There is nothing at all remarkable about the articles discussed in this post. The pro-female sexist bias that they exhibit reflects a broader pattern that is discussed in this other blog post. Here I thought that I would dissect a small sample to show how the mainstream media gets things so wrong when it comes to addressing gender issues.
Whilst in this post I have chosen to use news.com.au and their affiliates as my focus of attention, there are plenty of other media outlets that are as bad or worse with regards to their degree of pro-feminist bias, for instance The Guardian or Daily Life.
It’s no accident that most of these articles didn’t allow readers comments to be posted, the editors no doubt well aware that they would have been called out in relation to their obvious bias. Postscript 5 May 2015: It appears that news.com.au has realised that people are circumventing this strategy by posting critical comments on the news.com.au facebook page, and so some articles are not being posted in their timeline either (example).
First up is a little gem entitled “The top nine unexpectedly common Tinder profile photos“. It starts off well with ”I’ve been far too amazed and astounded at the photographs that people seem okay with having as their profile shots“. But no, it’s not about “people”, it’s about men. Stupid men who post pictures that are ridiculous or inappropriate in the eyes of one female journalist. Haw. Haw. Haw. Aren’t they silly?! The journo could have just as easily pulled out five “funny” profiles from men and five from women, but I guess poking ‘fun’ at men is more newsworthy or socially acceptable or something. Or perhaps the journalist is a sexist bigot.
An academic stoush has exposed the dark recesses of the gender wars. On one side are radical feminists who see men as “carnivorous and necrophiliac” and on the other side are men’s rights extremists who see women as “lying bitches” who routinely make false rape accusations.
The Townsville Bulletin revealed last week that Dr Greg Canning quit his James Cook University post in protest because they refused to discipline his feminist colleague Dr Betty McLellan for writing an article which he thought stereotyped all men as sexual abusers.
Dr McLellan wrote on radical feminist website RadFem Hub that in light of male violence and rape we should be asking ourselves what it is about men that leads to these behaviours. Dr Canning said the article painted all men as evil, but the university declined to take any action.
(Mod: And given that women also engage in violence and rape … “what it is about women?“)
Now it turns out Dr Canning is the Australian news director of a US hate site that claims men have almost no legal rights and should shift to a “war mentality” because women now have “supreme power”.
(Me: Please substantiate the claim that ‘A Voice for Men’ is a “hate site” and provide a link/citation for the quoted remarks. Let me help by suggesting this article – read paragraph 5 and see what they actually say.)
Dr Canning works for A Voice for Men. AVFM’s claims include that there is an “epidemic” of false rape accusations, that rape and domestic violence awareness campaigns are examples of “male sex witch hunting”, and that women, literally, get away with murder.
The site’s motto is “FTSU” which stands for ‘F***king their s**t up’ in reference to feminists, and it is closely connected to a site called “Register Her” to name and shame women who are “lying bitches” or bigots. For example, actor Katherine Heigl features on there under the heading “bigot” because she once made a joke about castration.
(Me: How about a link to a page in the Voice for Men site to substantiate the claim about its motto? In return I’ll happily provide links to feminists using hateful terminology and taunts about men.)
Dr Canning told News.com.au he disagreed with the tone of some sections of the website and that he did not agree with all the arguments on there, but that he believed it was a rare place where men could speak up.
He does, however, talk about false rape allegations on the site, a topic that is a core issue to AVFM. Men’s rights extremists claim women often invent rape, either because they regret sex or because they want to frame men.
When questioned about another claim that there was a “corrupt” domestic violence “industry”, Dr Canning said he believed that the domestic violence sphere was controlled by feminists who ignore violence against men. He then went on to attack Dr McLellan afresh, pointing out that the website she wrote on describes men as having “carnivorous and necrophiliac” behaviours.
RadFem Hub also warns about the dangers of “penis in vagina” sex and argues that men “as a class” are trying to destroy women.
Gender and violence expert Dr Michael Flood, a senior sociology lecturer at the University of Wollongong who has had disagreements with Dr Canning and men’s rights activists in the past, said vitriol and extremism were rife online. He said the false rape allegation claims were a standard way men’s rights activists tried to discredit rape victims.
“It ends up disempowering victims and protecting perpetrators,” he said, adding that false rape allegations were rare and likely made as often by men as by women.
(Me: What a ridiculous assertion … based on what statistical source pray tell?)
Dr Flood also said the internet could be a dangerous place for women, particularly feminist women.
“The internet has provided a forum for more extreme and vitriolic beliefs and it has provided a forum where angry anti-feminist men can voice the most hostile and toxic kinds of attacks, particularly against feminist women,” he said.
(Me: Oh yup, hey let’s just overlook the fact about women going online to shares extreme and vitriolic views about men … or is that somehow justified or OK?)
Sad story, but the journalist just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to slip in a bit of anti-male bias in one of the final paragraphs:
“One woman dies every week from domestic violence in Australia, and in America where Ms Montgomery is from, spousal homicide is the number one killer of young African American women.”
Wouldn’t it be appropriate to also acknowledge that there are male victims of domestic violence? The USA spousal homicide figure is bogus … I cite one or more references about this particular feminist myth statistic in my blog post about domestic violence. Further details concerning the misuse of domestic violence statistics can be found here.
Complete distortion and misrepresentation by this journalist … read the reddit thread and then re-read the article. I couldn’t find any mention of women whining – just discussion of the court case and some issues related to it. Where was all the support for people wanting to take up-skirt photos? Which mens rights groups “weren’t happy“? The comment “there you have it ladies” in the context of the rest of the article, tends to suggest that the courts decision followed lobbying from the mens rights movement, or at the very least the mens right movement supported the courts decision. A nonsense all round.
” … Gender reporting is not without its critics too. Some complain that companies already disclose gender information on their websites. Some do, but it’s usually those with the least to hide.
Critics also claim companies face their own incentives to stamp out discrimination, because doing so will help them make the most out of their most talented workers.
And yet, gender discrimination continues. And so regulation is needed to push companies in a better direction.
Gender reporting isn’t red tape — it’s more like the gardening tape you use to train small shrubs to grow up straight …”
Ahh, a breathless and silky smooth transition from tallying the respective numbers of male & female employees, to the incidence of actual gender “discrimination”. I mean what other explanation could there be for < 50% female representation? And of course anything less than 50% is a big problem – one that companies must be made to fix. (Correction: Anything less than 50% WOMEN is a big problem)
And of course men never get hit on in the work environment do they? I mean stuff like this just can’t be true:
I began working in the 60s also. I saw (and experienced) the male vs. female sexism in the workplace, and also female vs. male. My son knows many men who have been propositioned in the workplace, also being told their jobs might depend on it. I think a lot of men who are put in that position, and don’t find it morally acceptable to acquiesce, don’t report it because nobody believes it happens. (Adrienne)
I worked in a female predominant workforce. I have been groped, grabbed, propositioned, had breasts rubbed on me, my back (while at a computer). I have been physically assaulted with a book hit over my head. Women folks are no better than men in the workplace. (RME)
Oh, you bet Yunha, “fund-raising can be easier” … do tell the good readers how many subsidies and funding sources are available to aspiring female entrepreneurs in the USA versus those available to males?
“Girls will help you because you are a fellow female entrepreneur”. Really? Because I’ve read plenty of accounts from women who describe the bad/worse treatment they have received from other women. And “a bunch of studies that show women perform better on the job“. Hey I’d really like to read those studies, citations please.
And now, when can we expect to see the companion piece entitled ‘what it’s really like being a male CEO in Silicon Valley’ with similar remarks about female candidates, colleagues, etc? Hmm. What do you mean, “never”? Oh OK, I understand. Unless you carefully vetted the author he would probably come out and say stuff that undermined the feminist ‘women good/men bad’ victim narrative. And we couldn’t have that, now could we?
And now let’s finish off with this article from news.ninemsn.com.au:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/22ubpi/male_taxi_driver_raped_than_stabbed_by_a_woman/ (Notice how the word ‘rape’ isn’t used once in the article. And read how the male rape victim failed to “perform” … you won’t read that remark about a female rape victim anytime soon)
Other related posts in this blog: