On Wikipedia, the ultimate source of human knowledge in the opinion of some, you can read up on a luminary in the field (retrieved 10/31/2019). This great scholar is also a pioneer of an emergent academic discipline called men’s studies:
Introducing R. W. Connell, eminent sociologist
Raewyn Connell, usually cited as R. W. Connell, is an Australian sociologist. She gained prominence as an intellectual of the Australian New Left. She was appointed University Professor at the University of Sydney in 2004, and retired from her University Chair on July, 2014. She has been Professor Emerita at the University of Sydney since her retirement. She is known for the concept of hegemonic masculinity and her book, Southern Theory.
Wow, pretty impressive, huh? Some other highlights:
In the United States Connell was visiting professor of Australian studies at Harvard University 1991–1992, and professor of sociology at University of California Santa Cruz 1992–1995. She was a rank-and-file member of the Australian Labor Party until the early 1980s and a trade unionist, currently in the National Tertiary Education Union.
Trade unionist? I’m trying to picture this; let’s see… The whistle blows at the mill, and Raewyn steps away from the lathe. She’s covered in sweat and sawdust after another tedious day turning out table legs. She stretches her aching back and walks up to an exhausted colleague. Raising her voice above the factory noise which is just starting to wind down, Raewyn says, “We’re not getting paid enough for this. It’s about time we form a union.”
Connell’s sociology emphasises the historical nature of social reality and the transformative character of social practice.
That seems a bit nebulous. Still, I’m just a dumb blond from Flyover Country, and Raewyn is a smart sociology professor.
Much of her empirical work uses biographical (life-history) interviewing, in education, family life and workplaces. She has written or co-written twenty-one books and more than 150 research papers. Her work is translated into 16 languages.
Connell serves on the editorial board or advisory board of numerous academic journals, including Signs, Sexualities, The British Journal of Sociology, Theory and Society, and The International Journal of Inclusive Education.
Obviously this is quite a prolific typist then.
Connell is a trans woman, who completed her gender transition late in life.
Well now, there’s the kicker! This pioneer in the field of men’s studies is a tranny. The article doesn’t explain it, but Raewyn used to go by Robert and got the “Big Snip” some time in his/her/its sixties.
But wait! There’s more!
The Wiki article goes further on some of Raewyn’s teachings. I’ll excerpt a couple:
In the late 1980s she developed a social theory of gender relations (“Gender and Power”, 1987), which emphasised that gender is a large-scale social structure not just a matter of personal identity.
Connell is best known outside Australia for studies of the social construction of masculinity. She was one of the founders of this research field, and her book “Masculinities” (1995, 2005) is the most-cited in the field.
Oh, holy Moses…
The concept of hegemonic masculinity has been particularly influential and has attracted much debate.
There’s a separate article for “hegemonic masculinity”. It looks like Raewyn is late to the party; the feminists have been bitching about “The Patriarchy” and “toxic masculinity” since longer than I care to remember. “Hegemonic masculinity” is pretty much a rehash of that, though borrowing the terminology of Comrade Antonio Gramsci.
She has been an advisor to UNESCO and UNO initiatives relating men, boys and masculinities to gender equality and peacemaking.
So our wannabe one world government used Raewyn as a consultant on how guys should be masculine. Sweet! Welcome to Clown World. You knew that one was coming, didn’t you?
What is men’s studies?
Men’s studies is an academic pursuit concerned with teaching politically correct propaganda. It has no benefit to the real world aside from serving as a make-work program for people who got doctorate degrees in useless topics. Like many other fairly new Ivory Tower “studies” departments, it’s a branch of critical theory, something going back to early-stage cultural Marxism. I could go much further into all that, but a simple analogy will do:
Women’s studies: A class where you’re taught that women are good and men are evil.
Men’s studies: A class where you’re taught that women are good and men are evil.
I think that both men and women are good (mostly), but once again, I’m just a dumb blond from Flyover Country. The article “A Joke of a Men’s Studies Center“, mentioning Connell briefly, summarizes the whole thing as:
…a discipline that heterodox California professor David Clemens has succinctly defined as “a camouflage version of Women’s Studies” in which the “operative question” is “Why are men so awful?”
Wrapping it all up
So Robert/Raewyn was a leftist professor (no great surprise there) who bears an uncanny resemblance to Willy Wonka in drag. This eminent scholar had a long career propagandizing students, and was influential in the creation of yet another PC grievance studies department in academia. This one is about men, and the trailblazing professor was so enthusiastic about being male that he got a sex change. If that wasn’t ludicrous enough, the NWO characters in the UN consulted Raewyn as an authority about masculinity, despite him apparently having been one of the most self-flagellating men to walk the planet.
For this purple poodle to be considered an international academic authority on masculinity is more ridiculous than if a synagogue hired Louis Farrakhan to teach bar mitzvah classes. Not even Monty Python gets this absurd. Anyway, what grinds my gears about this Wikipedia article is that it treats this individual like Sir Isaac Newton or something. There’s barely a hint that this self-hatred propaganda for men is even controversial. According to the talk page, it wasn’t always this way. As of now, it looks like the opposing views went into the memory hole.
I saw a recent story about a chick who quit the Alt Right group Identity Evropa. I forced myself to read the thing. Throughout, I made the same face as I do while scooping cat litter boxes, and for similar reasons. By now, there’s a small genre of confessional literature by former “evil right-wing extremists” who sold out and tattled about their old friends to the MSM. Like any literary fiction genre, it has its characteristic conventions and shticks, and that article was no exception. They’re the political equivalent of a typical Chick tract – those little fundamentalist booklets that might get left at a bus stop or a laundromat – but without the “so bad it’s good” entertainment value.
These maudlin quitter narratives typically go a little further into the “descent into extremism” angle. The theme was there in the article, but not as much as the usual. Paraphrasing from a different example: “I started out as a Republican. Then I got involved in the John Birch society. After that, I joined this group and that group, and before I knew it, I was at a Fraternity Tri Kappa cross lighting!”
These stories go rather like dope fiend confessionals. You know the drill – someone has a beer or two on occasion, then is persuaded into trying weed. After exposure to the famous gateway drug, he starts popping pills and dropping acid, and finally ends up mainlining heroin. “Now I’m hooked – all because I smoked a joint!”
I have yet to see a media story about the leftist equivalent of a quitter narrative, of course. To the MSM, anyone further to the right than a typical boring neocon is as evil as Voldemort’s underwear, but they seem to think left wing extremism doesn’t exist. If you believed your professors when they told you the Soviets were the good guys, you wear a T-shirt showing the Communist thug Che Guevara, and you become a Social Justice Warrior, the media will never fault you for being a radicalinski. That’s perfectly normal according to them. If you stop doing that, they won’t find it newsworthy and splash your story on their pages for clickbait.
Still, let’s make up a leftist confessional here for funsies and to show how the script works. “At first I merely voted for Obama. Then I joined Greenpeace, and my descent into left wing extremism escalated quickly. I started eating vegan food, reading HuffPo, donating to moveon.org, and attending anti-war vigils. Finally I found myself chucking Molotov cocktails for Antifa. What a sinner I was!” That’s how silly this stuff is.
But wait! There’s more!
According to a third-hand source (but one that I’ll certainly trust more than the media), the subject of the article was kicked out after she got caught cheating on her boyfriend with another well-known Alt-Right figure. (I’m pretty sure the other guy isn’t a member, and it’s unclear if she clued him in about her existing relationship.) If that’s true, the actions were inherently reckless and divisive, legitimate grounds for expulsion. The article, of course, doesn’t mention anything about immoral behavior.
Instead, the spin was that she got bamboozled by all the propaganda. If she seriously meant the things she was quoted as saying, it sounds like she didn’t have a very good understanding of what the Alt Right is all about, or even what’s at stake for our people. As the story goes, after watching some videos here and there, eventually she was making Fascist salutes although deep down knowing it was wrong. Cue the squeaky violins…
Whew! It was really special to read these spin-meisters complaining about Alt-Right propaganda. It seems the authors were suffering from a case of psychological projection. The MSM itself is a multi-billion dollar propaganda engine. That’s why I named two chapters about the media in Deplorable Diatribes as “Publishing and Die Lügenpresse: the Great Baloney Factory” and “Movies and TV: Propaganda In Motion”. Anyone who thinks the MSM is objective probably believes in the Easter Bunny too. These days, even most liberals know it’s bullshit, and that speaks volumes. One thing is certain – the MSM doesn’t like ideological competition!
Other than that, the article trotted out some “expert” (someone who wrote a book about us deplorable extremists). It also cited the ADL. That’s like asking hardcore atheists for their opinion of evangelical Christians – or vice versa. It certainly didn’t give Identity Evropa’s side of the story, or any balancing commentary from any other Alt Right figures about what the movement is all about.
This chica really disgraced herself. If it’s true that she got caught cheating on her boyfriend, then she needs to examine her behavior. If instead she merely discovered that she had an ideological disagreement with Identity Evropa, there was no reason she had to go to the media and put down her old friends. Anyway, after reading this smelly confessional, I figured I should give some tips for other would-be quitters like her.
Why be a quitter?
First of all, if you’re going to be a quitter, do it for the right reasons. If you’ve reconsidered or found that your beliefs don’t match your new ideology, that’s acceptable. It’s a legitimate reason. If you want to support mainstream conservatism instead, well, that’s up to you. I’m not so sure that Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or some controlled opposition figure really will save this country, but believe it if you will. If you want to be a liberal, that’s your call too. Actually, that will be a good thing if you also can figure out how to make money grow on trees; it’s a problem they’ve been struggling with for quite a while.
The catch is that after you took the Red Pill and found out how the world really works, enlightenment is a one-way street. Therefore, if you do a 180 degree turn and start rejecting everything that you once stood for – as opposed to choosing a more moderate viewpoint – then be aware that you’re making yourself look pretty silly when you try to cough up the Red Pill. Moreover, if you abandon the Alt Right for something like Marxism, feminism, anarchy, or some oddball cult, then you probably never were with us for the right reasons and shouldn’t have joined in the beginning.
Some people bounce around like that. The problem is that they tend to be loose cannons on deck and are rightly avoided. Hobbyists are another problem. We need more than just warm bodies. We have to be selective. In many ways, rightists emphasize quality over quantity, and this is one of them.
It’s been said that the Alt Right isn’t very welcoming. That’s a valid point, but there are reasons. We do encourage others to change their minds, get enlightened, and step out of The Matrix. There also should be reasonable room for forgiveness of past mistakes. (We’re not living in a traditionalist society, and not many of us in Clown World remained unscathed all our lives.) Still, “Saul on the road to Damascus” type conversions don’t always gain immediate acceptance for reasons that should be pretty obvious.
It’s also important to prove oneself. Basically, show that you’re serious and willing to take action. Those who don’t earn a little proper street cred might end up like the chick from that stinky article.
Bad reasons to be a quitter
One bad reason to be a quitter is because of minor differences of opinion. These things shouldn’t get in the way. If your friends are 95% on your wavelength, why get too hung up on the other 5%? There’s certainly room for constructive debate on ideology, tactics, and so forth. Still, the operating word is “constructive”. Other than that, never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The Alt Right isn’t unified and monolithic. (There are reasons why this is a good thing.) You might find a different variety that is a better match for your views. Alternatively, you can go it alone and explain your own perspectives. Finding that you disagree with some of the Alt Right doesn’t mean that you have to give up everything and embrace Karl Marx, Andrea Dworkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Sun Myung Moon, or whatever.
Another bad reason to leave is because of personality conflicts. Granted, this is something we need to improve. We tend to be pretty individualistic. A few of us, most unfortunately, have big egos. Corneliu Codreanu, in the Nest Leader’s Manual, emphasized that personality clashes must be put aside. The Iron Guard’s goal was Romania’s salvation, and bickering had no place. These days, we don’t have time for that either. Is some petty dispute more important than the fate of the country?
Codreanu also mentioned that the enemy attacks both by suppression and (if that doesn’t work) by trying to stir up internal conflicts. We need to be aware of this possibility too. Unfortunately, there are those who thrive on gossip or even are chronic troublemakers. One might wonder whose side they’re really on. That’s another reason why quality over quantity matters.
For the most part, leftists settle their differences out of public view and then follow along with whoever is calling the shots. Furthermore, I’ll have to credit them for skillfully assembling a broad coalition that has little to nothing in common with each other except a grudge against normal society. (That’s contemporary cultural Marxism in a nutshell.) Then their united front goes after whoever they see as their enemies. It doesn’t always work perfectly, but they do a pretty good job of setting aside their differences to reach common goals. (I don’t care too much for their goals, but that’s another story.) If we did the same thing and stopped sniping at people on our own side, we’d be a lot further along.
The worst reason to be a quitter is if you get in trouble and then try to save face by turning your back on your old friends. Trouble comes in many forms these days. (If it’s legal trouble caused by doing something stupid, then you probably already gave your opponents a propaganda victory.) Long ago, Tom Metzger said something about those who get busted and then become renegades to seek leniency. Basically, it was that if you end up blubbering to the prison’s parole board that you found GEEEEZUS and renounce your cause, it would’ve been better if you never had attempted any activism beyond yelling at the t00b. This principle also applies to those who think they can stop an HR inquisition or SJW mob by mouthing off about their old buddies, or outright throwing them under the bus.
Finally, if you get kicked out of an organization for doing something stupid, this isn’t license to get even with the people who you disappointed. Instead, accept it quietly and learn from your mistakes.
The right way to be a quitter
If you’re leaving for the right reasons – again, finding that you have a substantial ideological disagreement – then you still need to exit the right way. This means go quietly, gracefully, and with no fanfare. There’s no need to denounce everybody or write nasty letters. If you badmouth your old friends, assuredly they’ll be saying much worse things about you.
One of the worst things you can do is go to the media and make some godawful confessional. Almost certainly it will be run through their narrative filter. They’ll also embellish it beyond your own stretching of the truth. Much worse, your interview will provide a little more grist for their propaganda mill. They will run their story about you, using it to push their poisonous narratives and fool the public a little more. You should’ve learned that the MSM is one of the main reasons why society is the condition it is. At first you opposed this corrupt institution, and now you’re helping it, which is a lot worse than merely chickening out. Don’t disgrace yourself like that.
Can you go further with it? A few Benedict Arnolds got book deals. There even has been a docudrama or two. Still, don’t expect that you can cash in very much by selling out. Being a turncoat certainly isn’t a great career path. Get your fifteen minutes of fame some other way.
There’s another thing that you should know about being a quitter, all the more reason to leave the right way. If you betray your cause, you’re not going to get a lot of respect, nor will you deserve any. You’ll mark yourself as untrustworthy. Even your former enemies who use your story to their advantage will look upon you basically like an ex-convict. You’ll draw a lot of attention to yourself, and all the wrong kind. Don’t imagine that you’ll just go back to being a “normie” in everyone else’s opinion. Don’t count on a hug-fest either.
Perhaps even worse, obtaining political rehabilitation depends on sucking up to those who you knew darn well are a bunch of shmucks. You must seek the approval of presstitutes, “watchdog” foundation staffers, or other bottom feeders and make yourself useful to them. Do yourself a favor – preserve your dignity and self-esteem, and don’t go down that path. Again, if you’re disillusioned or changed your mind, you can just move on without shouting about it from the rooftops.
Dissident politics isn’t for wimps
Chairman Mao said that revolution is not a dinner party, and I’ll have to admit that he knew what he was talking about with that. More to the point with our present situation, peaceful reform countering hostile entrenched forces isn’t a walk in the park either. It’s serious business, not a hobby, and not something to be set aside the moment it stops being entertaining. It’s a pursuit for the strong, decisive, and dedicated. If that’s you, then do your part. On the other hand, if you can’t shoulder the responsibility of standing up for your nation’s future, then find something else to do.
After you’ve taken the Red Pill, there’s no going back to blissful ignorance. Moreover, if you speak out or otherwise deviate from The Narrative, you’re part of the “basket of deplorables” that charming Hillary mentioned. Simply put, according to the opposition, you’re a heretic. The good news is that opposing globalist shmucks is a service to humanity. Remain aware that once you take a step into forbidden territory, the only way to go is forward toward victory. Running away is for losers.
Let’s wrap up here. Remember that if you want to be a quitter, any reasons other than substantial disagreement are bad ones. Also, avoid disgracing yourself. This means don’t go to the media so they can write up yet another cringing confessional. Lastly, Samuel Adams – one of America’s Founding Fathers – had some advice for you:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!
Whenever I think that Clown World has reached peak poz, sooner or later I find something that sets the bar even higher. A local edition of the Daily Mail came out with an article in 2017 (revised the next year) with the evocative title “Hull woman Ria Cooper to change gender for a third time“.
Who the hell gets three sex changes?
The story describes Ria Cooper, formerly Brad, who “underwent gender reassignment surgery to become a woman” at fifteen. The specifics of the surgery aren’t described, but it further details getting female hormone shots to grow tits and prevent male body hair.
However, Ria struggled with her new identity and decided to transition back so that she could live her life as a gay man before ending hormone treatment and becoming Brad again soon after her 18th birthday.
Then after another five years, Brad decided to change his Underoos yet again. Quoting from The Mirror:
I’ve always known I was female – it was everyone else who was confused, not me. I was wearing make-up and heels at the age of 12, there was no question.
I remember when I was twelve. That’s the time I left behind childish make-believe daydreaming and became rational – or at least as rational as any kid that age gets. Brad/Ria cites social pressure for temporarily detransitioning at eighteen. However, it gets a little confusing. The reason cited earlier was to become a gay guy. How is that conforming to the expectations of traditionalist society?
When Ria became the youngest person in the UK to be prescribed female hormones, her mental health was deeply affected.
Apparently this wasn’t for the better, because:
By 18, she had twice attempted suicide, turned to drugs, gone through violent relationships and also dabbled in prostitution.
Sheesh – kids these days…
“The puberty blockers and hormones made me moody and angry, I was all over the place.”
That sounds like a bad case of PMS without the cramps.
One of her biggest regrets is taking part in a Channel 4 documentary which revealed her job as a ladyboy called ‘Lola.’
This along with the other media appearances seems to suggest attention-seeking. Still, it’s a hell of a way to get one’s proverbial “fifteen minutes of fame”. The article discusses some romantic troubles, and:
Ria’s controversial decision to have gender reassignment surgery for a third time has been criticised by some, with people accusing her of “wasting” thousands of pounds of NHS money.
However, this time, Ria has vowed to fund it herself and she has already paid £5,000 to get her dream 34EE breasts with a genital transformation op pencilled in for next year.
Now hold that thought…
Ria has always dreamt of raising her own family and finding romance.
Not having a uterus makes the usual method a little difficult. The article ends with more discussion of romantic difficulties, and the desire to be a mother.
Uh, what? The previous article did specifically mention sex change surgery. Did the British National Health Service castrate fifteen year old Brad while leaving the dick in its original condition or something? Anyway, it looks like the planned “genital transformation” mentioned later on didn’t happen.
According to Cooper, 25, a pornographer reached out saying he wanted to film her having sex.
But when he discovered the would-be starlet still has male reproductive organs, the offer was yanked.
So this had been an impediment to romantic life. It probably also was an impediment to the career as a hooker, at least partially so. Why is this supposedly such a big surprise, anyway? Much trouble could’ve been avoided if this rather significant detail had been disclosed early on.
I’m not exactly a pornography advocate. Still, I can see how this just doesn’t work. Let’s say the screenplay calls for a vaginal sex scene. It’s hard to do that if there ain’t none, not even a fake one. Other than that, filmmakers have certain casting requirements for looks. (For example, it wouldn’t work to make a skinny chick the star of a flick with the title “big butt babes” or whatever.) More to the point yet, it’s perfectly reasonable why a porn producer wouldn’t want to cast an actress with a dick, unless it was a film catering to that kind of kink.
Cooper — who transitioned when she was 15 — has blasted what she’s calling “transphobic behaviour” that is harming her career in modelling and porn.
This article doesn’t go into the bloke to bird to bloke to bird wavering. Anyway, there actually is a market for ladyboy porn. A while back, I heard about a “chicks with dicks” website. I’d need eye bleach if I ever looked at it, but some people are into weird shit. If there’s one site, there are probably dozens. Maybe Ria can look into that, instead of trying out for an actress role that requires someone to be – you know – a real woman.
The softball article finishes with this:
A spokesman for Humberside Police told the newspaper: “We received a report of a hate incident. The report has been logged and will be investigated.”
That’s right – Ria was rejected as a porn actress for having a dick, and reported that as a “hate incident”. Worse, the cops are taking it seriously. It wouldn’t be a Current Year tranny story without mountains being made out of molehills. It’s better yet if the Narrative Violation is called a “hate crime”. Best of all is when the pipsqueakery receives the attention of the authorities. “The universe revolves around my self-perceived subjective gender identity, so take that, society!”
Most unfortunately, Britain has had severe problems with home invasions, terrorism, race riots, and Muslim grooming gangs. The police haven’t been able to do much to get a handle on the problems resulting from their treasonous politicians letting in millions of vibrant migrants who don’t belong there. Still, when some pillow-biter gets a case of hurt feelings, the authorities will do a full investigation for the “hate crime”. Welcome to Clown World. Honk, honk!
Note, the following contains spoilers of about the first half of the movie, so wait for later to read this if you haven’t watched the movie but intend to do so.
There are two interpretations of the Batman franchise, a long-standing comic book with spinoffs in TV and movies. The first way tends to be a little campy, silly, and sometimes gayed up. The campy take characterizes the 1960s TV series, which was pretty awesome. It also characterizes the film series that fizzled out in the 1990s, which had its moments. Actually, Jack Nicholson’s Joker rocked the house!
The other portrayal takes it all seriously, generally pretty grim. That characterizes the newer films, of course. Bruce Wayne is so rich that all he really has to do to support a lavish lifestyle is show up at board meetings. At night, he’s wearing a bat suit and beating up criminals. What kind of psychology goes into a trust fund kid who turned into a costumed vigilante? (Rorschach from The Watchmen is the blue collar version.) Batman’s origin story has been covered quite a bit, of course.
The plot of Joker
The new Joker movie goes into the origin story of Batman’s number one antagonist. All told, it’s pretty grim. Set in 1981, it captures the ambiance of NYC prior to the Giuliani administration. (That’s basically what Gotham City is, after all.) In that regard, it’s much like Taxi Driver. The following explains how Joker borrows several Robert DeNiro tropes:
Arthur Fleck, who becomes The Joker, is one of the many down-and-out who inhabit Gotham’s bleak environment, and the film covers his slow decline. He lives with his mother in a tenement better described as a panelak, an East European term for the typical crappy government high-rises constructed during the Communist days. He chain-smokes and appears to suffer from malnutrition. Even early on, the drabness and anomie is stunning.
He stays with his mother, and they’re supported by his crappy job as a clown as well as her disability check. She seems like a nice lady, but later on their past is revealed. She had a case of hybristophilia during her “young, wild, and free” years, seeking the company of dangerous men. Some of them tortured little Arthur, and he ended up getting brain damage from a beating. While getting her Stockholm Syndrome funsies, she failed in her number one duty to protect her child. I wish I could say it was only a movie, but this shit happens for real.
Getting his brains scrambled causes his strange laughter which he can’t control and happens at all the wrong times, rather like a Tourette’s outburst. This isn’t his only problem, since he’s on seven different psych meds. (The newer generation of drugs that came out beginning in the 1990s is pretty bad as it is.) Other than that, he meets a Black single mom who becomes his love interest, because it wouldn’t be a recent Hollywood film without an interracial couple. Later it turns out that most of the relationship is probably Walter Mitty style daydreaming on his part.
All told, already he’s at the bottom rung of society. It gets worse, of course. There’s a surreal scene at a children’s hospital where he’s dancing to “If You’re Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands” among little cancer patients and other seriously sick kids. At that point, I wanted to chug a screwdriver made with isopropyl alcohol and Agent Orange. The kiddos actually are getting into it until a gun falls out of his pocket. His boss fires him immediately – the guy is a dickweed, but it’s understandable.
On the subway back home, three rich guys start beating up on him for laughing. (It’s the second time in the film where he gets kicked when he’s down, fairly symbolic.) Then he shoots them. The first two are arguably self-defense, but the third rates as a Murder Two. That, of course, recalls the Bernhard Goetz “subway vigilante” case, in which actual muggers got shot, rather than very uncharacteristically aggressive rich dudes.
Other than that, he loses his shrink (who hasn’t been able to do much to screw his head back on straight) along with his supply of psych meds. The city had some budget cuts, so the program got cancelled. You already can tell that the downhill slide is getting into terminal velocity. I’ll throw in a cheerful dance track to break the grim mood:
Bringing us to the real world for a moment, I might add that it sucks that mental health care isn’t better. If you’re a Yuppie with a case of the blahs, no problem. However, lots of the people who need therapy the most are screwed because they can’t afford it. Talking the bartender’s ear off only goes so far. Popping Oxycodone ain’t going to enhance someone’s life either.
Back to the movie. It turns out that shooting the rich guys in the subway made Arthur a folk hero. Quickly a movement arises with protesters wearing clown masks. (Welcome to Clown World, right?) However, they aren’t Occupy Wall Street types, who were notoriously dirty and disorderly, but never made lamppost ornaments out of any banksters or stock market swindlers. As things turn ugly, this becomes a much more violent crowd, rather like Antifa. I’ll add that I don’t have much of a gripe with OWS, but Antifa can put the lotion in the basket as far as I’m concerned.
I’ll wrap up at this point. More stuff happened, and things spiraled dreadfully out of control. What followed completed Arthur’s transformation into the Joker.
All told, this was a very grim show, rather like a Greek tragedy. (For one example, Oedipus Rex shows that fate can be a real motherfucker.) This brings us to something I wrote in Deplorable Diatribes:
Flawed societies tend to exacerbate problems with human nature, bringing out the worst in people. Granted, that’s a liberal idea, so it’s paradoxical that I’ve come to accept it. To clarify, a bad society will create bad conditions. Still, it’s possible to realize the truth about one’s conditions and act rationally. On the other side of the equation, society only can be perfected so far; it’s impossible to create heaven on earth, or even make everyone equally happy.
Arthur did make some choices here. He wasn’t too crazy to do that. Unfortunately, every desperate attempt he makes to improve his conditions – or even keep from sinking deeper – ends up with him getting kicked down yet again. Rather than succumbing to learned helplessness, he starts lashing out. Consider it a case of wrong heaped on a pile of wrong. Again, I wish I could say it was only a movie, but this shit happens for real.
What happens when society continually pisses on someone all his life? I’m reminded of Nietzsche’s remark that humility is like a worm curling up as it’s stepped on, to prevent it from getting stepped on again by the other boot. Alternatively, a few people just snap. This doesn’t end well.
The incel massacre that didn’t happen
Finally, I should discuss the reaction to the film even before it came out. The way the MSM was hyping it up, they expected that the film would lead to hordes of incels going postal. There were warnings not to attend the premier because one of these guys would gun down a crowd at the theater. With all the buzz about the possibility, the media wizards might as well have said, “How about someone just do what we’re talking about incessantly – hint hint – so we’ll have a new lurid story to run, and our talking heads can comment on it for the next month.” It didn’t happen, so there we have another failed MSM prediction.
For those unfamiliar with the term, an “incel” is basically a guy who can’t get a date to save his life. I will discuss the fearmongering about them in another article. For now, I’ll just say that society already pissed all over them, and this new rhetoric alleging that they’re inherently violent just amounts to high-tech bullying. Real classy, huh? The MSM characters who are pushing this line are externalizers of the Oedipus Complex.
Will the film ever incite someone to go postal? Taxi Driver, the spiritual prequel of Joker, indeed had that problem. So did that crappy bookCatcher In the Rye. Actually, Mark David Chapman did have a wife, so he wasn’t an incel. Unlike him, John Hinckley had a rich family and better looks, so he certainly could have had a wife or a girlfriend, if he wasn’t so starstruck over a teenage actress who turned out to be a lesbian. The common thread there wasn’t about being incels, but rather being so mentally disturbed that they didn’t know what was real.
Maybe it’s time to figure out what can be done to help people like that before their downward slide reaches terminal velocity. This includes the ones on the bottom rung of society – the homeless, the addicts, and those hanging by a thread.
Abraham Lincoln was a fine President, but some of the people under him were anything but that. (Thaddeus Stevens, for example, was quite the special snowflake.) For one thing, Honest Abe did not intend for the postwar South to be run by a gang of carpetbaggers:
Mr. Kennedy has some apprehensions that federal officers, not citizens of Louisiana, may run as candidates for Congress in that State. In my view, there would be no possible object in such a course. . . . What we want is conclusive evidence that respectable citizens of Louisiana are willing to serve as members of congress, and to swear to support the Constitution, and that other respectable citizens are willing to vote for them. To send a parcel of Northern men here as Representatives, elected, as it would be understood, and perhaps really so, at the point of the bayonet, would be disgraceful and outrageous.
— Lincoln correspondence to G. F. Shipley, 11/21/1862
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
It’s very unfortunate that it didn’t work out that way, for rather obvious reasons.
Despite whatever you may have heard from your leftist professors and politically correct history books, the Radical Reconstruction following the Civil War was a vast moneymaking opportunity for a bunch of fraudsters to loot the South. Worse, it was a reign of terror. This “Reconstruction” had a lot more in common with the Morgenthau Plan than the Marshall Plan.
One of the organizations – perhaps the most notorious one – responsible for this was the Union League, also called the Loyal League. Their agitation, in the name of locking down political power, caused catastrophic damage to race relations, and this aspect of the carpetbagger regime was the immediate cause for the retaliations that eventually followed. Even though the details have fallen into the memory hole a century and a half later, all this had tremendous negative impact. Its legacy on race relations even now is greater than the much more recent Trayvon Martin shooting, which the MSM did their utmost to spin into a White versus Black “hate crime” despite all the inconvenient facts.
What did the Union League / Loyal League actually do?
For the answer, let’s consult Wikipedia, our trusty ultimate source of human knowledge, so fair and objective and “NPOV” that it hurts. Their article as of 10/15/2019 begins:
The Union Leagues were quasi-secretive, men’s clubs established during the American Civil War (1861–1865), to promote loyalty to the Union of the United States of America, the policies of newly elected 16th President Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865, served 1861–1865), and to combat what they believed to be the treasonous words and actions of anti-war, antiblack “Copperhead” Democrats.
From the rest of the introduction, you’d think it was pretty much like the Kiwanis Club, the Elks, or the Rotary Club except with a little political flair. Maybe that’s indeed how it rolled in the North, but in the South, things took on a different character. What does the article say about that?
During the Reconstruction era, Union Leagues were formed across the South after 1867 as working auxiliaries of the Republican Party, supported entirely by Northern interests. They were secret organizations that mobilized freedmen to register to vote and to vote Republican. They taught freedmen Union views on political issues and which way to vote on them, and promoted civic projects. Eric Foner reports:
By the end of 1867 it seemed that virtually every black voter in the South had enrolled in the Union League, the Loyal League, or some equivalent local political organization. Meetings were generally held in a black church or school.
The Ku Klux Klan was a secret organization of whites that resisted what they saw as the excesses of Reconstruction. They sometimes terrorized and even assassinated Union League leadership. Founder Nathan Bedford Forrest grew uneasy about the group’s tendency to lawlessness, and disbanded it in the late 1860’s.
From that, you’d think the Union League was just hosting political pep rallies, until Fraternity Tri-Kappa attacked them for absolutely no reason.
The article does have a pretty lively edit history, so someone’s been trying to fix it. (Before anyone gets the wrong idea again, I’ve never made a single change to it, nor do I intend on doing so.) Might there be a contrarian opinion to the version existing now about what these “quasi-secretive men’s clubs” were up to in Dixie?
What Wikipedia’s article didn’t tell you
The columnist Mike Scruggs fills us in on the things you didn’t read in Wikipedia. Here are some highlights of the article, which is worth a read in its entirety:
The Union League perpetrated far more violence against both blacks and whites in the post Civil War Reconstruction years of 1865 to 1877 than the Klan. Why has the violence of the Union League been shoved deep into the memory hole of history? It is because the Union League was essentially a quasi-federal agency carrying out the policies of Reconstruction. The factual history of this political despotism, corruption, and violence is a moral and political embarrassment, which the powerful guardians of counterfactual political narratives have relentlessly sought to suppress.
Indeed, you won’t hear anything about it from your professors, or today’s PC history books. He goes further into their political motives, which were to gain a lasting hold on national power for the Radical Republican faction. (Bear in mind that they were remarkably different from today’s Republicans, or even moderates like Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson.) Here’s how it rolled at their meetings, typically held in remote areas:
Union League meetings were conducted as a mystical secret society with secret rituals. Meetings were especially devoted to stirring up enmity between blacks and whites. A catechism written by Radical Republicans in Congress was used in Union League meetings to create an unreasonable sense of entitlement, grievance, and resentment. They were taught that Northern Republican whites were their friends and allies and that white Southerners and Democrats were enemies to be hated and despised. They were frequently promised that they would receive land and livestock confiscated from the whites. In some cases they were even promised racial dominance that would entitle them to the wives and daughters of their white enemies. This led to a number of violent racial incidents. Such racial incidents were frequently used by carpetbagger governments to demonstrate to Washington and the Northern press and public the continued need for Southern Reconstruction. Other promises were in the form of threats of a death penalty by hanging to any black who betrayed the League by voting Democrat.
There might be a reason why a generation of young Southerners grew up thinking that “damn Yankee” was a single word. Scruggs describes further how the Union League became a paramilitary force of a quarter million. Then this:
In order to insure that all blacks voted Republican the Union League bullied and beat other blacks into submission. Even flogging with the lash was used. If that did not work, they exacted the death penalty, frequently by lynching.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why we have the secret ballot these days, where you cast your vote in a booth or little cubicle stand. Other than that, he tells of how the Union League went on a very extensive arson spree, and sometimes conducted murderous raids on civilians. Furthermore:
The Raleigh Sentinel reported on August 29 of the same year that ten Federal Army companies associated with the Union League had terrorized the Goldsboro area and committed violent depredations of all sorts. It reported the actions of the troops “so violent that it was unsafe for women to leave their homes.” This was all part of the Reconstruction mandate to remake the South.
This isn’t exactly how to win the public’s hearts and minds.
In Myrta Lockett Avary’s 1906 book, Dixie After the War, she relates a tragic atrocity. In Upstate South Carolina, a group of Union League Federal soldiers marching and singing halted to discharge a volley of bullets into a country church during services, instantly killing a fourteen-year-old girl. At a nearby residence a squad of the same troops entered a home and bound the elderly owner as they ransacked his house and argued over who would first ravage his daughter. The girl when approached drove a concealed knife through the heart of her assailant. She was then beaten to death by the rest. But under corrupt military and carpetbagger rule, Southern whites had little recourse to justice. No Federal justice occurred.
Today’s PC history books don’t mention anything like this – or, of course, Wikipedia – except for hotly denying that anything of the sort ever took place. (Yeah, I bet those two dead girls were lying, and the dead senior citizen too, right?) This installment of Mike Scrugss’ series on the Radical Reconstruction finishes with this:
But as Klan activity increased in response to Union League and other Reconstruction misdeeds, the Radical Republicans formed a committee to investigate the Klan. A minority report by Northern Democrats and Conservative Republicans representing more than a third of the committee, however, noted that the Union League had “instilled hatred of the white race” and had “made arson, rape, robbery, and murder a daily occurrence.” They also noted the role of corrupt government and Union League violence in driving whites to take law into their own hands.
Now you know the other side of the story, one that Wikipedia didn’t tell you.
How bad were the carpetbaggers?
Was the contrarian article I excerpted from merely the fulminations of a grouchy columnist? If you don’t believe him, perhaps you might consider Woodrow Wilson’s take on the carpetbagger regime. As a boy, he lived through the Civil War and Radical Reconstruction. Furthermore, he had access to many other sources who were around during that time. Later, he became a history professor.
Eventually, Woodrow Wilson became President. I do have quite a few bones to pick about our first globalist POTUS. The worst is that he got us suckered into someone else’s fight – the first of many to come – prolonging a senseless bloodbath. This led to a chain reaction of other horrors, thus beginning America’s century of perpetual war. Still, by all accounts, his earlier career as a history professor was quite distinguished. Here are some of the things he wrote in 1902, volume 5 of A History of the American People:
Negroes constituted the majority of their electorates; but political power gave them no advantage of their own. Adventurers swarmed out of the North to cozen, beguile, and use them. These men, mere “carpet baggers” for the most part, who brought nothing with them, and had nothing to bring, but a change of clothing and their wits, became the new masters of the blacks. They gained the confidence of the negroes, obtained for themselves the more lucrative offices, and lived upon the public treasury, public contracts, and their easy control of affairs. For the negroes there was nothing but occasional allotments of abandoned or forfeited land, the pay of petty offices, a per diem allowance as members of the conventions and the state legislatures which their new masters made business for, or the wages of servants in the various offices of administration. Their ignorance and credulity made them easy dupes. A petty favor, a slender stipend, a trifling perquisite, a bit of poor land, a piece of money satisfied or silenced them. It was enough, for the rest, to play upon their passions. They were easily taught to hate the men who had once held them in slavery, and to follow blindly the political party which had brought on the war of their emancipation.
This is a pretty clear reference to what I excerpted earlier, concerning the carpetbaggers taking advantage of the freedmen and using demagoguery for political advantage. Later, Wilson writes quite a bit about financial chicanery and mismanagement. For example:
The real figures of the ruin wrought no man could get at. It was not to be expressed in state taxes or state debts. The increase in the expenditure and indebtedness of counties and towns, of school districts and cities, represented an aggregate greater even than that of the ruinous sums which had drained the treasuries and mortgaged the resources of the governments of the States; and men saw with their own eyes what was going on at their own doors. What was afoot at the capitals of their States they only read of in the newspapers or heard retailed in the gossip of the street, but the affairs of their own villages and country-sides they saw corrupted, mismanaged, made base use of under their very eyes. There the negroes themselves were the office holders, men who could not so much as write their names and who knew none of the uses of authority except its insolence. It was there that the policy of the congressional leaders wrought its perfect work of fear, demoralization, disgust, and social revolution.
Wilson doesn’t mention the Union League by name. However, as described earlier, this was the paramilitary force (sometimes overlapping with the Yankee occupational army) that did the dirty work for the Radical Republicans in Congress. Since they maintained a transmission belt all the way to Washington, all that had official approval.
No one who thought justly or tolerantly could think that this veritable overthrow of civilization in the South had been foreseen or desired by the men who had followed Mr. [Thaddeus] Stevens and Mr. Wade and Mr. Morton in their policy of rule or ruin. That handful of leaders it was, however, hard to acquit of the charge of knowing and intending the ruinous consequences of what they had planned. They would take counsel of moderation neither from northern men nor from southern. They were proof against both fact and reason in their determination to “put the white South under the heel of the black South.”
Wilson doesn’t go into specifics on the depredations. Less than four decades after the fact, it was still an explosive topic. Still, it’s not too hard to read between the lines.
The price of the policy to which it gave the final touch of permanence was the temporary disintegration of southern society and the utter, apparently the irretrievable, alienation of the South from the political party whose mastery it had been Mr. Stevens’s chief aim to perpetuate. The white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes and conducted in the interest of adventurers [the carpetbaggers]: governments whose incredible debts were incurred that thieves might be enriched, whose increasing loans and taxes went to no public use but into the pockets of party managers and corrupt contractors.
Again, this is not how to win hearts and minds:
Why didn’t you hear about all this before? Today’s radicalinski historians like Eric Foner and Howard Zinn do a great job of running everything through their Narrative filter. Many of Wikipedia’s editors do the same thing, of course.
Men supporting feminism and its goals are nothing new. Actually, they’ve been instrumental to its success. If we had refused instead, then feminism never would’ve gotten off of the ground floor.
To name just one example, it was men who granted women’s suffrage. That’s right; if our forefathers hadn’t approved, then women wouldn’t have been granted the right to vote. In the USA, this was 99 years ago (and earlier in several states), but “The Patriarchy” graciously decided that it was time to let women join the club. Ladies, you’re welcome.
Unfortunately, when feminism went straight off the deep end beginning in the 1950s and gaining critical mass in the 1960s, they still could count on the support of large numbers of men willing to help implement their Agenda. In fact, they were instrumental: politicians, media figures, judges, etc.
So you want to be a male feminist…
Much more recently, there’s a lot of rhetoric instructing male feminist allies on what they must do and how they must behave. If you search online, you’ll find dozens of articles about the subject, from HuffPo to far more obscure venues. I’ll pick one of the better ones. The following is from Everyday Feminism called “30 Ways To Be a Better Ally in 2015“. I’ll extract the headings, redacting the commentary:
Look to Amplify Rather than Overshadow
Strive to Use More Inclusive Language
Be Careful with Pronoun Use
Engage More People Who Share Your Identity
Don’t Think You’re ‘Holier Than’ Those Who Share Your Identity
Cite Your Sources
Interrogate Why You’re Striving to Be an Ally
Work to Check Your Subconscious or Semi-Conscious Behaviors
Make ‘Being an Ally’ an Action
Recognize That Yes, You’re Going to Do it Wrong
Apologize without Caveats
Fill in Supportive Roles
Step Out of the Spotlight
Refer to Those with Whom You Want to Be in Solidarity
Consider Your Impacts Rather Than Your Intentions
Don’t Expect Kudos or Thanks
Diversify Your Media Consumption
Seek and Build Diverse Community
Consider Who’s Listening When You Speak Up
Remember That the Moment You Decide You’re Not Part of the Problem, You Are
Think Creatively About How to Bring in More People from Your Identity
Lean on Other Allies
Offer More Emotional Support
Expand the Scope of Your Allyship
Only the last item suggests that the ally has any personal needs, but the point is that you have to take care of yourself so that you can still support “anti-oppression work”. Even robots need to recharge their batteries sometimes, right?
Whew! I thought I was reading the Social Justice Warrior version of the Rule of Saint Benedict. I have, in fact, read the medieval playbook on how to be a Benedictine monk. Singing, brewing beer, and making cheese is a lot more appealing to me than being a male feminist. If I had to choose between two lifestyles involving self-flagellation and never getting laid, then definitely I would pick the one where I retain my dignity and don’t end up in hell.
More seriously, I’ll have to credit the male feminist author for one thing. Unlike several other articles on that subject, it wasn’t snotty. The other ones point out generally the same things, though often in a very haughty manner, as if to show the lapdogs who is boss. (Who the hell are they to badger their own supporters like that?) Here are the common themes.
If you’re a feminist ally, you have to shut up, or at least guard your words exceedingly carefully, practically walking on eggshells. Agree subserviently with anything they say. Contradicting The Narrative in any way, like trying to argue a more moderate perspective, is a big no-no. You must contribute your efforts unendingly and without recognition or any other reward for yourself. (There’s a term for this: pathological altruism.) You must question your motives, and remember that being male means you’re under a cloud of suspicion. Moreover, you constantly must acknowledge that you’re a recipient of unearned privilege. This “original sin” makes you a very bad person, and you must spend the rest of your life atoning for it.
Put on that hair shirt now, sinner, and check your privilege! (What kind of a screwy cult is this?) I’m hardly exaggerating. Here’s the commentary for item 25, “Remember That the Moment You Decide You’re Not Part of the Problem, You Are”:
Too often, “allies” decide that we have it all figured out, that we are not contributing to White supremacy or classism or another form of oppression.
The moment that we decide this, we are, in fact, the very essence of the problem, as our unexamined privilege has the potential to do great damage to individuals or movements.
This browbeating is rather mild compared to some of the other articles which drip with condescension toward their useful idiots. (I haven’t looked at all of them, but it wouldn’t surprise me much if some of them instructed their allies to cut off their balls.) No self-respecting man should even think about submitting to the constant mental abuse that these feminist allies are expected to endure. This is pathetic. It’s little wonder Social Justice Warriors are so screwed up!
[T]he following is a brief summary of the radical feminist Agenda:
Pursuing maximal social advantages, economic benefits, prestige, convenience, and other perks for women, whether great or trifling;
Retaining preferential treatment granted earlier (despite how much they’ve complained bitterly about traditional society);
Reducing the status of men (constant disparagement, siphoning off their resources, encouraging disrespect, and so forth);
Seeking accommodations to minimize consequences of any destructive choices women might make (which usually happens from rejecting traditionalist values);
Using one-sided rhetoric about female powerlessness and victimhood as well as male omnipotence and villainy, which is for purposes of justifying these unlimited demands for preferential treatment; and
After new concessions are granted, making more demands ad infinitum.
Later, I described how the radical feminist agenda, rather paradoxically, has had some very bad results for women themselves. Moreover, the truth is that modern women in Western societies already have it pretty good. In fact, they’re the most pampered and spoiled generation of women to walk the planet. Implementing equality between the sexes actually would mean a big step down from their pedestal.
Now ask yourself, is it rational for men to support any of this, or worse, dedicate their lives toward advancing that self-serving script? Later I conclude:
Pretending to be an equality movement, while pushing for maximal advantages at the expense of men, is a prime example of moral crypsis. Fortunately, the feminist empowerment script is remarkably easy to deconstruct. The following is a USA-specific list of privileges granted by the government, which I’ve limited to the major items. Note well, it doesn’t even get into what private organizations offer to women only. Neither does it include the giant grab-bag of countless informal benefits, perks, emoluments, freebies, and other goodies from society.
Legally sanctioned rights and entitlements for females:
Unfair divorce laws that usually rob the ex-husband in court and take away his children;
Opting out of parenthood unilaterally with abortion;
Taxpayer-funded programs benefiting single mothers (like AFDC and WIC);
Affirmative Action preferential hiring practices for women;
Government contract set-asides for women-owned businesses;
Educational initiatives for girls and women only;
Other female-only government programs;
Exemption from draft registration and conscription;
Lenient criminal sentencing (not de jure, but certainly de facto);
Etc., etc., etc.
Legally sanctioned rights and entitlements for males:
Men don’t benefit from all this; we just get to pay for the greater part of the goodies listed above. What was this patriarchy the feminists were talking about again? Note well, generally men don’t mind helping women, but it gets a little annoying if we’re coerced into doing so, or if it turns out to be a sucker deal. Also, would a little gratitude and appreciation really be too much to ask?
Don’t be a useful idiot
To wrap up here, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if you’re a male feminist, then you’re like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. Stop supporting these ingrates, letting them browbeat you, or helping to advance their rotten Agenda.
I check my traffic stats regularly, and from it I get some interesting information. I can see when I get a mini-viral spurt from Finland, or Ireland, or wherever. I check for trackbacks too. Yesterday, I got some traffic from Wikipedia, the “ultimate source of human knowledge” (snicker). After digging a little deeper, I unearthed such silliness that I couldn’t help take a moment to reflect on it and share.
What’s this about? A couple weeks ago, I criticized their Manosphere article, and I intend to write up a few other glaringly biased ones later on. The link back here came from their article’s talk page, under the heading “Possible offwiki source of disruption”. Ooh, burn!
Rather oddly, instead of linking to my article critical of their article, it pointed to the head URL. Thus, anyone who has been checking me out from there will find just the general feed. New viewers also will see what you’re reading now, then a brief jab at radical gender theory, my friend’s tirade about “sugar dating” (cyber-hookers who don’t want to admit they’re hookers), a cute little vignette about me trolling a timeshare telemarketer, and finally my criticism of their article. Later, of course, my feed also will contain anything else I write subsequent to this.
What did I disrupt?
I’m still scratching my head here. So what’s up with this “possible disruption”? Come on, Doug, take a chill pill. I wrote my criticism on September 22, which it shows on the date stamp. Since then, what changes have been made to the Wiki article? Here’s a screen cap of the edit history as of yesterday:
Note that nothing was changed in their article between September 22 and now, except for one thing…
(Captalised “web”, a proper noun.) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
I’m guessing Akshay here has lots of free time on his hands. As I mentioned before, these guys can get pretty persnickety sometimes.
Other than that, the timing shows that my write-up certainly could not have inspired the “Persistent disruptive editing” noted in the history page on September 9. (Is that what Doug was talking about?) That took place a couple weeks before I criticized their Manosphere article, which is pretty easy to see.
Again, take a chill pill. Rest assured, I didn’t participate in any of that, or incite others to do so, and neither does anyone need to fear that I will try to edit their wonderful hit piece later on. I also stated that I had no intention of trying to improve it, because it would get reverted just like what happened with the others before who tried to make it less biased. Simply put, some other dude did it.
Earlier I listed several reasons why Wikipedia’s “Manosphere” article is downright terrible. In fact, whoever wrote it should be embarrassed. It’s certainly not objective or encyclopedic, the standards their many rules and policies were intended to create. Apparently my write-up touched a raw nerve, but what’s the point of shooting the messenger? Tell you what – instead, prove me wrong!
I challenge any one of their editors to make that article balanced and objective. This will, of course, have to be one of the folks who has been playing gatekeeper over there, since other people’s changes are unwelcome and get reverted quickly. At this point, you might as well redo the thing from the ground up.
When you do so, observe all of Wikipedia’s anti-bias rules: “WP:NPOV” (neutral point of view) and all the others. If they’re followed correctly, that actually will produce the intended objectivity. Disregard your politically correct preconceptions about the Manosphere. Set aside the notion that your progressive ideology possesses absolute truth and that everyone else is dead wrong. Most especially, it’s not your mission to purge the proletariat’s false consciousness by running everything through the leftist narrative filter.
The most glaring flaw presently is the use of so-called “Reliable Sources” with a major axe to grind, without any significant counterbalancing positive opinion. That’s why it has no balance. There are plenty of references, but little of the information is even presented impartially, and the preponderance of these sources is diametrically opposed ideologically to the Manosphere. Some have expressed very public grudges with it, yet are quoted as authorities without further qualification or anything to add balance. Several Manosphere writers have made cogent and succinct statements explaining what they’re all about – why doesn’t Wikipedia’s article show anything like that? These things are why it looks like an op-ed written by a committee of radical feminists, rather than an encyclopedia article.
Is it possible to write about a politically charged topic without turning it into a hit piece? Of course it is. As I noted before, Wikipedia has dozens of articles about different schools of thought in feminism which sensitively describe what their stated beliefs are. For the most part, they almost seem like they were written by a public relations firm. In fact, they’re so sanitized that someone who doesn’t know anything else about the topic might come away with the impression that no reasonable person ever would disagree with feminism.
Will anyone take me up on this challenge to fix their Manosphere article? I rather doubt it. However, if anyone did so – and the improved version didn’t get reverted as I predicted it would – then I’d look pretty silly for doubting that the system works. Come on, prove me wrong, how about it?
For thousands of years, everyone assumed that humans consisted of males and females, just like any other advanced species. This – and the fact that the distinction is meaningful – is something that biologists call sexual dimorphism. Now that it’s the Current Year, those smart gender studies professors and sociology professors set us straight, and the media is telling us the truth about it every chance they get, so we’re way more enlightened than ever before. The Narrative tells us that humans are exempt from the rules of basic biology. Wow, how about that! Who knew?
More seriously, how many people actually declare themselves to be something other than male or female? It turns out that the “T” in GLBT is about 10% of the total GLBT numbers. This means that transsexuals are a fringe group of a fringe group; and 0.3% of the general population. Therefore, the following is the gay flag with the colors statistically corrected:
Why is society bending over backwards to please a tiny number of victims of a politically fashionable shared delusion? Good question!
Anyway, the following is reblogged in translation from Lollipops For Equality; all credit belongs to the original.
In the imagination of a gender studies victim, the assortment of genders looks like this:
If one doesn’t look at the world through the lens of politically correct ideology, it looks more like this:
I find the “ableist” discrimination of those affected by red-green colorblindness to be especially good at the representation.