6,468
edits
Incels.wiki in news and academia: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Tao Beloney
No edit summary |
m (→Tao Beloney) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Tao Beloney=== | ===Tao Beloney=== | ||
In 2023, the author Tao Beloney wrote an essay-format article about the Wiki for the e-magazine ''Pharos'', administered by Vassar College, an American liberal arts college. ''Pharos'' describes itself as being dedicated to countering "appropriations of Greco-Roman antiquity by hate groups".<ref>https://pharos.vassarspaces.net/2023/02/27/timeless-misogyny-incel-wiki-tertullian-ovid/</ref> The ''Pharos'' article focuses on the [[Timeless quotes on women|"Timeless quotes on women"]] Wiki page. The | In 2023, the author Tao Beloney wrote an essay-format article about the Wiki for the e-magazine ''Pharos'', administered by Vassar College, an American liberal arts college. ''Pharos'' describes itself as being dedicated to countering "appropriations of Greco-Roman antiquity by hate groups".<ref>https://pharos.vassarspaces.net/2023/02/27/timeless-misogyny-incel-wiki-tertullian-ovid/</ref> The ''Pharos'' article focuses on the [[Timeless quotes on women|"Timeless quotes on women"]] Wiki page. The thesis of the article is that the "Timeless Quotes" page attempts to "project inceldom back into history" via "inventing an entire academic discipline of 'incelology' to support [the Wiki's] cause" (presumably in reference to the "incelology" Wiki category). In the essay, Beloney asserts that the Wiki selectively misquotes Classical texts in pursuit of this purported misogynist agenda, but concedes that many writers and thinkers of the Classical world had what most modern WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) people would perhaps consider a dim view of women, presumably making such authors problematic and therefore in need of being critically curated by institutionally approved academics like the author. | ||
The author further criticizes the page for focusing on Classical figures who are "overwhelmingly white, European, and male", which is humorous in light of the fact that the entire discipline of Classics focuses predominately on the cultural contributions of such individuals (in the modern view), creating a natural tension that seems to underlie much of the editorial agenda of the Magazine. The article further labels the inclusion of the quotations of thinkers who do not fit into these identity categories as a "token effort to claim that incel ideology is cross-cultural, transhistorical, not specifically masculine, and therefore true". The article repeatedly attempts to pigeonhole incels in a particular ideological category, ascribing an unitary standpoint and sociopolitical agenda to the Wiki that the Beloney appears to believe is shared by all incels. | The author further criticizes the page for focusing on Classical figures who are "overwhelmingly white, European, and male", which is humorous in light of the fact that the entire discipline of Classics focuses predominately on the cultural contributions of such individuals (in the modern view), creating a natural tension that seems to underlie much of the editorial agenda of the Magazine. The article further labels the inclusion of the quotations of thinkers who do not fit into these identity categories as a "token effort to claim that incel ideology is cross-cultural, transhistorical, not specifically masculine, and therefore true". The article repeatedly attempts to pigeonhole incels in a particular ideological category, ascribing an unitary standpoint and sociopolitical agenda to the Wiki that the Beloney appears to believe is shared by all incels. The emphasis on this thread of argumentation reveals the author is seemingly ignorant of the fact that the webpage in question was created by fewer than a handful of users who ascribe to very heterogenous political and social views, and further, that self-identified incels tend not to agree much on such issues even on the more explicitly politicized incel platforms. | ||
The article concludes by arguing that incels' (purported) views are increasingly accepted by society, and that "misogyny is ascendent in American politics and life". The article then rather tenuously tries to link what the author perceives as incel culture to such disparate cultural phenomena as 'violence against Asian women' and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion law via tying incels to mainstream American Right-Wing intellectuals like Tom Wolfe and Ross Douthat. | The article concludes by arguing that incels' (purported) views are increasingly accepted by society, and that "misogyny is ascendent in American politics and life". The article then rather tenuously tries to link what the author perceives as incel culture to such disparate cultural phenomena as 'violence against Asian women' and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion law, via tying online incels to mainstream American Right-Wing intellectuals like Tom Wolfe and Ross Douthat. | ||
In general, while the article is commendable in the sense that the author seemed to have actually researched the Wiki beyond skimming a few pages (as many professional academics appear to do), the article is not much different from the bulk of the scholarship on the Wiki, as it accepts as given that inceldom is only a modern online subculture and not an [[Donnelly study|empirically investigable cross-cultural and cross-temporal life circumstance]]. The article also likely exaggerates the direct influence online incel culture has had on right-wing thought, with any overlap that does exist likely being mediated by third party platforms (such as [[4chan]]) that host both viewpoints, and perhaps draw from a similar demographic (younger men), promoting the cross-germination of ideas. At minimum, it is very unlikely that the American right-wing [[boomers]] mentioned by Beloney were directly influenced by online incels in the promotion of their natural [[tradcon]] agenda. Overall, this conclusion makes Beloney's conclusion (that incels are shaping public policy and cultural norms by influencing conservative thinkers) appear more like a facile attempt to gain ammunition in the American left-right 'cultural war' by linking a maligned group (online) incels to the American conservative movement more broadly than a seriously scholarly analysis of the Wikipage, whether of the author's explicit intent in writing the article. | In general, while the article is commendable in the sense that the author seemed to have actually researched the Wiki beyond skimming a few pages (as many professional academics appear to do), the article is not much different from the bulk of the scholarship on the Wiki, as it accepts as given that inceldom is only a modern online subculture and not an [[Donnelly study|empirically investigable cross-cultural and cross-temporal life circumstance]]. The article also likely exaggerates the direct influence online incel culture has had on right-wing thought, with any overlap that does exist likely being mediated by third party platforms (such as [[4chan]]) that host both viewpoints, and perhaps draw from a similar demographic (younger men), promoting the cross-germination of ideas. At minimum, it is very unlikely that the American right-wing [[boomers]] mentioned by Beloney were directly influenced by online incels in the promotion of their natural [[tradcon]] agenda. Overall, this conclusion makes Beloney's conclusion (that incels are shaping public policy and cultural norms by influencing conservative thinkers) appear more like a facile attempt to gain ammunition in the American left-right 'cultural war' by linking a maligned group (online) incels to the American conservative movement more broadly than a seriously scholarly analysis of the Wikipage, whether of the author's explicit intent in writing the article. | ||
Beloney would likely be enthused by the news that (his/her/their?) article contained several quotes worthy of inclusion in the aforementioned Wiki page which were previously unknown to the authors of said page, as, despite its flaws, Belenoy's article was not bereft of insights into Classical thinkers. | |||
== Media == | == Media == | ||