Anonymous wrote:Actually, society has never been as demeaning of men as it is now. Watch commercials sometime. White man is always the loser/chump. White men are also those who pretty much do everything productive in this country.

White men excel at almost everything, including murder and, as we see above, whining and feeling sorry for ourselves.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, society has never been as demeaning of men as it is now. Watch commercials sometime. White man is always the loser/chump. White men are also those who pretty much do everything productive in this country.

Wow, this is the most frightening post on this thread!! Instead of watching commercials and feeling like a loser try reading or something else worthwhile, because is it clearly not as productive as you think!

Actually, society has never been as demeaning of men as it is now. Watch commercials sometime. White man is always the loser/chump. White men are also those who pretty much do everything productive in this country.

This one includes samples of the language

http://jezebel.com/5866602/can-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-mens-magazine-and-a-rapist

I heard a guy who was in prison for assault say that bad men do to women what good men want to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't make head or tail of this article? Why didn't they provide examples of the comments so that we could just read them and decide what we thought of them?

How hard is it for you to read a one-page article?

jeez

Uh, I did. My point is that they provided no illustration of the offensive language. So the study could prove that lad mags are horrible, or it could prove that the rapists are fairly ordinary in their comments toward women in a magazine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't make head or tail of this article? Why didn't they provide examples of the comments so that we could just read them and decide what we thought of them?

How hard is it for you to read a one-page article?

jeez

if you thought that was a good article to read, then you are lacking brain cells. The article is poorly written to describe what is in all likelihood a poorly written "scientific" article. PP^^ above illustrates good reasoning why the research may provide very little to the conversation on "misogyny"

Anonymous wrote:I can't make head or tail of this article? Why didn't they provide examples of the comments so that we could just read them and decide what we thought of them?

How hard is it for you to read a one-page article?

jeez

the article does not address anything about confounding factors, such as context in which statements were pulled or if they were only provided as brief snippets from magazines and sex offender testimony. If I had to bet, you could take snippets from a women's sexual liberation book from your local hippie bookstore and pull quotes out of there too that the casual observer would not be able to distinguish from the sex offender statements.

It brings to light a very important issue that exists in our printed magazines-- but you also need to explore the deeper context in how people interpret something found in a "male" magazine versus the testimony of known criminals.

You could draw a correlation to the way kids kill other people on combat video games and the way a soldier would recount stories of combat. It might be very hard to distinguish which story is from a game and which is real life, especially since kids often talk about getting "head shots", etc... A lot of how we interpret and understand things has to do with context, and there is no discussion of this in the article.

Anonymous wrote:I can't make head or tail of this article? Why didn't they provide examples of the comments so that we could just read them and decide what we thought of them?

OP here, yes I wish they had given examples of the language in question.

Basically they took quotes from men's magazines and from sex offenders regarding women. The asked participants to rate the statements according to various criteria. Participants were unable to distinguish the sex offender's characterizations of women from those of men's magazines. The point being that mainstream media are objectifying women and blurring the lines between what is a normal sexual characterization of women, and what is misgynistic. Participants can't tell if a rapist is objectifying women or Maxim is.

I can't make head or tail of this article? Why didn't they provide examples of the comments so that we could just read them and decide what we thought of them?

Can you summarize please?