Black History Month.
22 Oct 2014
"Yeah I Said It! - Potent Whisper - HISTORY IS HISTORY
Misandry: Sexist Coverage Of The Pew Online Harassment Poll
By The Pew Research Center has released a poll showing that men are more likely to be harassed or threatened with physical violence than women on the Internet. So why are Pew, Quartz, The Washington Post, CNN, and other outlets making this about women?
The study showed that 40% of respondents personally experience some form of online harassment. And 73% said they had either witnessed it or experienced it themselves. The most common form of harassment was being called offensive names, followed by attempts to purposely embarrass the victim, then threats of physical violence. In all the top three categories of online harassment, including threats of violence, men are more frequently harassed than women.
Women, according to the poll, are more likely to be harassed for a sustained period of time, to be stalked, or to be sexually harassed. However, in the category of sustained harassment, the difference between men and women was within the margin of error for the survey. Additionally, the terms “stalking” and “sexual harassment” have become rather blurry lately.
If somebody were to call a woman “cunt,” for example, this is now commonly deemed as sexual harassment. To call a man a “dick” is just considered an offensive name, if even that. Even “bossy” has been deemed a form of sexual harassment by many throughout the world, yet telling a man to “man up” or “take it like a man” is socially acceptable.
When women ask men to send them obscene photographs, there’s a pretty good chance that he’ll just send the photo, while women are far more likely to consider this sexual harassment, as studies show males are more likely to send sexually explicit material than females. Likewise, men who receive sexually explicit material online are far less likely to consider this harassment than women are.
Despite these blurry lines, and statistical insignificancies, Pew insists women “experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels.” CNN insists, “The harshest forms of abuse – physical threats, stalking and sexual harassment – are often reserved for women.” USA Today says, “However, young women (age 18-24) seem to experience more of the severe types of harassment (stalking, physical threats) or sustained, long-term harassment compared to other groups.”
Apparently, CNN and USA Today never even looked at the pictures in the poll they are citing, much less bothered to read it, since physical threats are far more often aimed at men than women.
The headline in The Washington Post reads, “Men experience slightly more online harassment — but young women are hit with the most severe forms.”
How unwanted sexual advances or gender-based name-calling is more severe than being threatened with violence escapes me. I am regularly called a “dick” if something I do displeases someone, or told to “man up” if I show the slightest bit of emotion. I have received sexually explicit material from unattractive women on the Internet. I’ve also been threatened with physical violence. Care to guess which bothers me more?
A sexually explicit message can be deleted. An unwanted advance can be rejected. A gender-specific insult can be shrugged off. A “stalker” can be blocked.
A threat of violence is a threat to take the conflict off of the Internet and into a person’s real life. It cannot be blocked or reported out of existence with the click of a button. Especially for those unfortunate enough to live in places with strict gun control laws, it can be a life-altering experience. Perpetually looking over one’s shoulder wondering when some real or imagined threat will jump out of the shadows to assault or even kill you is not an experience any decent human being should have to suffer through. But many people do, especially men, and that’s before we take into consideration violence done to men through the legal system.
If we want to solve the problems of modern society, I respectfully suggest we start trying to address violence in the world instead of pandering to feminists for web traffic. Saying that “sexual harassment” is “more severe” than physical threatening just because women are reporting it at a higher rate is nothing short of misandry. Apparently, Pew, CNN, The Washington Post, and USA Today all think that men are just supposed to put up with threats to their safety, but the world must be called to action to stop women from being offended on the Internet.
When women are legitimately harassed, stalked, or threatened, I take that very seriously. It’s unfortunate that feminists have done so much to dilute those words into meaningless fluff, rendering survey data on the subject useless. We all know what “physical threatening” is. It doesn’t stop at the screen of a computer or smartphone. It actually results in injury and death in the real world, and while men are more frequently subjected to it, this affects women too. It would seem to me that feminists, men’s rights advocates, and everybody in between should be able to agree that this is a serious problem worthy of attention. So I find it repulsive that so many outlets would rather distort the data and make online harassment a women’s issue than call attention to actual crimes with actual victims just because most of those victims are men.
The study showed that 40% of respondents personally experience some form of online harassment. And 73% said they had either witnessed it or experienced it themselves. The most common form of harassment was being called offensive names, followed by attempts to purposely embarrass the victim, then threats of physical violence. In all the top three categories of online harassment, including threats of violence, men are more frequently harassed than women.
Women, according to the poll, are more likely to be harassed for a sustained period of time, to be stalked, or to be sexually harassed. However, in the category of sustained harassment, the difference between men and women was within the margin of error for the survey. Additionally, the terms “stalking” and “sexual harassment” have become rather blurry lately.
If somebody were to call a woman “cunt,” for example, this is now commonly deemed as sexual harassment. To call a man a “dick” is just considered an offensive name, if even that. Even “bossy” has been deemed a form of sexual harassment by many throughout the world, yet telling a man to “man up” or “take it like a man” is socially acceptable.
When women ask men to send them obscene photographs, there’s a pretty good chance that he’ll just send the photo, while women are far more likely to consider this sexual harassment, as studies show males are more likely to send sexually explicit material than females. Likewise, men who receive sexually explicit material online are far less likely to consider this harassment than women are.
Are sexual advances more severe than threats of violence?
Apparently, CNN and USA Today never even looked at the pictures in the poll they are citing, much less bothered to read it, since physical threats are far more often aimed at men than women.
The headline in The Washington Post reads, “Men experience slightly more online harassment — but young women are hit with the most severe forms.”
How unwanted sexual advances or gender-based name-calling is more severe than being threatened with violence escapes me. I am regularly called a “dick” if something I do displeases someone, or told to “man up” if I show the slightest bit of emotion. I have received sexually explicit material from unattractive women on the Internet. I’ve also been threatened with physical violence. Care to guess which bothers me more?
A sexually explicit message can be deleted. An unwanted advance can be rejected. A gender-specific insult can be shrugged off. A “stalker” can be blocked.
A threat of violence is a threat to take the conflict off of the Internet and into a person’s real life. It cannot be blocked or reported out of existence with the click of a button. Especially for those unfortunate enough to live in places with strict gun control laws, it can be a life-altering experience. Perpetually looking over one’s shoulder wondering when some real or imagined threat will jump out of the shadows to assault or even kill you is not an experience any decent human being should have to suffer through. But many people do, especially men, and that’s before we take into consideration violence done to men through the legal system.
If we want to solve the problems of modern society, I respectfully suggest we start trying to address violence in the world instead of pandering to feminists for web traffic. Saying that “sexual harassment” is “more severe” than physical threatening just because women are reporting it at a higher rate is nothing short of misandry. Apparently, Pew, CNN, The Washington Post, and USA Today all think that men are just supposed to put up with threats to their safety, but the world must be called to action to stop women from being offended on the Internet.
When women are legitimately harassed, stalked, or threatened, I take that very seriously. It’s unfortunate that feminists have done so much to dilute those words into meaningless fluff, rendering survey data on the subject useless. We all know what “physical threatening” is. It doesn’t stop at the screen of a computer or smartphone. It actually results in injury and death in the real world, and while men are more frequently subjected to it, this affects women too. It would seem to me that feminists, men’s rights advocates, and everybody in between should be able to agree that this is a serious problem worthy of attention. So I find it repulsive that so many outlets would rather distort the data and make online harassment a women’s issue than call attention to actual crimes with actual victims just because most of those victims are men.
ChristopherCantwell.com
Christopher Cantwell is an activist, writer, and satirist originally from New York. From an anarcho-capitalist perspective, he covers news and current events, addresses philosophical questions, and even cracks a joke or two.
Source
About Christopher Cantwell
Christopher Cantwell is an activist, writer, and satirist originally from New York. From an anarcho-capitalist perspective, he covers news and current events, addresses philosophical questions, and even cracks a joke or two.Source
First Swiss Gold Poll Shows Pro-Gold Side In Lead At 45%
"Another Shock Drop Is Coming.. And It's Coming Soon" Saxo Bank's Chief Economist Steen Jakobsen
Institutions Of Higher Indoctrination
Democracy Is A Lie - The BBC Sucks O Cocks News
"The Chinese are allowing Hong Kong protests whereas in Britain, outside of parliament, the house, The Mother, The Auntie, The House of Democracy, ha, ha, ha, the land of freedom! ...They were dragged out! ...You are free to do as you are told!" The Artist Taxi Driver
HeforShe And The Feminist Fossil - Defeating The Feminist Frame
How To Start A War And Lose An Empire
Warning: further Western
attempts at blackmailing them may result in a nuclear confrontation.
By ClubOrlov: A year and a half I wrote an essay on how the US chooses to view Russia, titled The Image of the Enemy.
I was living in Russia at the time, and, after observing the American
anti-Russian rhetoric and the Russian reaction to it, I made some
observations that seemed important at the time. It turns out that I
managed to spot an important trend, but given the quick pace of
developments since then, these observations are now woefully out of
date, and so here is an update.
At that time the stakes weren't very high yet. There was much noise around a fellow named Magnitsky, a corporate lawyer-crook who got caught and died in pretrial custody. He had been holding items for some bigger Western crooks, who were, of course, never apprehended. The Americans chose to treat this as a human rights violation and responded with the so-called “Magnitsky Act” which sanctioned certain Russian individuals who were labeled as human rights violators. Russian legislators responded with the “Dima Yakovlev Bill,” named after a Russian orphan adopted by Americans who killed him by leaving him in a locked car for nine hours. This bill banned American orphan-killing fiends from adopting any more Russian orphans. It all amounted to a silly bit of melodrama.
But what a difference a year and a half has made!
By ClubOrlov: A year and a half I wrote an essay on how the US chooses to view Russia, titled The Image of the Enemy.
I was living in Russia at the time, and, after observing the American
anti-Russian rhetoric and the Russian reaction to it, I made some
observations that seemed important at the time. It turns out that I
managed to spot an important trend, but given the quick pace of
developments since then, these observations are now woefully out of
date, and so here is an update.
At that time the stakes weren't very high yet. There was much noise around a fellow named Magnitsky, a corporate lawyer-crook who got caught and died in pretrial custody. He had been holding items for some bigger Western crooks, who were, of course, never apprehended. The Americans chose to treat this as a human rights violation and responded with the so-called “Magnitsky Act” which sanctioned certain Russian individuals who were labeled as human rights violators. Russian legislators responded with the “Dima Yakovlev Bill,” named after a Russian orphan adopted by Americans who killed him by leaving him in a locked car for nine hours. This bill banned American orphan-killing fiends from adopting any more Russian orphans. It all amounted to a silly bit of melodrama.
But what a difference a year and a half has made!
AVfM Launches Whiteribboncampaign.org!
Gents
and ladies, I present to you without further adieu,
whiteribboncampaign.org. It is a website I am very proud of, and proud
to say AVfM will be investing whatever resources it takes to make
whiteribboncampaign.org the most highly recognized and iconic voice in
the worldwide White Ribbon Campaign.
By The people behind the White Ribbon have undoubtedly put in a huge amount of sweat equity and actual funds in branding the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC).
A simple Google search will return many, many references to that campaign and to websites that have been set up to further its message. That message, of course, is that men can stop domestic violence, that they bear the weight of all evil on their backs and that they need to create a safe world for women, blah, blah, blah.
Obviously, the people getting the job done on behalf of WRC really outdid themselves on planning and marketing.
Well, there was one goof. They neglected to pick up the obvious choices for domains for their program, especially given they are aiming for growth.
I personally interpreted this as an intentional act. It appears to me that the good folks at WRC desire a grass roots movement, with concerned individuals stepping up to the plate to dedicate activism in the area of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).
A simple Google search will return many, many references to that campaign and to websites that have been set up to further its message. That message, of course, is that men can stop domestic violence, that they bear the weight of all evil on their backs and that they need to create a safe world for women, blah, blah, blah.
Obviously, the people getting the job done on behalf of WRC really outdid themselves on planning and marketing.
Well, there was one goof. They neglected to pick up the obvious choices for domains for their program, especially given they are aiming for growth.
I personally interpreted this as an intentional act. It appears to me that the good folks at WRC desire a grass roots movement, with concerned individuals stepping up to the plate to dedicate activism in the area of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).
A Call To Academics And Students By J4MB
By Mike Buchanan: We’re calling for academics and students to stand up and fight the corruption of academia by feminists working in academia itself, in funding bodies, in the Department for Education, and elsewhere. For many years feminists have been corrupting academia for ideological reasons, but we’re convinced they can be stopped. They MUST be stopped for the sake of academia, and all it should stand for – independence of thought, excellence, and so much more.
A few examples of feminist corruption:
1. The Athena SWAN initiative forces research organisations to increase the proportion of female researchers, in order to be eligible for grants. It’s nothing less than an assault on male scientists. Last year we posted this blog piece and our associated briefing paper is here.3. Professional bodies representing those working in STEM (and other) professions are actively campaigning against the interests of the class that makes up a sizeable majority of their members – men.
The MGTOW Philosophy Is Spreading Faster Than You Think
In Uncharted Waters
A long-time reader recently chastised me for using too many maybe's in my forecasts. The criticism is valid, as "on the other hand" slips all too easily from qualifying a position to rinsing it of meaning.
That said, given that we're in uncharted waters, maybe's become prudent and certainty becomes extremely dangerous. I have long held that the financial policy extremes that are now considered normal are unprecedented in the modern era: extremes in debt, leverage, risk, complexity and willful obfuscation of these extremes. Consider the extent to which sky-high asset valuations and present-day "prosperity" depend on extremes of leverage: autos purchased with no money down, homes purchased with 3.5% down payments and FHA loans, stocks bought on margin, stock buybacks funded by loans, student loans issued with zero collateral, and so on--an inverted pyramid of "prosperity" resting precariously on a tiny base of actual collateral.
Since we have no guide to the future other than the past, we extrapolate past trends. Human nature hasn't changed over the short time-frames of civilizations (i.e. the past few thousand years), so in terms of human drives, emotions and responses, the past is an excellent guide to the range of human responses to crisis, euphoria, greed, fear, etc.
But extending trends is a shifting foundation for forecasts, as trends end and reverse, generally without telegraphing the end of an era. Few in 1639 China foresaw the collapse of the status quo Ming Dynasty a mere five years hence.
With the hindsight of history, we can discern the cracks in the Ming Dynasty before its collapse, but once we shift to our own era, things become less certain.
In my view, we're drifting in uncharted seas.