No announcement yet.

Insidious media coverage of Men

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Insidious media coverage of Men

    So... I am doing my run to the media to see what is goign on... First link I open is the usual hit piece that have a title related with masculinity, and the content related with some violent killing... I have seeing many of them before, and I don't feel like breaking down such lazy attempts to vilify masculinity...

    Then I go for the second link...

    Then the 3rth link...

    Then the next one...

    They have not give me anything else to work with... The full media coverage have become the same format... some title with a word related to MRAs, MGTOWs, incels, manosphere... it does not matter... the content of the articles is some violent crime and how it is related to masculinity.

    When was the last time someone saw some positive depiction of masculinity on any form of mainstream media???

    So no having anything else to work with... I guess I have not option but to present a compilation of what the media is talking about, how they presenting us, I will present the Title, a quote fro mthe content and the link, all formatted in that order, for consistency:

    A Glossary of Terms for Understanding Incels and the Rest of the “Manosphere”
    "In April, Alek Minassian drove a van into a crowded pedestrian street in Toronto, killing ten people."

    A manosphere of fear and hate
    "In 2009, George Sodini walked into a women’s aerobic class in suburban Pittsburgh and started shooting."

    What the Red Pill Means for Radicals
    "Alek Minassian’s vehicular attack in Toronto in April has brought the term “incel” into the public spotlight."

    Hunting the Manosphere
    "In the final days of May, after police in Portland, Ore., reported that Jeremy Joseph Christian stabbed three men on a train, killing two of them, an unusual theory as to why the attack occurred emerged in certain parts of the internet."

    COMMENTARY: Let’s find ‘the lost boys’ before we lose them to the ‘manosphere’
    "It’s been one week since a 25-year-old man, described by so many acquaintances as anti-social and non-verbal, allegedly got behind the wheel of a rented van and began an assault on the heart of Toronto in the heart of its northern stretch of Yonge Street."

    After PayPal Ban, Men’s Rights Activist Roosh V Shuts Down His Site
    "Roosh Valizadeh—a “men’s right activist” who has argued that rape should be legal on private property, organized fat-shaming campaigns, and defended white nationalist Richard Spencer—announced yesterday that his website Return of Kings will be going on hiatus."

    And so on.. and go on...

  • #2
    I posted this yesterday:

    It is ostensibly about the way the media presents subsets of facts in order to lead the opinion / conclusion of the reader.

    The other thing I've noticed since Trump took office is that many headlines already have an editorial conclusion embedded in the headline. I'm not trying to argue for or against Trump here, so let's not start that argument, but for example:
    Trump under fire for racist rant
    The Headline presents the conclusion that the rant was racist as a factual matter when in some given situation reasonable people could have an honest difference of opinion on whether a given remark was racist or not.

    People should be able to read the comments at issue and draw their on conclusions without having a conclusion presented to them as fact.

    I've been thinking about posting about the latest Tucker Carlson drama, but haven't done it yet. ( I know you probably hate him, but it's still illustrative) All he said was:

    Study after study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don’t want to marry them. Maybe they should want to marry them but they don’t,” Carlson said. “Over big populations, this causes a drop in marriage, a spike in out of wedlock births and all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow, more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarcerations rates, fewer families formed in the next generation.”
    Which prompted articles like:

    Which leads with the presumption that it was a sexist rant. i don't think the above is sexist. On top of that, the more conservative commentators on The View took to defending him with statements like "This goes so against the Tucker Carlson I know" which is further presuming that the above statement is anything other than a summary of research findings. Talk about the research , talk about the findings. Demand references to the research. Scrutinize the methodology. But don't just scream sexist because you don't like the results.

    I'd love to see what they'd say if you pointed out that one of the highest divorce risk times in a man's life is after he loses his job.

    Men who aren’t employed have a much higher risk of failed marriages than those who have jobs, according to the study published Thursday in the American Sociological Review. In fact, among men who lost their jobs, there was a 32 percent higher risk of divorce compared to those who were employed full-time, said the study’s author, Alexandra Killewald, a professor of sociology at Harvard University.
    Damn sexists at the totally alt-right Today Show!!
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys


    • #3
      Forgot to add that the APA (American Psychological Association) took another step toward classifying "masculinity" as a disorder:
      "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
      "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys


      • #4
        I agree with you, this new school of journalism have lost all sights of impartiality.

        I do see value on opinion pieces, specially of the one giving the opinion have something interesting and well founded to say about the topic... so I am not saying they should go, I just like the old ways where they presented more of the facts, and then let people make their own conclusions, and ocatinally have some editorial corner or the s, for the opinions stuff.

        Tucker Carlson is that guy that pretend to interview people and just pretend to be outraged the whole interview? I'm sorry, the name vaguely ring any bell here... that is why I am asking... anyway, I think you have a good idea of my taste, so if you say I will hate him, then big chances are that you are right.

        I read about the APA yesterday and found the PDF that is some 34 pages long, I was planing to do some breakdown to it... I mean.... it goes so far as claiming that male privilege is real and when men seek mental help ,the psychologist should educate the man in women issues and stuff like that, so he can be a better allies...

        Then they be around wondering why men don't seek mental help...