|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it's any consolation, I can't get to the site right now. Maybe they figured out they're not doing anyone any good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 11, @12:34PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
This is excellent news. Anyone who claims that a utilitarian object like a newspaper has underlying phallic symbolism is patently irrational. As irrational as the self-proclaimed academics who argue that the physical sciences are a phallic undertaking and that gravity is an imaginary social convention.
I encourage people who believe that newspapers are phallic, like this fool woman, to openly proclaim it. It's like giving people a business card that says "I am irrational and I have completely disconnected my intellect from reality."
For that matter, anyone who takes the author seriously--seriously as an advocate of ideas--makes their own rationality suspect.
Why are the readers of the World Women News putting up with that kind of garbage? If I were a regular reader, I would be embarrassed. I would send the editors a nasty letter asking why they allowed it and whether they agree.
Guess they're looking for evil phallic symbolism behind every tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why do you think women have always been so nervous of forests"
As a female, from a family of people who are regular and enthusiastic campers (the real kind, in tents, no RVs for us), I must say this is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I prefer the farsicle or absurd to rediculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of substance typifies this sort of senseless whinnying.
I wonder if she realizes exactly how the numbers shape up in journalism, proportionally speaking. I assume she must. There are plenty more women than men in journalism, and if they can't take their infinite "cooperative spirit" and translate that into some concrete leadership, that's just the way the bough breaks.
I'm wondering if she has any suggestions that will make the daily paper less phallic. The articles could be put together randomly, of course. We could eliminate the unbearably masculine "page-letter" sequencing schematic. We could crumple them into little balls upon delivery, instead of rolling them up. What exactly is this girl referring to?
Sorry, I remain unconvinced. Even sweeping generalizations aside, I can't imagine the lack of rationality that is required to find yourself taken in with this kind of rhetoric. Beyond that, it lacks imagination. This sort of thinking is like a prizm. No matter where the light is coming from or what kind it is, you will see it refracted in the same exact way when it comes out the other side. Speak of rigidity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard this many a time before. Same old BS, new package. (Pardon the pun.)
If newspapers are "phallic" and "male", what should she do about it? Hierarchy is important to a newspaper else not very much would get done. As Camille Paglia said (paraphrase), "If women ruled the world we'd still be living in grass huts." :)
And thank God the site is down! We don't need any more idiots. I've never heard of the "social construction of gravity", BTW, is it something new in academic circles? Gender and biology, yes; the laws of physics, no. But I have heard REPEATEDLY that "scince is phallocentric".
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For some very good expostition of the debate regarding science/reason vs. new-wave para-disciplines, scheck out the home page of Noretta Koertge at Indiana University (co-author of "Professing Feminism").
She makes mention (admittedly, without citation) of a women's studies course wherein the students are taught to think of the pain of childbirth as a construct of the patriarchy. "Biodenial" is the term she likes to use.
One commentator wrote that never since the theory of heliocentrism was introduced has the "enlightened opinion" been so at odds with what we know scientifically to be true. Going off on a tangent, so I'll stop there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read Professing Feminism; it was a very good book.
Now could you please give me the URL for her homepage? *G*
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have a look at the Alan Sokal Articles site
a physicist wrote a parody article discussing the social construction of gravity (i.e. that gravity is a matter of opinion) and submitted it to a prestigious cultural studies journal, Social Text. They accepted it and published it without even checking up on the science, presumably because they like the conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been able to visit the site all day long, although I did visit it yesterday. Sorry about the bad timing in posting this.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I repeatedly hear, and read, feminist proclaiming that feminism isn't about men. Sure - that's why their core boogyMAN lumps everything they can imagine as objectionable under the term "patriarchy." Apparently the feminism of Worldwoman.net sees nothing but men. They must be absolutely obsessed with men if they can see a newspaper as phallic. Its rather flattering, don't you think?
This one is almost as silly as the woman who proclaimed Beethoven's 5th symphony showed him to be a frustrated rapist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't read any of these amazingly sound theories, the newspapers I was assuming that the "male centered" stuff meant that papers should focus on women's issues instead of icky men's issues like, oh, the economy... :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the best thing we can do is simply to agree wholeheartedly.
"Yup, you're right lady. They're shaped just like a dick. I wondered when you'd notice. It's all part of how you're oppressed by the evil patriarchal conspiracy."
The blithering idiocy of this is mind-boggling. Does this person actually get readers?
An open question to the obviously bright women who read and respond to the postings here: Don't you find stuff like this to be rather, well, embarrasing after a while?
I feel your pain...
Ragtime
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"punchy, strong, uncompromising and incisive". Sounds like good journalism to me.
As far as I'm concerned, the main purpose of modern journalism is to "comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comforable". (Not sure, but I think that's an Orson Welles quote...I would hold up Mr. Welles as someone every man should attempt to emulate. Then again, he's my favorite actor.)
Having said that - and, this, I realize,is entirely off-topic - who in the hell should we young men emulate? At the same time that I watch the true beauty of Welles' films, I study Nordic mythology, and read www.askmen.com, and check out this site daily.
There's lots and lots of conflicting information. Let's talk about it.
"I'll preserve one last male thing in the museum of this world, if I can." -- D.H. Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read The Lord of the Rings, and take your pick of excellent characters to emulate. Ignore the film. There are no real men to look up to in popular culture, frankly. Only quasi-heroic charicatures (sp) and foolish asses. Look to print, the older the better.
My idol is a man who never was in reality, but who represents the greatest characteristics that men have to offer: Prometheus, the Greek mythological figure who stole fire from the gods and brought it to the mortals, and was tormented by the gods for doing so (as he knew he would be). THAT is the spirit of true masculinity (at its best, that is. There are plenty of examples in classic Greek literature of men at their worst: say, Perseus).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, women are going to save the world again. That's lucky.
Whoever wrote that crap on WorldWoman needs a good spanking with a rolled-up copy of Cosmopolitan. It would be both instructive and ironic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a need for some rabble-rousing like this. Who are we, as a bunch of men, to sit around and say that women have nothing, or little, to complain about when it comes to the media? And I don't see where this woman says that newspapers are phallic symbols. All I read into her writings is that she thinks that women aren't well-served by the mainstream press.
Show me a newspaper (other than the one we're talking about) where women on the masthead outnumber the men, and I'll show you a very surprised dzuunmod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 12, @03:08PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, dz, before you go off on a snipe hunt, looking for the newspaper that actually DOES serve and support men, answer me this: How many times have you seen a front-page headline that sensationalizes an act of violence by a man against a woman? How many times have you seen a front-page headline that sensationalizes an act of violence by a woman against a man? How many times have you seen a article, anywhere in the newspaper, that attempts to justify a woman's attack on her husband by indicated that she was abused? Have you EVER seen a newspaper article that attempts to justify a husband's attack on his wife the same way? Yet the SCIENCE done on DV clearly demonstrates that women are perpetrators of DV nearly as often as victims. Hmmmm... Could it be that the newspapers are biased on this (and other gender issues)? It seems to me that you've fallen into the feminist trap that says, because women aren't doing the representing, then women aren't BEING represented.
As far as men's issues are concerned, and that's what we're all about here, women are served FAR better than men by all forms of the mainstream media. The gender of those on the masthead is largely irrelevant. We're talking about serving the readership equally, not pandering to the comparable worth crowd, and the editorial content is the key. So while you may think the women are poorly served, men are served far worse.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was it Warren Farrell who coined the term 'frontman fallacy'? The point being that just because men are in the majority of prominent positions in an organisation it doesn't mean that the organisation's activities favour men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Show me a newspaper (other than the one we're talking about) where women on the masthead outnumber the men, and I'll show you a very surprised dzuunmod.
Heh. That's pretty funny. You should have seen my paper's staff box in years preceeding this one. It was almost 70 percent female. Now it's more like 50 percent.
Anyone in journalism can tell you that it's a female-dominated profession these days, and has been for quite some time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I notice that although I asked about the decision makers in newspaper-making, the people on the masthead, no one here chose to address that. It's funny, whenever I post at this site, people seem to selectively ignore parts of my posts...
The staff at newspapers don't have any say in the shape of those papers. If one of their editors doesn't like a story, it gets spiked. So I ask, again, that you show me a newspaper where female decision-makers, are making a paper that's not representing men!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The staff at newspapers don't have any say in the shape of those papers. If one of their editors doesn't like a story, it gets spiked. So I ask, again, that you show me a newspaper where female decision-makers, are making a paper that's not representing men!
You're going to find when you get out of journalism school that some of what they taught you there has little application in real world journalism, including the fallacy that men are running the show.
It's not true. Hasn't been for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, though, the (mostly) men on the mastheads of newspapers around the world are responsible for the content of said papers, no? If they don't like what's in their papers, they could just roll a few heads, could they not?
Another thing is that where I'm at, anyway, the comment pages are consistently filled with the words of white men. Women are usually given the fluff columns (food, lifestyles, etc.) and men are the ones who write politics. I often read the major papers from the U.S. and that seems to be the trend there, as well. Who's really shaping public policy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, though, the (mostly) men on the mastheads of newspapers around the world are responsible for the content of said papers, no? If they don't like what's in their papers, they could just roll a few heads, could they not?
Well, partially. The editors allow in print what they believe readers will accept and what they believe readers will want. Alternative newspapers are more likely to say what they will no matter what their audience thinks (and my current employer is an alternative paper). Considering the acceptance of the anti-male climate in the U.S. as "what women want" by the media and the media's need to continue to attract eyeballs for their advertisers, it is actually still women who control it (women are the majority audience for most U.S. newspapers as well).
Another thing is that where I'm at, anyway, the comment pages are consistently filled with the words of white men. Women are usually given the fluff columns (food, lifestyles, etc.) and men are the ones who write politics. I often read the major papers from the U.S. and that seems to be the trend there, as well. Who's really shaping public policy?
I can tell you from experience that's because women tend to choose those beats. Newspapers today are also interested in keeping employees happy, unlike many years ago when you simply took the beat you were assigned and worked with it. I started out as a feature writer (easy beat) and I didn't want to leave it, but once our police reporter was given a cushy copy editing position, they needed to fill the police beat. There were two women on our staff who had been there longer than I had been and who had more experience. They were offered the beats. One of them said she'd rather do sports. The other said she'd rather stick with politics. I got the police beat.
Turned out to be great for my byline. The majority of stories appearing on the front page every day were mine, but it's also the *most* stressful beat in the business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See, the thing is, that stuff about women being the majority of U.S. newspaper readers simply isn't true. At least, it isn't if you go by the Audit Bureau of Circulation figures which were the only ones I could find online. Of the top 60 papers in the U.S. (not where I'm from, by the way) about 19 of them are ABC papers (all of this is online at www.accessabc.com, if you wanna check it out). Of those 20, 12 have male majorities among their readership (some as high as 57-43!), 2 are split 50-50 and the remaining 5 are female dominated (though none by very much). When you factor in the fact that there are simply more females in the U.S., you'll also find that proportionately, men are out-newspaper-reading women as well.
No matter how you look at it, it seems that men are feeding this supposed crooked media. If you want to get upset with anyone, get upset with your own gender for feeding this! If you don't like what's in the newspaper, find another one that you like!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if someone on this site complains that it's tough to get pro-male stuff published, then it must be so!
All kidding aside though, my point is that men are the primary consumers of newspapers in the U.S., and yet here's a bunch of men at this site complaining that the press is misandric. If it is misandric, there's only men to blame, as they are the ones reading it, and putting up with it.
If you, as a man, don't like what's in the newspaper in front of you, go and find one that suits you better (and certainly that's a lot easier to do in the U.K. then in North America). You could also turn on the TV, or get your news from the radio. If there aren't enough people to support misandric news outlets, they'll change or go out of business, because for most of them, news is a business, and they need to make money (with some exceptions -- BBC, NPR, CBC...).
My point is that the *misandric* press in America is being supported more by men (on both a whole figure basis and a per capita basis) then by women, so women aren't to blame, at least certainly not on that level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 18, @03:40PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are missing my point. As dispassionately as I can, I simply try and read my newspapers to learn what information I want. I do not read with any agenda. My observation is that most mainstream papers in the UK seem to seek female readers by denigrating men. I'm not paranoid, it's simply a fact.
While you are making the point that men predominate as editors and hence control content to a degree, I would ask who writes the incessant and bitter anti-male rhetoric that I read. Your point seems to be that even though these anti-male female writers gleefully rub their hands at what they can get away with, men are to blame for publishing it. Hmm - men to blame again?
As for your suggestion to find my news through other means, my local news channel (Scottish TV) has 10 presenters, 7 of whom are female. They even present almost all sports reports. The BBC is similar. Perhaps I should visit the websites? The Daily Mail in the UK (one of the biggest non-tabloid sellers) has a website called www.femail.co.uk - the name of its "Women's" supplement.
Much as I dislike the idea of "blame" in this topic, your idea that "women aren't to blame" baffles me. So men publish these articles, but who writes them?
Finally, although I guess your opening statement was tongue-in-cheek, why wouldn't you accept that it's tough to get pro-male "stuff" published? Because it says it here? In feminist jurisprudence, a "woman's experience" has almost mythical status. It can't be challenged because if a woman claims she experienced something, it must be believed. Why should the "male experience" be any different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point is that the *misandric* press in America is being supported more by men (on both a whole figure basis and a per capita basis) then by women, so women aren't to blame, at least certainly not on that level.
You seem to be missing quite a large point in that no matter who is or is not the larger readership or who is or is not in charge, the news is heavily biased against men.
Your statistics on ABC newspapers, btw, do not reflect the nation as a whole. Gannett is the largest newspaper chain in the U.S., and its readership across all papers is majority female last I checked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm gonna try this once more. I went to the Web site of the Newspaper Association of America (does that represent the nation as a whole?) and the figures there show that in 1995, men overtook women as the primary consumers of newspapers in the U.S. Their most recent (2000) stats show that about 58.8% of men read newspapers daily, compared to 51.7 of women. It would save me all this work if I didn't have to counter stats that are pulled out of thin air...
If you're punched in the face, and reply 'thank you, may I have another?', you're pretty likely to get another shot in the face, no? Well, that rule applies here, too. If the press continually puts you down, and misrepresents you, but you keep buying their papers, they're gonna keep putting you down and misrepresenting you.
Apparently, the male population across North America (the NAA counts some Canadian papers, as well, I believe) doesn't feel strongly enough about to do anything about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Their most recent (2000) stats show that about 58.8% of men read newspapers daily, compared to 51.7 of women. It would save me all this work if I didn't have to counter stats that are pulled out of thin air...
And what stats are you claiming were pulled from thin air?
The NAA doesn't count every newspaper in America. It counts its members. Not every paper belongs to the NAA.
Apparently, the male population across North America (the NAA counts some Canadian papers, as well, I believe) doesn't feel strongly enough about to do anything about it.
Again, it is women who control the media. Journalism is a female dominated profession. Has been for a long time. When you graduate and grow up a little, you'll see that, and I'm sure you'll relish how easy it is for you to bash men without reprisal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Their most recent (2000) stats show that about 58.8% of men read newspapers daily, compared to 51.7 of women. It would save me all this work if I didn't have to counter stats that are pulled out of thin air...
Btw, even if it were true that males made up the majority of the readership (and it's not. Countless articles in media journals like American Journalism Review since 1995 have consistently stated journalism is woman's domain), it still doesn't excuse the media's treatment of men, a subject you have still failed to address.
No matter who is running the show, the media is doing a piss-poor job of representing men. It's too bad you're letting your own anti-male feelings get in the way of seeing the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p.p.s. For some truth about men, women, and the media, you should read the new book Bias by former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg. It's available on Amazon.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... according to the most recent radio advertising data, women in the U.S. control 60% of the spending (60% of the wealth is how the press release phrased it). Advertisers, naturally, follow the money. Newspapers want to please advertisers, so they follow the advertisers who follow the money.
See the pattern? That's why men look like fools in advertising, and not women.
Again, even if you were correct about who is in ultimate control (and you're not), it doesn't excuse what's happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm countering much of what you said, and everything you've said so far has been sourceless (with the exception of a vague reference to 'articles' in the AJR). You wanna find my stats? Go to the naa.org Web site. According to it, their stats measure the top 50 papers in the U.S., not just their members. When someone says something without a source, and then I find clear stats which counter it, I have to assume that it's being made up, or it's out of date, or they just got the story wrong. Show me something tangible other than your word, and perhaps I'll get off of this particular subject.
I'm not anti-male. I'm a man, and frequently I get into arguments with feminists about gender issues. I just think that there's a medium somewhere in the middle that most of the people at this site (and most feminist sites) skip right over. You don't even know me, and you're trying to tell me about myself.
You keep saying that it's women who control the media, but I haven't seen any actual proof of that. Women are the majority of staff at most newspapers, I'll give you that, but, for instance, blue collar workers are among the majority at, say, Ford (or maybe it's robots now, who knows). Anyway, my point is that blue collar workers have never been in control of the car industry. Point me to an article, a stat or something that says that women are in control of the media (usurping all the men who are at the very top of the industry -- owners, top editors, executives...), and maybe I'll start to believe you. But for the moment, all you're giving me is your word.
It's pretty obvious that you're not taking me seriously (even though I'm backing up my claims), so why should I take you seriously? Geez, does this happen every time someone comes around these parts and disagrees? You try and chase them away? Are you only interested in talking to yourselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've countered barely 25 percent of what I said.
And "Top 50 newspapers" is nothing, my friend. There are hundreds of newspapers in the U.S. The NAA stats mean nothing. As for tangible, search the AJR archives for the word "gender" and you should find a variety of articles. Buy Bias or check it out at the library.
You keep saying that it's women who control the media, but I haven't seen any actual proof of that.
AgaIn, just research the articles and books I've pointed you to and you'll see that evidence.
Anyway, my point is that blue collar workers have never been in control of the car industry.
Sure they have. Ever heard of United Auto Workers of America?
Point me to an article, a stat or something that says that women are in control of the media (usurping all the men who are at the very top of the industry -- owners, top editors, executives...), and maybe I'll start to believe you. But for the moment, all you're giving me is your word.
Search Google for radio marketing statistics broken down by gender, as I pointed you to earlier. I've given you all the sources you need, do some digging. I don't have time to dig up all the URLs *for* you.
And, no, I'm not taking you seriously. I generally don't take people seriously who personally attack me in e-mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to do your digging to find out whether or not these phantom statistics exist. That's never been my understanding of how debates work.
This has escalated too much, and I'm sorry for my part in that, but if I attacked you by email, Nightmist, (and I'm sorry for that too, if I did) it was partly because you laughed off my initial comment in a way that suggested I couldn't possibly know anything about the media -- that your experience is the standard. I felt from the get-go like I wasn't being taken seriously, because I wasn't falling in line behind everyone else in the thread.
I'll agree to disagree for now, and maybe in two or three years when I'm in the workforce, I'll find I was right, or perhaps I'll see what you mean. Certainly, if I still remember this, I'll feel petty and small for having argued the way I did here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to do your digging to find out whether or not these phantom statistics exist. That's never been my understanding of how debates work.
Once again... WHAT statistics? I haven't posted any statistics.
I'll agree to disagree for now, and maybe in two or three years when I'm in the workforce, I'll find I was right, or perhaps I'll see what you mean. Certainly, if I still remember this, I'll feel petty and small for having argued the way I did here.
I encourage you to do all the reading you can on the subject of gender and media, including the Bias book I mentioned. It's a particularly important book and has one whole chapter devoted to depictions of men in the media.
And, yes, I'd be interested to know what you learn when you've been in the field for a while, particularly if you cover the police beat. You're going to find female editors in particular are averse to printing stories in which women are perpetrating evil against men. They also won't print stories about male rape, and I found quite a few of those in police reports in my time. A male editor at our competition ran those stories, even though I had them first and could have scooped them.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
