunch. Gets pissed that we all like her and ask about her mainly to piss chubby off.

2) Late 40's: Web MD or some type of non-work related medical site. A complete hypochondriac. Has gone through three desks and six chairs in two years - costing the company thousands upon thousands of dollars - to meet the needs of her back, digestive distress, neck etc.

3) Mid 20's: work related material. Oddly, she's hot. Has a tremendous ass and is hated by most of the women in the office. But she actually does her work and does it well.

4) Early 30's: Shoes websites. Always shopping for shoes.

I'm willing to bet the other side of the office is similar and that thousands of offices across the country are too.

[xsplat]

(01-25-2013 01:38 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Serious question. Why do feminists REALLY want there to be no innate differences between the sexes? I thought they wanted to be unique special snowflakes, so why this insistence of biological gender conformity?

They don't. That's a smokescreen for a naked power grab.

People say that it's about a sexual strategy of lowering the value of the hotties, but that's not all of it. Having power is also useful, in itself. With power a woman can fuck an alpha and provision her own kids - she doesn't have to maintain the attraction of the alpha towards her.

So feminists are trying to get a society wide acceptance of single motherhood, and use all means possible to build up their power and finances so that they can raise the children themselves, or amongst themselves.

[Rah]

(01-25-2013 01:51 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Here it is.

Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List

Total gold:

"Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015, but she is running up against the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is dominated by men and, some say, uncomfortable for women."

Men live in a world of facts, makes women uncomfortable. Too many facts = creepy.

"But she acknowledged the hurdles: 'The big problem is that the current Wikipedia community is what came about by letting things develop naturally — trying to influence it in another direction is no longer the easiest path, and requires conscious effort to change.'"

Without any artificial political correctness measures, men naturally make up 85% of intellectual contribution. Sounds about right, especially considering a good portion of that "contribution" is on celebrities, fashion, etc.

[Kid Strangelove]

Fuck. Not this shit again. While yes, there HAVE been plenty of institutions where gender discrimination was real and there are still institutions where it is (because many institutions are run by old people with old beliefs that others are simply waiting to die off).


Now - I am speaking as someone that has plenty of credentials in the tech field. Gender discrimination against women either does not exist or is so minuscule that it is negligible.

Here is the reality of tech:

At the elite American Tech university that I attended (not tooting my horn here, but just providing background) women:
--- comprised 30% of the student body
--- were encouraged and coddled at every level (from womens only organizations, to special programs to recruit high school girls interested in science and engineering).
--- Everyone liked the idea of more WOMEN in science (including the programs described above) because everyone liked the idea of more PEOPLE in science
--- Noone discriminated by gender, race, nationality, etc. Science is science. If you're an engineer you speak through your work. If you are a coder you speak through your code. And people understood that. Those ideals actually UNITED people and created new dialogue and understanding.
--- in the computer science building at my college, you always had your "late night grinders". as expected, they were mostly men. The kind of men that can survive on ramen and red bull. Sometimes there were girls, and were they discriminated against? No. They were welcome with open arms, because if you can understand the late night obsessive programmer lifestyle, AND embrace it, that made you more valuable than 99% of women out there. Straight up - give a nerd a choice between a pretentious but very hot girl and a homely, but incredibly nerdy programmer chick - he will choose the programmer chick, guaranteed (that's why i wasn't really surprised about Mark Zuckebergs meh asian girlfriend)
--- Women in tech transitioned way easier into the working world than men because employers wanted their company to be seen as the "progressives" that employ women



If you are a real scientist, engineer, etc - you DO and you RECRUIT. I have no problem with this Jezabel writer trying to encourage more women to contribute to the collective global knowledge sphere. But in science, you don't get special privileges for being a woman (or a man, or black, or white, or gay, or straight). And some people just cant deal with that

[Hades]

(01-26-2013 02:59 PM)Kid Strangelove Wrote:  

If you are a real scientist, engineer, etc - you DO and you RECRUIT. I have no problem with this Jezabel writer trying to encourage more women to contribute to the collective global knowledge sphere. But in science, you don't get special privileges for being a woman (or a man, or black, or white, or gay, or straight). And some people just cant deal with that

All the staff of Jezebel are women's studies and journalism majors with an inflated sense of self importance. But since they get so much shit in the comments from people with real degrees working real jobs, they get a serious inferiority complex and cry discrimination at all levels of scientific institutions. Me, for example. I posted a comment attacking their lazy understanding of something that I research particularly, and got all kinds of shit. They conflate their own incompetence with discrimination.

The problem is that absolutely none of them have any experience working in a scientific field or have any idea how tolerant and accepting the scientific community is (at pretty much all levels).

I'm all for their inclusion if they're competent, because that standard applies to everyone. Pretty much like you said, nobody gets special privileges. I don't think we have any women in our department though.

[Private Man]

Women already have their own Wikipedia, it's called Pinterest.

Shit, gonna tweet that.

[Basil Ransom]

You can find women doing similar work to Wikipedia editing. It's not that they aren't capable per se. It's that very very few women will contribute for free unless they're socially rewarded for it. A man will labor in obscurity and solitude for a passion they hold dear. He will do so even if no one else will see the fruit of his labors. Mastery and creation are its own reward. Women instead require an extrinsic social reward.

Of course, these are generalizations. There are some women like the man I described, and probably a majority of men are like women in this regard. But if you identified all the people who would be willing to work in the shadows for something of little personal benefit, something as impersonal and dry as writing summaries, they would be mostly men.

Look to Wikipedia to try and create a 'social' element to raise the number of women in its ranks.

They should do a test, where they have say five different groups of writers author articles - and vary the number of women in each group of authors, from 0% to 15% to 50% to 85% to 100% women. Then submit these articles to reviewers for qualitative assessment, without telling them which group is which, or even what the goal of the study is - say 'we wanted to gauge the quality of certain articles, tell us what you think.'

[Surreyman]

From the horses mouth:

(01-25-2013 01:08 PM)septembergrrl Wrote:  

I stopped editing when they started being so persnickety about it. Eight or 10 years ago, you could be a little looser about citations and stuff and I edited a fair amount -- now it feels like you shouldn't even bother unless you have a day to read and memorize the Wiki bylaws and style manual before you start. I appreciate the drive for accuracy, but it discourages me from wanting to chip in.

In other words, she doesn't know how to edit, doesn't know how to follow the rules. No shortage of this shit in the comments, bitches who don't know a rats arse about how Wikipedia is edited.

'I can't understand how to do this, it's unfair'

[Volk]

Are you telling me they actually believe what they wrote on that article? Holy shit, I swear, no bullshit, that it was some kind of satire, like The Onion.