This brief article was prompted after a message I received via my YouTube channel. For privacy reasons I won’t link to the man, but I hope he doesn’t mind if I quote a part of his message here:
“Ever since I saw your video on the way the existence of men in the media is almost swept away, I’ve been noticing more and more of it as I use various media. However, the worst example I’ve seen today is from the Metro, a free paper distributed on trains and buses relating to the Tripoli revolution”.
He then quotes from the article in the London newspaper:
“There were reports of a massacre in two suburbs, with armed men firing indiscriminately, leaving women and children among the dead.”
I searched on the quote and came up with a few other news items and this line, reported from an eyewitness in Tripoli, caught my eye:
“What happened today in Tajura was a massacre. Armed men were firing indiscriminately. There are even women among the dead”.
There’s more like this but I’ll just look at these as they are fully representative of the international journalistic effort. Female-centrism at it’s best (or worst).
The use of language both frames our thoughts and also reflects them in a complex and often uneasy relationship that I have explored in video here, here and here.
Journalists are trained to be adept at using language as a misandric device in what must be described for what it is: a ceaseless campaign against men and the very image of men. Indeed, a War on Men.
Women and children, women and children, women and children…
As with all disasters, natural or otherwise, and with all massacres, riots and tragedies, our journalists look for the angle that always seems to matter above all else: how badly are women and children affected?
Note in the quotes above, how it is “armed men firing” and “women and children” killed. There is clearly no problem with the use of the word men when they are perpetrators of violence, the problem only appears to be in the use of that same word when men are victims.
Of course, we know that men are killed as well, even though they are not deemed worthy of mention.
We even know that it is more men than women that are killed, for it is after all, men that are leading this revolt (as men have always led such things in their eternal attempts to improve the lot of their families).
We are also aware that it is men who were undoubtedly targeted to be killed and that women and children almost certainly count as incidental and accidental killings, “collateral damage”, as it were.
But how many of us are aware that these truths are never stated? How many of us are aware that the deaths of men are simply rubbed out of our consciousness, deliberately removed from our concern?
Well, I’m aware. And a growing number of other men are becoming aware as evidenced by this man’s message and others I’ve received.
Awareness is the first stage of any change and indeed, of any revolution.
I replied to the message I received on YouTube as follows:
“It is, I’m afraid, a never-ending phenomenon. Men simply do not rate a mention.
The fact of that matter, is that in Tripoli, and all other places now experiencing determined popular overthrow, the ones doing the actual deed (that we will probably look back upon as brave and noble revolution) are overwhelmingly men. It therefore stands to reason that those that are killed will be overwhelmingly men. It also means that men are the ones who will have achieved this great change. However, this will simply go unmentioned whilst the wreckage is sifted for those that matter.
Headlines should read: “The brave civilian men of Libya, risking their lives for change!”.
However, our suitably edited history – being written as we speak – will record the “people” of Libya that fought for change and it will be the “women and children” that suffered most. It’s what the person sitting next to you wants to read and so it will go on.”
Contemporary misandry like this in the form of female-centrism, will lead inevitably to historical revisionism.
Putting it another way, Feminism largely exists on a foundation of misinformation, half-truths and outright lies about our history, coupled with ignorance of history in the populace. After all, if you don’t know your history, you don’t know when you’re being lied to about it. And Feminists are telling a great number of lies.
Feminists rewrite history
01m 42s
A stab at the future… or perhaps the present
Please take note of the three predictions that follow, and please remember that you read them here first:
In due course, the text books that we supply to our children in schools, will describe the D-Day landings as: “The men and women who landed on the beaches of Normandy”.
In due course, when the ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers (an overwhelmingly male sacrifice) is being reported, look for some journalist one day, to be the first to describe “the brave servicewomen and men who gave their lives”.
In due course, look for the world to remember the revised immortal words of Neil Armstrong as he set foot on the moon: “One small step for a human, one giant leap for humankind”.
Then again, it may be that these predictions have already come true; when it comes to misandry, very little surprises me in our Feminised times.
Women Focus and the Negative Story of Men
10m 36s
UPDATE: 24 Feb
This Reuters article is a classic example of what is discussed here:
“(Reuters) – The U.S. Air Force will announce on Thursday the winner of an epic $35 billion procurement battle between Boeing (BA.N) and Airbus over 179 aerial refuelling planes, its third attempt to start replacing a fleet of planes built before humans first landed on the moon.”
Alas poor MAN! I knew him well…
Related Video
Men -Don’t Exist
War
Patriarchy
Suffrage
Equal Opportunities
Male Chauvinism
Oh rest assured, one of your predictions has already occured. I saw a woman refer, in reference to troops in combat, put women before men, she said ”these women and men who are being killed”, it really struck me when I heard it, though I cannot remember exactly where.
It’s weird, I think women just have an innately more tenuous grasp on reality than do men. I truly believe they are starting to lose sight of the fact that the mention of servicewomen when talking about combat deaths is made largely for the sake of just being polite.
I remember “women and men in the military” really standing out to me in Kathryn Bigelow’s Oscar speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-DPBOTlSWk&t=5m14s
Hollywood is a load of bullshit and political correctness.
Also I noticed at the end of the YouTube vid of her getting the Oscar, there is the “I am woman hear me roar” tune (the track that’s used in the intro to A Voice For Men Radio). Hollywood sucks!
Many a foreign worker has been fleeing Libya. In The news reports that I saw the majority of those fleeing where men ,but of course this is not mentioned. You can bet that if the majority of those fleeing where women then the news reporting language would soon change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/01/aid-agencies-foreign-workers-libya
On a slightly different but related topic,I was listning to radio comment this week about the scouts decision to give sex advice.
The sex advice apart,I have often wondered about the feminist movements acheivement of getting scouts to abandon its original objective of being a group for young boys.
Im sure it was described as a mysoginistic,sexist etc at the time before it changed.
I dont have any objection to girls being scouts.
I do object to a highly organized group of feminist grown adult women bullying a group for young boys into abandoning its raison daitre.
How seriously insecure and threathened an organisation is feminisim that they objected to an all boys group such as scouts.
It saddens me that even such an organisation had to bow to feminist pressure and largely without a murmur from any male commentator.
I reguraly read stories to my 4 year old nephew.
current childrens publications are shockingly polittically correct.
Any boys books about firemen or soldiers etc invaribly have to be gender diverse with firewomen and service women.
How does this happen without being higly organised by someone?
One particular journalist I personally notice of being misandric,writes every sunday for the Observer.
I dont know if I should mention her name.
Anyway,out of curiosity ,I usually glance at her articles to see how far I will get before she liberaly uses the word misoginistic.It varies but always appears.
The said jurno will take 3 men on average weekly and base 3 misandric articles around their male views,behaviour,characteristics all of which she believes are a crime against women in general and probably should be classed as criminal.Any opinion any man expresses that may be contrary to feminist dogma is criticed and appears to me to be criticised based solely on the fact that it is a mans opinion regardless of the merits of the argument.
For a such a respected broadsheet as the Observer,it never ceases to amaze and shock me that she is allowed to print and air such views.
But unfortunatley such attacks on anything male,masculine or macho are the rule rather than the exception now.
And it appears to be quite legal.
Just a follow up re The Scouts
Last Fri 15th April,the Today programme BBC radio 4 had an item about a landmark acheivement for the Scouting Assocation.
I interpreted it as being presented as a cause for celebration.Mabey I am wrong.Nevertheless.
The piece interviewed a scout leader,female,a scout,female and a Girl Guides leader ,obviusly female as Guides are single sex.
The genesis being that there are now more girl scouts than boy scouts in the Scouting association in the UK.Horray.
The female scout and leader were very proud of that fact.
The female Guide leader was asked if she had any concern about this situation as it might result in a decline in Guide membership.
On the contrary she said.Membership of the single sex Guides was holding up.She felt it was important for young girls to be able to join an association where girls had space to be girls and do girls things in an all girl environment.
James Naughty or Evan Davis didnt see the need to question the inequality in any of this.As far as the BBC were concerened it is a cause for celebration that the Scouting Assocation is now no more a boys only space but is now even more female than male.
An landmark acheivement for the feminist movement.
Not only do boys have to share their Scouting space but they must not have a boys only space similar to the Guides girl only space.That wouldnt be fair ,now would it?
I guess if I were a femenist zealot I would mabey toast such an acheivement.
Im not a feminist.
Im a man and it saddens me that even an organisation as benign as the Scouts is bullied into conforming to feminist dogma and the result of such bullying is celebrated on a flagship programme as The Today programme broadcast by the National Broacaster and nobody raises even an eyebrow of at least curiosity.
I saw a headline recently which said that “three people died” in an accident. I knew straight away that the fatalities were male, as the headline would have highlighted any female involvement. It should not be the case that there is only ever an emphasis on females being hurt or killed. Male lives are just as important as female lives. It is sad that I should have to state this in the year 2011.
Actually I read a brochure from the DVD rental shop that said (in relation to Saving Private Ryan)something like “the men and women that stormed Omaha beach” or words to that effect. This was several years ago, the future is already here.
Politically correct distortions are passively accepted even when they contradict themselves. For example,women cannot have been ‘excluded from combat’ and have fought the wars in comparable proportions to men at the same time. It’s logically impossible to reconcile the two beliefs but people do in surreal fashion. I went stark raving mad because I thought I was the only person to notice this sort of thing.