It talks about how males are never noticed by the media to be people that sacrifice themselves for others, or ones that are victims of events or other people, where as when it's women doing good things, they are directly identified as women, and that males are only noted as "males" when it is a story of how a man has done something wrong.
Wow, I watched that one just now and I found it to be ridiculous. I think he's trying real hard to see things that aren't there.
I'll elaborate on it a bit, since I assume you want to discuss this or else you wouldn't have posted it, right?
Firstly, whenever there's a news story about a criminal, they always point out the sex of the offender so I think that's equal. Of course you'll have more males because males commit most crime. So if it were actually true that they were purposely promoting males as criminals more than females, you'd have to show apples vs apples. Meaning, show that there has been numerous (or even ONE) crime story in which the offender is female, and that fact is not mentioned. Right? But you won't find that because it doesn't happen.
Second, a lot of the stories shown that were supposedly 'downplaying' the male significance were breaking stories, so I'm assuming they were just being careful just in case? See this is where your perspective comes into play. If you want to see it as anti-male, then you will, but in reality I really, really do believe it was just due to the fact that it was breaking news and unknown as to the sex of people involved. I remember the coal mine incident and they were quite clear once it was known that it was all men. It usually is something they set straight once such details become known, I recall this happening with countless stories.
Here's an article from the conclusion of the search:
If you read through it, you'll see they do identify them as men. Yes, they do use other terms, but that's more for more 'flavor', it IS journalism after all. Note in the first paragraph, they say 'survivors', which I find to be more fitting than 'men' because it was a desperate rescue effort, they WERE looking for survivors, not just plain 'men'.
Also, they use the term 'families' when referring to the miner's family members and not once did they single out 'wives' or 'mothers'.
Another note, there was criminal activity reported and mentions of many violations and fines and guilty pleas, with deaths involved, and nobody called the offenders out as 'men', they were called by their job title or role.
It's my opinion that you see what you WANT to see much of the time, don't you think? Sometimes, yes I'm sure it can be unfair but I'd think that goes both ways, and also I don't think AT ALL that what this man was talking about was with the intent he projects onto it.
Finally, when they report on women and recognize them as such, it's simply because it's the news and that itself is 'newsworthy' sometimes. Yes, I agree, it's kind of stupid and many times unnecessary. But we're talking about the news here, anything about a story that's at all remarkable is usually mentioned. You could say the same when they recognize a 'black' person or the 'oldest' or 'youngest' so-and-so, it's just a detail that they feel is newsworthy probably because it's uncommon.
I'm still looking at this and I'll make a final comment about what I think of the whole thing in general when I'm done (if you were interested). Cheers.
Funny, because I've never seen a headline on the news of a woman murdering or raping someone, and I watch quite a bit of the news. Same goes for mostly being males that die on jobs such as road works and law enforcenemnt, but I've yet to hear a "policeman" dying, and not a "police officer". I will be going in to town on Thursday, and I can assure you I will not see one thing about women being a negative impact, but there will be atleast three about men. Copied and pasted the link, but it came up as error. Yes, they were looking for survivors, but why not mention their gender aswell? We all know when there are murders women and children are singled out and named women and children, where as males aren't. In order to actually find that they're males, you have to go to websites that aren't exactly as mainstream as the news on the TV. Yes, but that is definetly the minority of times that victimizing men are called by their job title, but I would like to see that report, so link with your next reply.
He showed evidence through videos of it happening. Sure, that doesn't count as the majority of news reports, but it sparked my mind off to realize I've never heard a male be seen as a victim in the news, nor have I seen them get commended on their bravery.
For example. When the England riots happened there was a woman that gaurded her hair salon. Nobody harmed her, nobody ruined her building, she stood up to the rioters. Now, this woman that never got hurt once got far more fame, far more "You brave soul" than any of the "men" that were fighting off rioters. Sure, there were women police officers around at that time, but if you look over all the recordings and all of the news recordings for it, you'll see that the female officers are always at the side while the male officer is getting attacked and fighting off rioters. Were are their fame? Because everyone knows if you look in to it enough that it was mail officers fighting off the rioters, not the women ones. Then when the riots are done, it's "police officers", not "police men", where as the woman that protected her salon got fame just because she was a female that stood up for her salon, but didn't actually "fight off" rioters or get at all hurt.
Then when it came to the cleaning up the place during the day, they said "Women and children are even cleaning up for what these hooligans are doing"...Yeah, because the men weren't helping at all, either.
I guess we just disagree on this for the most part.
It's the news, come on. They're always looking to be sensational, that's how they sell papers and get viewers. It's their JOB. ANY angle that they can use to make something more exciting, they will. There's FAR worse things that they do than any kind of gender discrimination, really.
Men commit more crime, a LOT more, so when talking about your local news, you very well may not have a female that commits a newsworthy crime for a considerable time. Men, get your shit together then!! That's men's problem, why are they responsible for so much crime? You should be mad at those men for giving men a bad rep, not be mad at the news for reporting it or at women for not committing an equal amount of crime!
A note about rape...you may forget or not realize it, but men are the main perpetrators of rape against their own fellow men/boys. When you hear of a male who was raped there's a 99% chance it was by another MAN. Women account for exactly 1% of rapists, and of those rapes, not all were even perpetrated on men. Most female rapists are guilty of statutory rape, which is WORLDS different than forcible rape. Don't get me wrong, that's not to say it's OK AT ALL!! I look at people (men AND women) who commit statutory rape the same, someone who commits forcible rape is in a whole different league. The mere amount of female rapists explain why you hardly ever hear about it. They can't report something that just doesn't happen. They DO report it when it does happen, because it's sensational, but it happens so infrequently so, what do you expect?
I went to CNN website this morning, I never usually read that site but just to go see what they had on their front page.
Today in the news, Andrea Yates (murdered her 5 kids about 10 yrs ago). That's the worst criminal on there for today, and she's a woman.
There's also a story, the only one that praises a specific gender in the article title, the title of the article is "California BOY is a cooking TV star".
The other article of praise is also about a male, although it doesn't reveal his gender in the title, it reads "Doctor who planted 750K trees saluted". You find out he's a man when looking at the story.
Another crime story, the title reads "Police:Wash (Washington) murder suspect in bunker". It's a man, who killed his wife and daughter. But it doesn't say that in the title, it's not like it said 'man' did this horrible thing. You find that out if you read the article, just as it is with most stories.
The rest of the stories are pretty boring and generic, but really I don't see anything there that is sexist in any way. In fact it even disproves this guy, I think.
I did watch the video. Some of the video was slightly off fact, however the main point of the video is mostly true. If people could get past being irritated about opinions made or facts a little off target, I think they might learn a thing or two. As for my input on the vid; I notice the media has always made subtle remarks that pin groups against one another. It doesn't help that people segregate themselves much of the time. The man vs. woman thing is plain silly. Feminists especially need to take the good with the bad when equality is at hand. I think they can move their own effin furniture, for example.
Personally, I liked the video on his channel about the start of feminism. I'll probably look into it further, later.
I came across this one of his videos (I watched it previously, but rewatched it today).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A&list=FLDcQUoqjuGHLrFfQAbx5PbQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video
It talks about how males are never noticed by the media to be people that sacrifice themselves for others, or ones that are victims of events or other people, where as when it's women doing good things, they are directly identified as women, and that males are only noted as "males" when it is a story of how a man has done something wrong.
It's a good one of the list he has.
I'll elaborate on it a bit, since I assume you want to discuss this or else you wouldn't have posted it, right?
Firstly, whenever there's a news story about a criminal, they always point out the sex of the offender so I think that's equal. Of course you'll have more males because males commit most crime. So if it were actually true that they were purposely promoting males as criminals more than females, you'd have to show apples vs apples. Meaning, show that there has been numerous (or even ONE) crime story in which the offender is female, and that fact is not mentioned. Right? But you won't find that because it doesn't happen.
Second, a lot of the stories shown that were supposedly 'downplaying' the male significance were breaking stories, so I'm assuming they were just being careful just in case? See this is where your perspective comes into play. If you want to see it as anti-male, then you will, but in reality I really, really do believe it was just due to the fact that it was breaking news and unknown as to the sex of people involved. I remember the coal mine incident and they were quite clear once it was known that it was all men. It usually is something they set straight once such details become known, I recall this happening with countless stories.
Here's an article from the conclusion of the search:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/10westvirginia.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/10westvirg...</a>
If you read through it, you'll see they do identify them as men. Yes, they do use other terms, but that's more for more 'flavor', it IS journalism after all. Note in the first paragraph, they say 'survivors', which I find to be more fitting than 'men' because it was a desperate rescue effort, they WERE looking for survivors, not just plain 'men'.
Also, they use the term 'families' when referring to the miner's family members and not once did they single out 'wives' or 'mothers'.
Another note, there was criminal activity reported and mentions of many violations and fines and guilty pleas, with deaths involved, and nobody called the offenders out as 'men', they were called by their job title or role.
It's my opinion that you see what you WANT to see much of the time, don't you think? Sometimes, yes I'm sure it can be unfair but I'd think that goes both ways, and also I don't think AT ALL that what this man was talking about was with the intent he projects onto it.
Finally, when they report on women and recognize them as such, it's simply because it's the news and that itself is 'newsworthy' sometimes. Yes, I agree, it's kind of stupid and many times unnecessary. But we're talking about the news here, anything about a story that's at all remarkable is usually mentioned. You could say the same when they recognize a 'black' person or the 'oldest' or 'youngest' so-and-so, it's just a detail that they feel is newsworthy probably because it's uncommon.
I'm still looking at this and I'll make a final comment about what I think of the whole thing in general when I'm done (if you were interested). Cheers.
Copied and pasted the link, but it came up as error.
Yes, they were looking for survivors, but why not mention their gender aswell? We all know when there are murders women and children are singled out and named women and children, where as males aren't.
In order to actually find that they're males, you have to go to websites that aren't exactly as mainstream as the news on the TV.
Yes, but that is definetly the minority of times that victimizing men are called by their job title, but I would like to see that report, so link with your next reply.
He showed evidence through videos of it happening. Sure, that doesn't count as the majority of news reports, but it sparked my mind off to realize I've never heard a male be seen as a victim in the news, nor have I seen them get commended on their bravery.
For example. When the England riots happened there was a woman that gaurded her hair salon. Nobody harmed her, nobody ruined her building, she stood up to the rioters. Now, this woman that never got hurt once got far more fame, far more "You brave soul" than any of the "men" that were fighting off rioters. Sure, there were women police officers around at that time, but if you look over all the recordings and all of the news recordings for it, you'll see that the female officers are always at the side while the male officer is getting attacked and fighting off rioters. Were are their fame? Because everyone knows if you look in to it enough that it was mail officers fighting off the rioters, not the women ones. Then when the riots are done, it's "police officers", not "police men", where as the woman that protected her salon got fame just because she was a female that stood up for her salon, but didn't actually "fight off" rioters or get at all hurt.
Then when it came to the cleaning up the place during the day, they said "Women and children are even cleaning up for what these hooligans are doing"...Yeah, because the men weren't helping at all, either.
It's the news, come on. They're always looking to be sensational, that's how they sell papers and get viewers. It's their JOB. ANY angle that they can use to make something more exciting, they will. There's FAR worse things that they do than any kind of gender discrimination, really.
Men commit more crime, a LOT more, so when talking about your local news, you very well may not have a female that commits a newsworthy crime for a considerable time. Men, get your shit together then!! That's men's problem, why are they responsible for so much crime? You should be mad at those men for giving men a bad rep, not be mad at the news for reporting it or at women for not committing an equal amount of crime!
A note about rape...you may forget or not realize it, but men are the main perpetrators of rape against their own fellow men/boys. When you hear of a male who was raped there's a 99% chance it was by another MAN. Women account for exactly 1% of rapists, and of those rapes, not all were even perpetrated on men. Most female rapists are guilty of statutory rape, which is WORLDS different than forcible rape. Don't get me wrong, that's not to say it's OK AT ALL!! I look at people (men AND women) who commit statutory rape the same, someone who commits forcible rape is in a whole different league. The mere amount of female rapists explain why you hardly ever hear about it. They can't report something that just doesn't happen. They DO report it when it does happen, because it's sensational, but it happens so infrequently so, what do you expect?
I went to CNN website this morning, I never usually read that site but just to go see what they had on their front page.
Today in the news, Andrea Yates (murdered her 5 kids about 10 yrs ago). That's the worst criminal on there for today, and she's a woman.
There's also a story, the only one that praises a specific gender in the article title, the title of the article is "California BOY is a cooking TV star".
The other article of praise is also about a male, although it doesn't reveal his gender in the title, it reads "Doctor who planted 750K trees saluted". You find out he's a man when looking at the story.
Another crime story, the title reads "Police:Wash (Washington) murder suspect in bunker". It's a man, who killed his wife and daughter. But it doesn't say that in the title, it's not like it said 'man' did this horrible thing. You find that out if you read the article, just as it is with most stories.
The rest of the stories are pretty boring and generic, but really I don't see anything there that is sexist in any way. In fact it even disproves this guy, I think.
Gotta go for now but I'll be back in a bit.
I did watch the video. Some of the video was slightly off fact, however the main point of the video is mostly true. If people could get past being irritated about opinions made or facts a little off target, I think they might learn a thing or two.
As for my input on the vid; I notice the media has always made subtle remarks that pin groups against one another. It doesn't help that people segregate themselves much of the time. The man vs. woman thing is plain silly. Feminists especially need to take the good with the bad when equality is at hand. I think they can move their own effin furniture, for example.
Personally, I liked the video on his channel about the start of feminism. I'll probably look into it further, later.