oh noes!

via steve sailer i learn that wikipedia is sexist, TOO!! first science blogging and now this! oh the humanity.

clearly — CLEARLY — somehow, some way wikipedia is discouraging women from contributing. clearly. ’cause it says so right here in the nyt article:

“But because of its early contributors Wikipedia shares many characteristics with the hard-driving hacker crowd, says Joseph Reagle, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. This includes an ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a culture that may discourage women.”


yes. a place online where you can contribute knowledge for free WITHOUT ANYONE HAVING TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE (I.E. WHETHER YOU ARE MALE OR FEMALE) must somehow be discouraging to one of the genders.

jesus h. christ.

can’t we all just admit that most women have DIFFERENT INTERESTS from most men?? is that really so hard?? is the modern world gonna fall apart if we do that??

look. i’ve contributed to wikipedia — only very slightly i have to admit. (mostly i tend to remove graffiti on the site. can we, please, grow up people?) and, obviously, i read a lot of guy-topics online (hbd-related stuff, for instance). but, i also do some chick stuff online. and let me tell you, there are PLENTY of women online doing things that are interesting to THEM.

ravelry.com (registered users only), for example, is a knitting site (i told you i’m a chick). and there are 1 million+ users. ONE MILLION! and while there are a handful of men over there, trust me — it’s mostly chicks. and there are PLENTY of contributions from them. Posting knitting patterns that they’ve designed; posting photos of their knitting projects; discussing knitting topics; etc., etc. these women are very, VERY busy posting about THE STUFF THEY’RE INTERESTED IN online.

and presumably some of them have even contributed to the knitting pages on wikipedia. but let’s all face it — MOST women are not interested in posting to wikipedia ’cause MOST women are not interested in discussing ad nauseum the minute details of ANY topic. even make-up or dating or babies. that’s just NOT how most women are.

get over it, pc-peoples.

steve sailer said:

“Considering that almost nobody gets paid for Wikipedia, the most obvious thing that can be said about its existence from a gender point of view is that the human race owes a debt of gratitude to the male sex.”

d*mn straight!

(note: comments do not require an email.)



  1. Man, until we get more women to volunteer (through force, if necessary!) for Wikipedia service, we will all live in the dark ages. For example, just now I saw a man on horseback leading a troop of young women out into a frozen turnip field, forcing them to dig in the hard earth with bleeding, dirty (yet still beautiful and life-giving) hands. The whole time he was making off-color remarks about blondes, and swinging around an assault pistol with a barrel shroud and everything.

    Then one of them women used algebra (which she had invented, with the help of a black guy from ancient Egypt) to effect a clever escape. She ran to an internet cafe, corrected some of the grammar in Wikipedia’s article on Nikola Tesla (the greatest Hispanic woman in the history of physics!), and had a glass of squeezed guava juice.

    The mean guy on horseback repented, and set all of the women free. He is now an avid kitten-raiser who has invented three different types of vegan cat food.

    Thank goo’ness!


  2. A friend of mine had a similar reaction to that Times article. I think you’re totally right—shouldn’t feminists be celebrating the fact that women in our society are so free to do whatever is of interest to them, rather than trying to make everyone feel bad when women don’t act exactly like men?


  3. @chillingworth – thnx for the link! (^_^)

    i think one problem with a lot of feminists — hard-core feminists — is that they don’t understand that they are not typical women.

    I’M not a typical woman. i have a lot of interests that are more guy-like (see this blog). i’m a strong systemizer, which is a typical guy trait. and i intensely dislike a lot of typical girl things — like gossip, for instance. (there’s a lot of girl things i do like, tho — like knitting & crocheting, for instance.)

    the thing is — i REALIZE that i’m an a-typical woman.

    i think a lot of hard-core feminists are a-typical women, but they don’t realize it, and they’re trying to drag all the rest of the women out there down the path(s) they, themselves, have gone.

    this is a failing of most humans, tho. most liberals, for example, just can’t understand how someone could be a conservative, and vice versa. a lot of religious people try to convert unbelievers; and athesists like richard dawkins try to convince believers that they are crazy for believing.

    everyone’s always trying to make other people just like themselves. at least, that’s how i’ve experienced a heckuva lot of people during my lifetime.



  4. I call that the Ahenobarbic Fallacy, after the emporer Nero. Somewhere in Suetonius, Nero was reported as having acquitted criminals if they admitted they’d done a crime for a depraved reason. He thought that everyone was like himself, and that if anybody did something for a virtuous reason, that he was lying if he said that was why he did it.

    So, yeah, people tend to think that other people think like they do, until they run up against reality. Suspecting as I do that I have a touch of the “A”, I have run right hard up against that reality more than once. Most people don’t seem to think the way I do, bozos and allistic doofuses that they are.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s