Black Friday stocking stuffer “Santa Claws”

Xmas season is upon us, and we know what that’s all about – SHOPPING!!!  (Yes, I’m being ironic and tongue-in-cheek all throughout, but work with me here.)  Well, why not give your loved ones the gift of poetry, one commemorating this joyous season of commerce?

It’s a poem about Santa Claus, the deity honored by Xmas, though his name is spelled a little creatively here.  The author is the groundbreaking poet Ted Joans.

Who was Ted Joans?

To find out a little more about this celebrated figure of the arts, let’s turn to Wikipedia, the trustworthy and oh-so-NPOV ultimate repository of human knowledge.  Retrieved 11/29/2019, it begins:

Theodore “Ted” Joans (July 4, 1928 – April 25, 2003) was an American jazz poet, surrealist, trumpeter, and painter. His work stands at the intersection of several avant-garde streams and some have seen in it a precursor to the orality of the spoken-word movement.

Cool deal!  Maybe he’s like Keats or Wordsworth or Longfellow?  A little further down:

While he ceased playing the trumpet he maintained a jazz sensibility in the reading of his poems and frequently collaborated with musicians. He continued to travel and maintained an active correspondence with a host of creative individuals, among them Langston Hughes, Michel Leiris, Aimé Césaire, Robert Creeley, Jayne Cortez, Stokely Carmichael, Ishmael Reed and Paul Bowles, Franklin and Penelope Rosemont; many of these letters are collected at the Bancroft Library of the University of California Berkeley. The University of Delaware houses his correspondence with Charles Henri Ford. Joans was also a close correspondent/participant of the Chicago Surrealist Group.

Joans’ painting Bird Lives hangs in the De Young Museum in San Francisco. He was also the originator of the “Bird Lives” legend and graffiti in New York City after the death of Charlie Parker in March 1955. His visual art work spans collages, assemblage objects, paintings and drawings including many resulting from the collaborative surrealist game Cadavre Exquis.

Now that’s quite a luminary then, huh?  With all this cultural street cred, surely he was a master wordsmith.

The famous poem Santa Claws

I’m familiar with his works from an anthology I saw long ago.  One was called “Santa Claws”, a fairly representative sample of his poetry.  Wikipedia forgot to mention how much verve and dramatic force he has!  Why, they were all too modest!  For that matter, the leftist literary establishment that promoted Joans back in the day was all too modest as well.  This poem begins:




I’d love to quote the thing in its entirety.  However, it’s pretty short and I don’t want to go beyond “fair use” standards.  The good news is that you can go to his site and read it all yourself.  Best of all, it’s in a convenient JPEG that you can print out and distribute in your Xmas cards to your loved ones.  It does say “free postcard” at the page, after all.  Surely it’ll be a hit!

Black Friday stocking stuffer “Santa Claws”

Meet the founding mother of men’s studies

Have you ever wondered what sociology is about?  Long ago, it wasn’t all that and a bag of chips, to say the least.  In recent times, things go much, much more interesting.

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.[7] 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.

Yup, it’s a big social construct.  How did I ever guess?

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.

Meet the founding mother of men’s studies

Is Wikipedia biased? They whitewashed the Union League carpetbaggers of the Radical Reconstruction

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

Lincoln’s intended postwar policy was eloquently stated during his second inaugural address:

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.

Is Wikipedia biased? They whitewashed the Union League carpetbaggers of the Radical Reconstruction

Wiki Wars: The Narrative Strikes Back

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.

Seriously, guys…

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?

Wiki Wars: The Narrative Strikes Back

Is Wikipedia biased? “Exhibit A” is their Manosphere article

In the early days, Wikipedia wasn’t much to look at. Over time, this crowdsourced encyclopedia became a vast compilation of knowledge – some articles pretty good, others with mixed results.  Sadly, there are those who consider it to be some kind of ultimate repository of absolute truth.  It certainly isn’t.  There are some major problems with it, and I’d have to write a book to describe it all in detail.

For now, one of the major problems is leftist bias. It’s not supposed to be that way, because of the rules about “Neutral Point Of View”, “Reliable Sources”, “Undue Influence”, “Weasel Words, etc., arbitration policies for disputes, and all the rest of it.  So where bias exists, it should be pretty easy to fix it.  Still, when push comes to shove, it can turn into a “press of pike” battle.  Whichever side has the greatest numbers, and the most amount of idle time on their hands, is at a strategic advantage.  If you’re less of a fanatic about it, have fewer other people there who agree with you, or if you have a life and don’t have unlimited time to waste, you’re at a disadvantage.  Also, did you know that there are teams paid to edit it and spin things their way?

Wikipedia has its own hierarchy and internal bureaucracy. As any evil deplorable right wing extremist like me can tell you, an institution is only as good as the people staffing it.  Therefore, those in charge of keeping things fair and balanced sometimes have considerable biases of their own.  That’s why trying to push a dispute up the food chain with their adjudication procedures might not get you too far.  Maybe that’s the whole idea.  Did you know that Wikipedia gets funding from George Soros?  They have plenty of cash already, and whenever they beg for donations, it’s a sick joke.

Exhibit A here is their Manosphere article. This can be edited at any time, so note that I’m using the version in effect as of September 22, 2019.  If you like, on the history page, you can look at earlier versions.

Their editors were ignorant from the beginning

The very first sentence is:

The manosphere is a loose collection of predominantly web based misogynist movements associated with the alt-right.

Okay, so according to this allegation, presumably you have to be a misogynist even to want to read any of those websites. “Misogynist” means someone who hates women.  (I could describe the root words for that, and even write it in ancient Greek, but why be a sperg about it?  Now hold that thought for a moment.)  If all that’s overblown and the typical Manosphere reader doesn’t actually hate women, then surely he’s at least a Neanderthal who yells at the TV during football games, then snaps his fingers and shouts “Woman!  Beer!” whenever his can of PBR is empty.  Got all that?

If the readers are this bad, then surely the writers must be far worse, right? As a matter of fact, I was one of the writers for a website this article discusses.  The truth is that I have considerable affection for women.  As a straight guy, I can’t help but admire the charm and femininity that comes to them naturally, most especially under normal social conditions.  I even remember my exes fondly.

Already that Wikipedia article is off to an ignorant start!  I call bullshit on that insulting definition.  As for the “associated with the alt-right” claim, that too is rather dodgy.  There is an area of overlap, but much of the Manosphere isn’t politically affiliated.  Really, it’s much more diverse than how that article presents it.

Note well, my writings did frequently criticize radical feminists and their crazypants rhetoric. Likewise, I poked fun at spoiled brats and THOTs.  However, I did my best to make it clear that these were outliers and examples of how not to be charming and feminine, who are the way they are mainly because we’re not living in normal social conditions.  I challenge anyone to find anywhere in my 154 articles where I wrote objectively hateful things about all women as a class.  How many radical feminists out there honestly can say that they never wrote anything hateful about men as a class?

The second sentence is:

Movements within the manosphere include antifeminism, fathers’ rights, Incels (involuntary celibates), MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), volcels (voluntarily celibates), pick-up artists, the Men’s rights movement, bloggers and commentators, among others.

Let’s rewrite that second sentence, flipping the script and approximating as best as possible:

Movements within the online misandrist community include radical feminists, the divorce industry, bitter single women, lesbian separatists, cat ladies, bar girls, the women’s liberation movement, bloggers and commentators, among others.

Well, golly jeepers, that sounds pretty fair and balanced, now doesn’t it?

Can’t they find any decent citations?

Supporting that second sentence, there’s a big list of citations – remember, these are Reliable Sources – supporting the original assertion:

  • “The alt-right is creating its own dialect. Here’s the dictionary”. Quartz.
  • Zimmer, Ben (8 May 2018). “How ‘Incel’ Got Hijacked”. Politico.
  • “Balls to all that”. The Economist. 16 June 2016.
  • Dewey, Caitlin. “Incels, 4chan and the Beta Uprising: making sense of one of the Internet’s most-reviled subcultures”. Washington Post.
  • Southern Poverty Law Center (Spring 2012). “Misogyny: The Sites”.
  • Pry, Alyssa; Alexa Valiente (16 October 2013). “Women Battle Online Anti-Women Hate From the ‘Manosphere'”. ABC News.
  • “How the alt-right’s sexism lures men into white supremacy”. Vox.
  • Dewey, Caitlin (27 May 2014). “Inside the ‘manosphere’ that inspired Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger”. The Washington Post.
  • Nagle, Angela (2017). “Entering the manosphere”. Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right.

Now what happened to those enlightened Wikipedia policies to keep articles from being biased? I suppose someone might think of all those lefty MSM articles as “Reliable Sources”, but that’s a pretty big stretch.

However, under no circumstances could you call the Southern Poverty Law Center a “Reliable Source”.  That’s a highly partisan leftist foundation.  (Does the Wikipedia page about Communism quote the John Birch Society as an authority, without equivocation?)  The $PLC occupies itself with compiling shit lists and soliciting donations.  I’ll let Pamela Geller – who is a first rate lady and a fine American – tell the story about that one, and there’s lots more where it came from.   For that matter, have a look at the divorce papers of Morris Dees, the $PLC’s long-time head honcho, documented down to the gory details.  If any item in that bill of particulars is true, the Manosphere considers behavior like that to be reprehensible; who’s the one with bad attitudes about women here?

Am I cherry-picking with the selection above? Absolutely not.  I looked over the entire list of sources at the bottom of the page.  You don’t see the “pros” and “cons” balanced out.  I didn’t notice a single one of the “Reliable Sources” that was pro-Manosphere.  There probably isn’t even much neutral content listed about the subject.  Instead, there’s a bunch of MSM hit pieces, feminist and gender studies academic papers, and other leftist rubbish.

The confluence of all that certainly doesn’t make for any “Neutral Point Of View”; it’s just a bunch of bias.  Sure, there’s a place for hostile sources; those go into a “criticism” subsection, or maybe a standalone “criticism of X” article.  However, the entire Manosphere article is nothing but criticism from these hostile sources.  In the article’s “history” page, I did see some attempts to fix that problem, but the edits were reverted, quickly cast into the memory hole.


The “Terminology” section begins:

Manosphere is a neologism, a portmanteau of man and sphere. A related term is androsphere (from Ancient Greek: ἀνήρ, anḗr, genitive ἀνδρός, andros, “man”).

The “Reliable Source” for that is none other than an article by Jason Wilson in the lefty publication The Guardian, “The ‘man-o-sphere’ is outraged about Mad Max? Hand me my popcorn!” Thank you for sharing, Jason, otherwise we might never have been able to figure out the origins of the term “Manosphere”.

Anyway, those two sentences have convenient hyperlinks for neologism, portmanteau, ancient Greek, and the genitive case. Presumably that’s to help someone who doesn’t understand the terminology in this long-winded and unnecessary explanation.  Moreover, it features snippets of the original language that I already could figure out despite being almost an utter n00b at Greek.

Since I have better things to do, I haven’t looked up the “Reliable Source” – again, the Guardian article with the snotty title – to see if it actually does delve that far into the etymological archeolinguistics of it. However, I’m guessing that Mr. Wilson also has better things to do than conjugate Greek genitive declensions.  One of these activities apparently is to watch a lame feminist sequel of a has-been Hollywood film series featuring a bald has-been actress.  Let me give you a tip, Jason – the series already jumped the shark with Beyond Thunderdome, and I’m old enough of a coot to have seen it on the big screen.

All this brings us to another thing that sets my teeth on edge about Wikipedia, almost as much as its leftist bias. It seems that everyone on the planet with obsessive-compulsive disorder edits this thing.  These are the people who indeed don’t have better things to do than expound on Greek genitive declensions where it’s utterly irrelevant.  That’s perfectly topical in an article about Greek grammar, but why did someone take the time to nerd out about it here?  I suspect that those who do this have OCD, or they’re anal retentive.  Oh, wait a minute, should “anal retentive” have a hyphen?

They overdo shit like this all the time, trying to sound erudite.  I also remember some big Wikipedia argument over the movie Wall-E. It was about whether the dash in “Wall-E” actually should be an interpunct (which is a highfalutin way of saying a dot).  Things like this are why browsing Wikipedia feels like I’ve entered the sperg zone.  Also, it’s why sometimes I read an article to try to learn about a subject, and I come away not one bit the wiser, or even knowing what the hell they were talking about.

Anyone who suffers from OCD this badly should get that problem fixed.  I’ve heard that CBT helps.  Be sure to search Wiki for “cognitive behavior therapy”, because “CBT” takes you to a disambiguation page also including the Chicago Board of Trade, computer based training, cock and ball torture (I’m not making this up – they have an NSFW article about all that), and a couple dozen other things.

Donna Zuckerberg’s big spanking session


The “Content” section ends with the following:

The author Donna Zuckerberg writes that the growth of the movement and the more political tone adopted by some of its leaders as of 2016 has led to more adversarial internal relationships, such as between pick-up artists and men’s-rights advocates.

Ooh, another “Reliable Source”, awesome! She’s cited in a few other places too.  Who is she, anyway?  Well, she’s the sister of Mark Suckerberg, creator of Fakebook.  Apparently she lives in Silicon Valley (hopefully she watches her step carefully on the sidewalk).  Her own Wiki page begins:

Donna Zuckerberg is an American classicist, editor-in-chief of the journal Eidolon and author of the book Not All Dead White Men (2018) on the appropriation of classics by misogynist groups on the Internet.

Ah, okay, so she’s a feminist! What a big surprise, right?  All this is enough street cred to qualify her as a Wikipedia-approved authority about men’s concerns online, is it?  Criticism of feminism is one of the greatest common factors of the Manosphere.  However, a feminist who very openly opposes the Manosphere gets cited repeatedly, and without any counterbalancing opinion.  This is in an online encyclopedia that makes much hoopla about touting its own objectivity.  Sweet!  It’s time to take her out to the woodshed, so to speak.

The above indicates that her major work was a book about why she believes it’s wrong for the Manosphere to draw inspiration from our ancient cultural heritage. Apparently, in her opinion, we’re not supposed to form our own conclusions about classic literature – what our forefathers, and the ancestors of our kindred peoples, wrote to guide us and convey their wisdom.  I have one thing to say to that…

Anyway, she edits the paper Eidolon. (And what is the genitive case for “eidolon” anyway?)  Their mission statement begins:

Eidolon makes the classics political and personal, feminist and fun.

“The personal is political” is a well-known feminist catchphrase, made up by none other than one of the Redstockings. Sweet!  Even so, the above mission statement makes sure the reader gets the message.  So she doesn’t like the Manosphere commenting on ancient literature, but she sure as heck gets to put her own feminist spin on it.  Back in college, plenty of times I saw what the classics of our forefathers looked like after getting run through the critical theory meat grinder, and the results aren’t pretty.

Anyway, about the name Eidolon, that sort of reminds me of Barbara Spectre and her “Paidea” foundation. What an odd coincidence, two rootless cosmopolitan types involved in tricky outfits with august-sounding ancient Greek names.  What’s the deal with this trend?  They need to stop doing that.  If only they learned from the positive examples of Pamela Geller and Laura Loomer, then they wouldn’t create all this opposition for themselves which they curiously blame on everyone else.  It would be great if we could all just get along despite sectarian differences, but that’s a two-way street.

Quintus Curtius delivered a verbal spanking with his response, “When Education Does Not Mean Knowledge: The Case Of Donna Zuckerberg“. The article – long but certainly worth a read in its entirety – begins:

There are times when a sleeping lion must rouse himself from repose to swat a yapping dog. Such ankle-biters need to learn that it is one thing to throw around malicious accusations, and quite another thing to be faced with a response.  In matters such as these, I am not concerned with power or influence–unlike you, Ms. Zuckerberg–but only with my good name, and the meaning and purpose of my work.

Ooh, burn!

Roosh – one of the figures defamed ignorantly in the Wikipedia article – gave Donna another well-deserved verbal paddling with “The Public Humiliation Of Mark Zuckerberg’s Sister“.

We’ve gotten a lot of hate over the past year from politicians, C list celebrities, and female typists, but not from the direct relative of one of the most influential billionaires in the world. That seal has been broken by Mark Zuckerberg’s sister, who turns out is obsessed with the manosphere.

That one is long too, but it’s a laugh a minute, definitely worth a read.


Why would someone consider bias like this to be objectionable in the “ultimate repository of absolute truth”?  Now imagine, for a moment, what the Wikipedia page on Islam would look like if it was only written by atheists, fundamentalist Christians, Hindus, and other hostile editors. Nowhere in it is a single quotation from the Quran or the Hadith.  Any time a Muslim tried to add something, the change would get reverted by an anti-Muslim editor.  Would that result in a “Neutral Point Of View”?  This is exactly the treatment the Manosphere article got.

The rest of the page is full of straw man arguments and inaccuracy too, but you should get the picture by now that the thing is a load of crap. The last part includes opinions that try to suggest that the Manosphere made people go off the rails and commit acts of violence.  It’s little different from the silly “video games make people go postal” argument.  Way classy, guys!  Actually, one of the few examples they were able to trot out in support of the argument was – wait for ita male feminist.

All told, the article was so one-sided that it fails to be informative. The only major takeaway is that the Manosphere is a bunch of scary boogeymen.  Instead of being encyclopedic, it’s a partisan hit piece.  By contrast, Wikipedia has articles for just about every flavor of feminism that exists.  They’re written up in detail, sensitively, sympathetically, and full of their own talking points.  The originators of these feminist factions wouldn’t consider any of it to misrepresent their views, or otherwise be objectionable.  Overall, one gets the impression that hardly anyone would raise a serious dispute about feminism.

Why not just change it?

I can hear it already. If I don’t like the article, why don’t I quit being a loudmouth and make changes to improve it?  I’d be happy to do so, except that it would be an exercise in pissing in the wind.  Now look again at the history page.  Here’s one of the recent “edit wars”:

  • 23:11, 10 August 2019? Nick-D (talk | contribs)? m . . (23,124 bytes) (0)? . . (Protected “Manosphere”: Persistent disruptive editing ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC))))
  • 23:06, 10 August 2019? AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)? . . (23,124 bytes) (+1,168)? . . (Rescuing orphaned refs (“Dewey 2014” from rev 910230878; “Wiseman” from rev 910230878; “Dewey 2016” from rev 910230878; “Nagle” from rev 910230878)) (Tag: PHP7)
  • 22:45, 10 August 2019? EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)? . . (21,956 bytes) (+24)? . . (Reverted to revision 910124281 by Davey1980 (talk): Restore content; mass editing again… (TW)) (Tag: Undo)
  • 22:43, 10 August 2019? 2605:8d80:403:1b1:4885:749f:6a66:5ae7 (talk)? . . (21,932 bytes) (-4,416)? . . (Edited the misandrist content out.) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, PHP7)
  • 16:06, 10 August 2019? (talk)? . . (26,348 bytes) (-31)? . . (Considering whole group misogynistic based on few extremists is unfair. These people exist in every group that does not control who’s joining, but it doesn’t mean everyone out there is like that. This is why I removed it. Placing it here is an assumption that group is sexist at the fundamental level and everyone in it is also sexist.) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
  • 14:38, 10 August 2019? 2600:387:3:801::26 (talk)? . . (26,379 bytes) (-60)? . . (??Content: I edited out horrible misinformation) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
  • 13:10, 10 August 2019? (talk)? . . (26,439 bytes) (-37)? . . (Corrected biased misinformation) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, PHP7)
  • 12:02, 10 August 2019? Lappspira (talk | contribs)? . . (26,476 bytes) (+4,520)? . . (Undid revision 910191677 by (talk)) (Tags: Undo, PHP7)
  • 09:34, 10 August 2019? (talk)? . . (21,956 bytes) (-4,520)? . . (Undid revision 910124430 by Jack90s15 (talk) Removed spam) (Tags: Undo, PHP7)
  • 20:40, 9 August 2019? Jack90s15 (talk | contribs)? . . (26,476 bytes) (+4,520)? . . (Undid revision 910124281 by Davey1980 (talk)) (Tags: Undo, PHP7)
  • 20:39, 9 August 2019? Davey1980 (talk | contribs)? . . (21,956 bytes) (-4,520)? . . (Fixed typos and added correct content) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, PHP7)
  • 22:59, 7 August 2019? Grayfell (talk | contribs)? . . (26,476 bytes) (+17)? . . (Undid revision 909839488 by (talk) How is this a grammar issue?) (Tags: Undo, PHP7)
  • 22:57, 7 August 2019? (talk)? . . (26,459 bytes) (-17)? . . (??Content: Fixed grammar) (Tags: Mobile edit, canned edit summary, Mobile app edit, Android app edit)

That might look like just a bunch of computer logs, of course. It all means that some people tried to improve the article and help make it balanced, some others undid their efforts, and finally someone locked it.  This sort of thing is hardly unusual at Wikipedia.

Note well, there’s a way someone can get a notification whenever a page is updated. If one or more individuals want to play Internet hall monitor, they quickly can detect any change to an article and revert it if it doesn’t fit the preferred political narrative.  That’s how these leftist “mother hens” with too much time on their hands enforce ideological conformity.  Sure, someone could push it up the food chain, but whoever does so is then at the mercy of institutional politics.  Did I mention that George Soros helps to pay for this thing?

Is Wikipedia biased? “Exhibit A” is their Manosphere article