Hey DU! Quit massaging the misogyny RE: missing persons in media

Ok folks, is this more demonization of women or merely puffed-up, self-righteous reverse racism?

First of all, the sentiment may be anecdotal, but the fact that this is not true and can’t be proven makes it Lounge talk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3944561

“Did anybody know they were missing? They weren't cute white girls”

from a recent thread echoing this crapaganda:
"To be blunt, blond white chicks who go missing get covered and poor, black, Hispanic or other people of color who go missing do not get covered," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism. "You're more likely to get coverage if you're attractive than if you're not."

If you want to criticize media coverage of missing persons, go ahead. It does not help your argument to hold up “blonde, white chicks” or “cute white girls” in digital lynching, a new version of “blame the victim.” WHY ARE YOU MAKING ANGLO WOMEN THE ENEMY? You wan't to clean up media? Don't wipe the floor with women.

It is so short-sighted and divisive, and so COMPLETELY avoids any of the real issues involved in missing persons cases and media sensationalism, that we wonder: WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? Are you sure you haven’t been freeped? Is this meme an infiltration from the Rush Limbaugh Pool of Cess? Then it gets repeated in posts and thread titles on DU and the slimefest ensues.

DU has a set of Rules based on “respect.” Have the courage to address the issue of racism in the media without propping up your arguments on the backs of women who have been demonized and humiliated enough already.

THIS HAS NO PLACE ON DU. Quit repeating a new bumpersticker of hate speech. It’s just lazy.

Sometimes the rhetoric might have been a bit OTT but it's a valid criticism of the MSM's selective reporting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There was a discussion awhile back where someone mentioned an article that seemed to put this phenomena (woman gone missing stories) in perspective.

It's sort of like the archetype fairy tale with the woman in distress. It also seems like a made for TV movie - the way these things play out - and the attractive victims are in the unwanted starring role.

It's easy to look at the phenomena and see that it is out of whack that pretty white women get all the attention. All I can figure - is if people don't like it - write CNN, etc. and say you want to hear about other victims.

It may very well be that CNN, etc. has done studies and found that this is what they have an audience for and if they talked about other sorts of victims - they wouldn't get the ratings. Not that I consider that a reason to choose one news event over another - but - CNN and all is entertainment news for the most part - you get what you watch. (If enough people stop watching it...)

If you want real news - watch Democracy NOW! or something else.

Good call. Sounds like the cliche-stream media is creating these shiny TV fairy tales and people are predictably pissed. As you say, THEY DON'T HAVE TO WATCH!

When it shows up on DU as a new flavor of vitriol spat at "blonde white chicks"-- it's reinforcing-- not addressing-- the problem.

Are the people who are watching this sort of BS coverage and being manipulated by the (rich, white male) media barons also watching the TV franchises built on the vicitmization and brutalization of these same "blonde white chicks"?

Maybe it's media synergy these folks should go after. The "missing attractive women/cute girl" is a lead-in for the bloody CSI:Anywhere show.

as a news gathering/journalistic entity: Are they here to entertain, or are they here functioning in the established role of the newsgathering media: to inform the public?

Being that the public doesn't own CNN's cable signal, but rents it monthly as part of their cable/dish packages, CNN and other "cable information exchanges" can make reluctant stars out of whomever their news mangers get a hard on over and they don't have to consider any real responsibility to the public for informing the public about shit.

“They were criticizing the media, not the victims.
Sometimes the rhetoric might have been a bit OTT but it's a valid criticism of the MSM's selective reporting.”

Exactly. Criticizing the media by demonizing the victims and “attractive” “blonde” “white women” “cute girls” in general.


“So, now it's evil to point out the racism and misogyny of the media?”

Actually, I said lazy, not evil.

“...my integrity forces me to be accurate and stop at zero. Meritless. Without merit. Idiotic.”

Too bad your “integrity” prevents you from acknowledging that this language is divisive and unecessary. It doesn’t belong on DU.

I do disagree that it's reverse racism -- there is no such thing -- but what has gone on has been entirely inappropriate and just plain wrong.

To wit: JUST BECAUSE the media are crap and focus only on attractive white blond young women while women of color who go missing are ignored, is NO REASON to dismiss or trivialize this white young woman's plight. The sentiments I've seen in MANY threads were so dismissive and trivializing of her that it amounted to, as omega minimo pointed out, a form of misogyny. It's been VERY ugly.

The simple fact is that ALL people who go missing should have the same coverage, which for my taste would amount to a good bit less than Natalee Hammond's disappearance is getting, but still substantial coverage. None of us would want less for our children or loved ones. None of us.

Yeah, see -- even the title of the thread OM linked to is ugly, resentful:

Did anybody know they were missing? They weren't cute white girls.

Yes, I knew they were missing. I saw a number of news reports on MSNBC including desperate pleas by their parents, some of which were repeated in later broadcasts. They did NOT get the coverage Natalee has, but they did get covered, with pix, parents, etc. Further, they got the coverage starting not too long after they went missing (don't remember exactly when, though, but I was pleased and impressed).

Oh, and let's also point out that the "cute white girls" can't help being cute white girls (i.e., were born that way) and also have NO CONTROL over how the media covers their disappearances. The resentfulness shown towards THEM is entirely inappropriate, wrong and basically misogynistic. Another form of blaming the victim, too.

On some level we all feel victimized by people with too much power.
We all want to be heard. And most of us never get a chance.

if I knew what a canard was.

....oh, I looked it up:

"an absurd or exaggerrated report spread as a hoax."

.....and as it turns out, that's what I'm suggesting this ugly meme spat at "blonde white chicks" is. Where is it REALLY coming from? Why is it so prevalent on DU? Is it gonna be like other trash/ing-- one person starts and others just keep throwin it down?

It's understandable that people would get fed up with a media that shows white-bread images of whites predominantly-- that attempts to include people of color still are frequently limited to cliches and THE SAME KIND OF DISMISSIVENESS that women object to.

The great comments here point out that the media is messing with ALL of us. Whatever their image-du-jour to yank those eyeballs from the competition is what they'll show. And now with less and less actual competition, they can indulge in bald-faced brainwashing-- erm, I mean programming-- of the viewers.

If people (and especially DUers) don't appreciate having their chain yanked with hackneyed cliches using women as bait for news stories, they can turn it off; they can do something about it; or they can repeat the memes and perpetuate the cliches that the media barons are repackaging and selling over and over and over.......

This issue is another example of how women are STILL the one group it is okay to denigrate-- so much so that some DUers almost get hit in the noggin as the point goes sailing by their heads.

As I mentioned before, the common use of "anemic" as a slur probably is not noticed by most people, but it feels like it is a slap aimed at me since I spent my formative years being anemic. As a white Christian, I took some umbrage at the Dean comment, but I seemed to be almost alone in that on DU.

Admittedly, I do not see a huge attack here at women. Is the phrase "cute white chicks" offensive? Maybe somewhat, given the connotations of the word "chick". My Oxford desk dictionary defines it as "derogatory slang" but that seems to be from the viewpoint of how women hear it rather than how boys say it.

I am just not seeing the vitriol, nor how "women are STILL the one group it is okay to denigrate". I did not see any denigration, and it seems to me that some people feel quite comfortable here denigrating Christians, males, and whites in general. To twist the meaning, you should "not feel so all alone, everybody must get stoned."

denegrate them, too ;)

Maybe Christians who are offended by the outrage at Wrong Wing fanatics could take their faith back from the hypocrites that have hijacked it-- like their country, economy, and future have been hijacked-- instead of being hurt by liberals who SEEM to lump all Christians into the same boat.

:shrug:

Thanks for bringing some sanity here. I agree that the media sensationalize this stuff, but come on - coded resentment is coded resentment, no matter how many disingenuous arguments the prejudiced throw at you.


The real evidence for misogyny is here, in this quote:

"rom a recent thread echoing this crapaganda:
"To be blunt, blond white chicks who go missing get covered and poor, black, Hispanic or other people of color who go missing do not get covered," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism. "You're more likely to get coverage if you're attractive than if you're not."

:yourock:

Criticizing bias and sensationalism with regard to crime victims is all well and good, but this quote is revealing: "you're more likely to get coverage if you're attractive". What is the issue here - sex appeal, or ethnicity? Because the way people address the issue, it isn't really clear, and it comes dangerously close to: "she was an attractive bitch and is therefore a less sympathetic victim". Let's stay on topic here. Media bias = fine. Bashing female victims for being "attractive" = misogyny, sensationalism and covert victim-blaming.

I'll note that the black woman who disappeared was also quite attractive. However, she is not identified as such in these discussions.

First, I think the overplay such stories get plays into misogynistic fantasies about the helplessness of women. And if it's true that the disappearance of an attractive woman gets more play than the disappearance of an unattractive woman, then that makes the misogyny of the coverage even more apparent, b/c it equates the victim's worth with her beauty. I find that to be a form of misogyny, and I think that whether or not the media engages in this kind of subtle undercurrent to be a valid topic of discussion. And while some of the rhetoric in that topic might have gone over the top (I didn't see much myself, but I've been away a lot), merely speculating that a victim is attractive and that that might increase the media "concern" for her isn't necessarily an attack on her.

Another view, a different angle. Thank you.

Seems it depends on what the meaning of "over the top" is.......

The flippant flippers know who they are.

I can't even think of anything else to add. You've summed up my feelings on this nicely.

. . .by pointing out that minorities do not get the same media coverage when they go missing? If you are going to use my thread to point out misogyny, or reverse racism then you need to back that shit up. I just pointed out what many people notice and NEVER ONCE did I trivialize other tragedies. . .some people don't know how to handle uncomfortable truths.

Spotlight skips cases of missing minorities
by Mark Memmott
USA Today
Originally posted 6/23/2005

Tamika Huston's family reported her missing a year ago.

When police in Spartanburg, S.C., began investigating the 24-year-old woman's disappearance, her loved ones swung into action. They distributed fliers, held news conferences and set up a Web site. Huston's story became a cause célèbre in the local media.

Huston lived alone and obviously hadn't been home for days, if not a week or two. Her dog, Macy, had given birth to puppies.

Rebkah Howard, Huston's aunt and a public relations professional in Miami, tried to get the national media interested in the case. ''I spent three weeks calling the cable networks, calling newspapers — even yours,'' Howard said this week.

Not much happened.
-snip-

Woods and others say the media misleads the public about ''typical'' victims. FBI statistics show that men are slightly more likely than women to be reported as missing, and that Blacks make up a disproportionately large segment of the victims. As of May 1, there were 25,389 men in the FBI's database of active missing persons cases, and 22,200 cases of women. Blacks accounted for 13,860 cases, vs. 29,383 whites.
-snip-

http://thebirminghamtimes.com/News/article/article.asp?NewsID=58617&sID=4

minorities and other down and outers-such as the women of the night in the Peoria area- do not sell soap.that`s my humble observation in my 45 years of media. local news may cover disappearances but nationally it all "where`s the white women?"

Tell me where the fuck there is any reverse racism or misogyny in my thread. If you are going to make that accusation back that shit up! Pointing out that minority vicitims don't get the same coverage as white women may make you uncomfortable, BUT IT IS NO FUCKING WAY RACIST OR MISOGYNISTIC.

Part of the reason we have so many damned problems right now is because we cannot have honest and frank discussions.

If you are going to make the damn accusation. . .then back it the fuck up!

Was that your thread? I'm sorry, I didn't even notice. This thread was clearly to DU in general, as suggested by the title: "Hey DU!" If you feel a big finger pointed at you personally, I apologize.

For your questions:
"Is pointing out media bias misogyny? And how was Natalee trivialized. . ..by pointing out that minorities do not get the same media coverage when they go missing?"

....I invite you to reread the posts above. See what you think. "That shit" has already been backed up by several of us.

Your hostility reflects that this subject makes you uncomfortable:
" . .some people don't know how to handle uncomfortable truths."

"Part of the reason we have so many damned problems right now is because we cannot have honest and frank discussions."

I agree. That's why we are discussing this. BECAUSE SEXIST BIGOTRY IS A DIVISIVE DISTRACTION FROM THE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE WANT TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH AT DU instead of getting smacked in the eyeballs with slurs every time we open a thread.

The less you use cliches that divide and demonize people, the better it will be for whatever your issues are.

Thank you

Sort of like using a thread that was not misogynistic to make an argument that there is misogyny on DU.

Many on DU cannot handle the truth about the racism that still exists in America, and sad to say, on this very message board. Just visit the African American group and you will see just how many of us are made to feel when we point out some pretty obvious things about how minorities are viewed and treated.

to the aggressive, hostile "fuck/shit" guy than the people here who are actually discussing the issue/s (racism being one of them)?

It would be great if you would reread our comments without assuming that we are blind to the racist aspect of this. See if you understand that sexist bigotry against women is as seamlessly embedded in this society as racist bigotry is. So much so that:

"Unfortunately...Many on DU cannot handle the truth about the SEXISM that still exists in America, and sad to say, on this very message board."


edit on edit:
redundant from above:

"If you want to criticize media coverage of missing persons, go ahead. It does not help your argument to hold up “blonde, white chicks” or “cute white girls” in digital lynching, a new version of “blame the victim.” WHY ARE YOU MAKING ANGLO WOMEN THE ENEMY? You wan't to clean up media? Don't wipe the floor with women.

Have the courage to address the issue of racism in the media without propping up your arguments on the backs of women who have been demonized and humiliated enough already.
THIS HAS NO PLACE ON DU. Quit repeating a new bumpersticker of hate speech. It’s just lazy."

. . .the thread that was used to make your point. . .where is the sexism. POINT IT OUT! You have yet to back up your accusation.

after you calm down and READ WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED.

Please indicate that your comprehension of our points has more than "zero merit."

:hi:

. . .you are not answering question. What about the my thread was misogynistic? LOL Come point it out.

that can be addressed directly, without buying into and REINFORCING the very cliches that Big Media is using to manipulate the public. Right?

Your post was straightforward and simple. The title on the GD page jumped out with the new catchphrase (and inferred dis) “They weren’t cute white girls.” If you want to argue whether you intended the dis, or merely repeated the latest buzz, or even that you “just” were saying what it is....please read the previous posts and see what you think. You still have not indicated whether you have read anything here or have any interest beyond hurt pride.

My post was general, included other examples of an ongoing trend at DU and was addressed to the general community. I apologized if you felt fingered. If I accused you of anything, it was “massaging.”

If you hear nothing else, please consider this:

Demonizing white women on DU serves to divide the folks who need to focus on Big Media and the damage it does. Divide and conquer. It blames the victim and lets the perpetrators off the hook.

. . .so please save your tired lectures for someone who meant ill towards white women. You are the one accussing me of demonizing white women, but I did not. . .LOL

but your continuous insults show that you aren't.

I accused YOU of nothing and you know it. You are so fixated on yourself that you can't see the big picture.

Maybe one of the reasons that some people don't get this concept is their blind pride (and pride in being blind) is all that matters to them.

The cliche demonizes women, whether you understand that or not. You don't even know where this came from, do you? You're just regurgitating the shit the media fed you.

:kick:

. . .this is getting silly. . .you keep moving the bar. You know I never insulted anyone. . .you are looking for something that does not exist.

EVER


:rofl:


(it's the "bar" that doesn't exist, dude)

n/t

or read the thread

Your choice

This was never directed at WC, it was generalized quite clearly, and for those who missed it, I explained that to WC and apologized for any miffed feelings.

Here ya go:
:hug:

and you're looking kinda silly, especially with your overbearing demands about proving what has already been elucidated but YOU cannot see.

There's a superb post downthread which lays the problem with that attitude of yours and others even better. In fact "perfectly," is the way I described it. Very astute.

I'll explain it briefly: your RESENTMENT of women who have been victimized and happen to be white (so they get more media coverage) is ill-placed and bascially misogynist, whether you understand or want to acknowledge it or not. Read the downthread post (if you haven't): the resentment is misplaced and belongs with the media.

OR, here's an analogy. What if I were to complain and express resentment that all the media coverage of discrimination in American centers on discrimination against African Americans and women don't get nearly as much attention or media coverage? And they CERTAINLY don't get the same level of understanding of what constitutes discrimination and sexism as what is commonly -- and widely -- understood as racism. So I start a thread that subtly expresses my resentment of blacks getting all that media coverage. It's an analogy, so don't go off arguing with it. I happen to think that racism is very POORLY covered in Corporate media. And so is sexism. I also believe it's all of a piece -- racism and sexism and homophobia are simply different facets of the same ugly beast, the same manipulative ways they keep us ALL oppressed and we HAVE to find ways to work together to fight our common enemy, which won't happen until everyone understands the dynamics and becomes willing to give up their racism, sexism and homophobia -- instead of defending their personal brands of it.

of the brutes, the vulnerability and neediness they feel and the huge blind spot they are handicapped with. The inability to relate to a point of view outside their own experience. The shock and disbelief at the suggestion that it's Not All About Them.

:hug:

I can't see how pointing out that the media focuses on missing people who are young, white and female, as opposed to the many other missing person cases they ignore, as being sexist or racist. It seems that the post you cited is pointing out the sexism and racism of the media as well as their creepy tendency to play to the titillating, (unspoken) sexual aspect of it.

Was it the language of the post you objected to? Or just having the fact pointed out? Or do you disagree that the media does this?

"smirkymonkey (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-25-05 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. Thank you for seeing the point.
It's not that anyone is disagreeing that the REPORTING is unfair - it is, as usual.
It's the fact that the hostility seems to be directed toward the women themselves instead of toward the bias in the media."

Please see also: #26, #44 and #55

"It's the fact that the hostility seems to be directed toward the women themselves instead of toward the bias in the media."


Would you please give me a quote from the linked thread where the hostility seems to be directed toward the women themselves instead of toward the bias in the media? I've run into this several times from different posters here lately. Every time I have asked for a quote, and to date none of them have provided one. They just keep saying my inability to see it for myself makes me misogynist.

There are times when I am unable to understand why something I say offends. In fact, most times I offend a Conservative, I had no idea it would offend him/her and do not understand their being offended even when they explain it to me. But it would be nice to at least know what has offended the person even if I won't understand.

their own perceptions.

Are you saying that you agree with wndycty that the media usually over-sensationalizes stories of missing white women or girls to the exclusion of those who aren't white and female BUT you just don't agree with the language wndycty used?

What language would be better in pointing out the sexism and racism behind the media's obsession with these stories? Is it okay to point it out but not with such obvious disgust/sarcasm/bluntness/cynicism as the poster used?

I am missing the point as well.

Call them mysoginistic, fail to respond to a direct and well intentioned challenge to your own misperceptions and bigotry and then tell that person to calm down.

I think you need to take a long look in your own mirror, find that beam hiding there in your eye and then come back to help us find the mote in our eyes.

Are you upset that the media only seems interested in missing white girls or are you upset that people are pointing out the media only seems interested in missing white girls? What exactly are people who have noticed this trend supposed to say, "The media is focusing on another person that's not a minority and that is not male and that is not ugly and that is not poor?"

I'll assume the last couple of paragraphs were directed at someone else, because they have nothing to do with what I posted.

“What exactly are people who have noticed this trend supposed to say”?

Yes, we need to identify this and address it. What is being objected to here is the CREATION of a new buzzphrase that shows up on DU and is offensive/divisive.

DU has enough problems with offensive posts that slur women. Why add more?

Trying to be more clear and to identify the issues (without kneejerk cliches) can help in addressing them.

Someone on the thread linked in the OP suggested that another person could be more selective about their news sources and avoid a lot of the frustration with this media imbalance. Those of us who already DO that didn’t know this was a THING until it started appearing on DU in the form of ugly posts and thread titles like:

“Are ugly/older women safer than attractive women?” (title)

"To be blunt, blond white chicks who go missing get covered” (title)

"You're more likely to get coverage if you're attractive than if you're not." (post quote from potentially bullshit article source) (so, the question about whether this whole trend was freeped).

“...until the next dying, blonde white woman story comes along.”

etc. etc. etc.... This Is Bullshit.

You see enough of these posts and you know there’s some hornets nest been stirred up. You see enough of these and you know that This Language Is Derisive Of Women.

We can agree that the media is imbalanced in coverage. I also suggested that EVERYONE’S chain is being yanked and several of us here pointed out it’s the same old same old reason-- TO SELL THINGS.

A classic and painful example of the issues-- media vampirism (no offense to vampires and those who love them) and Repug Fanatic hypocrisy-- was the case of Sun Hudson. A 6 month old African-American boy was removed from a respirator in Texas. His life was ended-- against the wishes of his family-- because they could not pay for treatment!! Doctors took Sun off the respirator while the Terri Schiavo fiasco was going on.

You asked:
“Are you upset that the media only seems interested in missing white girls or are you upset that people are pointing out the media only seems interested in missing white girls?”

Other: To create and reinforce new bigoted memes about “white/blonde/women/girls/chicks” etc. infers that THEY are the problem or somehow UNWORTHY of the attention; AND it deflects attention from the larger issues and the PERPETRATORS. We can discuss this without littering DU with NEW soundbites that direct sex/class/race resentment at women!


Which is why I smell a rat-- unless someone tells me where this trend started, I figger it was born in some Repug’s undisclosed location.

I agree with you but have not been able to verbalize my frustration with this issue as well as you have. There are many of us here who agree with you.

As usual, it's the misogynists who are screaming the loudest. They take it personally because they recognize themselves as the accused.

How odd.

People are making anglo women the enemy? What a meritless conjecture.

People are making the media the enemy for focusing on white, cute girls at the expense of non-white, non-cute, non-girls. I see no one blaming the victims.

Sheesh.

Your point has zero merit in my opinion.

. . .since my thread was used to make that weak ass argument I am awaiting evidence of my blaming the victim or makeing white women the enemy.

so that media attention will be drawn away from non-white non-women.

And when I say are being abducted, I mean "being abducted willingly by their own choice".

I'm sure all those were, in fact, setups.

:sarcasm:

What are you talking about. This is a criticism of the media, not some wild conspiracy . . .go ahead, trivialize the argument if you wish.

Should have added the sarcasm sign.

Sorry!

Is how some feel resentful of women because of what the media is doing.

And then it's seems people defend being resentful of women because of what the media is doing.

Why not just be mad at the media - instead of the women. :shrug:



The OP probably already said - the women didn't ask to be victims. To be murdered, kidnapped, raped, etc. There is no reason to be mad at them.

It's an odd thing that a few, particular, singled out women have greater access to resources when they become a victim (a lot of good it does them if they are dead). But not necessarily otherwise.

I guess that's the issue. Some see it as these chosen few have a greater access to resources. Some of us see it as - they are still victims (and it's not a reason to resent women).

I agree that every victim should be equally treated, equally searched for, equally mourned. Whether the news is local or national. I think it would be better for everyone. But it's not necessarily (or probably) women making the decisions of which people to feature - so why be mad at them?


"there are 47842 active missing adult cases"

http://www.theyaremissed.org/ncma/

Cliches take on a life of their own. We don't need some dumb code for "lucky victim chicks" to be the focus.

Where's the concern for CSI and their clones on TV showing unimaginable brutality perpetrated on women by men every night of the week, for entertainment? Boy, us girls sure are special, sheltered and privileged! :sarcasm: The tag line for some new show is "faces sliced off hands degloved." :wtf:

It's not that anyone is disagreeing that the REPORTING is unfair - it is, as usual.

It's the fact that the hostility seems to be directed toward the women themselves instead of toward the bias in the media.

especially about access to resources.

I've seen so much resentment of Natalee here at DU -- by men and women too -- that it just astounds me. It's hurtful too. She didn't ask to be white, she didn't ask to be blond, or attractive, and no matter what she did that night, she also didn't ask to be (probably) murdered and who knows what she endured before that. AND, as you so beautifully point out, what the media does about her disappearance is totally beyond her control. NONE of that is her fault. So skip all the damn resentment, or at least direct it to the places where it belong (hint: corporate media).

Some of us ache and mourn that our sisters of color, and our brothers of all colors, aren't treated equally. But that too is no reason to resent Natalee. As I've said before, if you were her parents, or the parents of any missing child (of any age), you damn well would be hot to get precisely the media coverage she's getting if not MORE.

That's my position: they ALL -- children, women, men, of all colors, ages, shapes and sizes -- should get in-depth, appropriate coverage on ALL the corporate media.

more putting too much thought into verbage and vocabulary and not enough into substance.

How about dealing with the issue besides somebodies style?

Yeah, when I use the word 'chick' I'm oppressing females and if it doesn't stop wife selling is just around the corner. :eyes:

that are manipulating people and packaging the "news"? Maybe you can tell us where this drumbeat against "attractive white women" started. Hmmm?

"How about dealing with the issue besides somebodies style?"

EXACTLY!! Why not get rid of all the "style" that is derogatory and bigoted so we can get on to other ISSUES!?! Together.

Oh the irony.

Jay

:evilgrin:




My conscience is clear

"Big Bidness"?

participating in the delay and/or erosion of their equality, their status and particupation in the world.

Of course, for you to CARE about that, you have to be willing for us to BE equal. Your use of the term, and especially your defense of it, shows me that you are not.

Nice try with a stupid strawman argument. You may not see wife selling in our future, but you'll help keep us unequally paid, waling a tightrope re reproductive rights, bumping our heads against the glass ceiling which is so firmly in place, mourning that Indy racing execs feel so damn free to insult talented and professional female racers who set records, fending off sexual harrassment and dealing with the an, domestic abuse and so forth. You may like to think to yourself that since selling wives seems SO unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, you are perfectly entitled to keep your woman-demeaning language. It's a lie. It's a lie you tell yourself. You are entitled to speak derisively of women ONLY if you're willing to continue to see us less than equal in ways that literally mean life and death to some women every single day, and mean lesser lives to pretty much all the rest of us every day.

And of course, why would you be interested in our equality? What's in it for you? Nothing. Nothing, that is, except your self-respect.

Anglo women the enemy they are just pointing out media bias. I've even heard a RW radio show pointing out this bias and disapproving of it, and I agree. No censorship please. No telling people not to post this or compare Bush with that. If you disagree, get on the thread and do so.

There are many great comments on this thread-- it’s unfortunate, if you read it, that you still think we are calling for “censorship.”

As for "if you disagree, get on the thread and do so" : unfortunately-- bigotry is associated with ignorance. If we see bigotry whether it is racial or sexist or ____, the interest in the thread gets lost. I looked at that thread and found folks so worked up about the racist aspects they are blind to the sexist aspect. One person with a professional media background offered ideas about selectively injesting MSM-- and was soundly and sanctimoniously trounced. Why bother?

This is why I advocate a reduction in disrespectful language that divides people and prevents solution-building. My position is consistent with DU Rules and Goals. The opposite is not.

You mention RW radio. I still suspect that this whole “media bias favors pretty white girls” bone was tossed by the Wrong Wing. No one seems to have come up with where this came from. DUers are left to spend time in tug-o-war over it, or accept it’s absorption into the DU bloodstream-- which I OP’d to point out and challenge.

As for “just” pointing out media bias it was said well in the first reply:

“Kipling
1. They were criticizing the media, not the victims.
Sometimes the rhetoric might have been a bit OTT but it's a valid criticism of the MSM's selective reporting.”

--So we are left to disagree about the impacts of Over The Top. We are left asking WHY ADOPT THE RHETORIC AND IMAGERY OF THE BIG MEDIA MANIPULATORS THAT ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEM WITH THE RHETORIC AND IMAGERY?

“bloom
3. Thanks
....It's sort of like the archetype fairy tale with the woman in distress. It also seems like a made for TV movie - the way these things play out - and the attractive victims are in the unwanted starring role....It may very well be that CNN, etc. has done studies and found that this is what they have an audience for and if they talked about other sorts of victims - they wouldn't get the ratings.”

--so female victims are victimized by an insatiable media machine and victimized again by critics who blame them for getting attention-- for being victims. :crazy:

“Eloriel
5. Thank you and well said
To wit: JUST BECAUSE the media are crap and focus only on attractive white blond young women while women of color who go missing are ignored, is NO REASON to dismiss or trivialize this white young woman's plight. The sentiments I've seen in MANY threads were so dismissive and trivializing of her that it amounted to, as omega minimo pointed out, a form of misogyny. It's been VERY ugly. resentful”

--Resentment, dismissal and trivialization
The three-pronged standard of the Great Gods who guard the Sacred Cavern of Webeneanderthalsifwewanttodammit.
:rofl:

“undergroundpanther
8. Maybe On some level we all feel victimized by people with too much power. We all want to be heard. And most of us never get a chance.”

--You said it, panther

“bloom
24. One thing that it seems that some people are not getting Is how some feel resentful of women because of what the media is doing. And then it's seems people defend being resentful of women because of what the media is doing. Why not just be mad at the media - instead of the women.”

--Excuse me, did you say, "Why not just be mad at the media - instead of the women.”

There is a difference b/w “pointing out” the bias and reinforcing it by adopting-- and sensationalizing!!!!!-- the same biased cliches. Divisive language impedes progress, on DU and beyond. (That's why Big Media is so dependent on it). DU is a place that we could respectfully listen to each other’s ideas and learn something. As you can see, there is a lot of wisdom in these folks, who may disappear and not “If you disagree, get on the thread and do so.” The DU brain trust is the lesser for it.

Cheers, MM :hi:

is that I did voice my concern on a thread where the poster was resentful of women, and HE told me to get off that thread - because he didn't want to hear about it - his minimizing of women.

I hope they find the girl alive but the coverage HERE has been ridiculous. People sitting around in their living rooms in the US have no f'ing idea what happened to this young woman.

Here's a few points for you to consider:

1. The captive mainstream media is in the business of telling Americans what to think, see, hear, and buy.

2. Most viewers of American television are white...not Black, not Hispanic, not Native American...but white.

3. That means that most sponsors of American television are gering their advertising toward white Americans.

4. That also means that American news is geared toward reporting news that will be meaningful primarily to their mostly white viewers.

5. And one of the methods they use to maintain their control over their mostly white American viewers is by featuring white victims of crime, not minority victims of crime.

The bottom-line here is that criticisms are being launched by DUers at the MEDIA for the way THEY present the news. This has NOTHING to do with the "demonization of women or merely puffed-up, self-righteous reverse racism"...not even close.

You understand the issues. So you probably understand there's a difference b/w criticizing Big Media and repeating the mistakes they make.

Maybe you can identify where the "dying white woman," "blonde white chicks," "cute white girls" shite originated and how it infiltrated DU. It's not spontaneous expression-- it is obviously a meme being broadcast and repeated. LIke bloody DITTOHEADS.

Just as we have choices in media consumption, we choose whether we communicate in mindless soundbites or more consciously.

Sexist mindless soundbites being more problematic...

Maybe you can identify where the "dying white woman," "blonde white chicks," "cute white girls" shite originated and how it infiltrated DU. It's not spontaneous expression-- it is obviously a meme being broadcast and repeated. LIke bloody DITTOHEADS.

And does it boil down to the term 'chicks' and 'blonde'? Just trying to grasp the overall and root problems you see here (not flaming, just asking).

Well, let's see.

Imagine if there was another sub-group that suddenly got a lot of attention in the media, maybe more than they "deserved" relatively speaking. Maybe people are tired of hearing about ____ _____ _____ when all sorts of other things are going on and being un(der)reported. Maybe people think Big Media is "selling soap" as someone put it up above-- and they're sick of the cynicism and chain-jerking. And maybe DUers are discussing all this, outraged! and the posts start appearing; the descriptions become slogans, the shorthand becomes slurs against the subject of the stories, rather than the Big Media that is cynically jerking the chains.

This sub-group could be the unfortunate victims of medical malpractice or unsafe medications-- that would be the issue to discuss, not whether this sub-group was given more attention than others because of their social status.

And if their condition resulted in disability, there would be even more issues to discuss, and even more potential for demonizing people with similar conditions, once the focus was fully on Why are these people so damn special anyway?

What if those people weren't "blonde white chicks".........what if they were "blind limp dicks" who had taken Viagra and lost their sight?

Does that help?

:wow:

Thanks for being #3-- ("not flaming, just asking")

Still not clear if you are upset by the terms people are using or by the discussion in general of women in the media and people here complaining about the coverage of women (ie, how they are portrayed, why, and so on).

Can you spell out for an idiot like me, point by point, exactly the things which are upsetting to you? My guesses:

1. The terms poster(s) use to refer to women (ala chicks, et al)

2. Some posters are referencing stories about women and slighting those stories because of factors like race whereas the factor of sex is more or equally important - ie, a victim is a victim and some coverage of women's issues is better then none.

3. The terms describing women, like blonde, are irrelevant and using such terms distract from the core of the story - such terms are insensitive and do nothing for the story.

Again, I am really trying to grasp this. I may end up disagreeing on it all, but I am not sure at this point what I agree with or disagree with :)

everyone in the answer to your question. It's personal. There are a lot of voices and great input here. Actually, it has been made clear. And you are obviously not an "idiot."

"Blind Limp Dicks." My little allegory. "Blind Limp Dicks." "Blind Limp Dicks" here, there, everywhere.

You scan the GDP Forum. DSM, Rovespeak, Conyers, Black Box voting, Blind Limp Dicks, Global warming... what's wrong with this picture?

You're reading through comments in an expanded thread about Big Media burying the DSM story and up pops Blind Limp Dicks. "Yeah, it's not like they're Blind Limp Dicks." "Some guy took too much Viagra and poked his own eye out." Heh heh heh heh. Heh.

Perusing GD choices and in your face, "Are Blind Limp Dicks safer than Real Men?"

So, anyway, thanks for the Creative Writing exercise. This thread is redundant to the point of redundancy and I think if you re-read the various comments, you will be able to "grasp" it.

I will say AGAIN that IMHO folks are getting upset by Big Media bullshit that they could just turn off and not support.

Whereas if I come to DU for good information and potential discussion, I don't appreciate getting smacked in the eye by blind, limp dicks.

Have not watched since 1/1/2005 except on rare occassions. In fact, tv is so rare to me I cannot hardly name one show on except csi (because the folks at work refer to me as some detective on it, grisholm I think it is) and american idol which my brother watches and I see everywhere I turn (like the drive thru which has dvd's of - never seen it, don't care to).

As far as the Blind Limp Dicks things, that would not bother me if it were the case of course :) I agree that people can just turn off MSM, I sure did and have not missed it at all. Seems all fluff and little substance (I tried to watch it tonight while eating, but was terribly boring. Toss me the facts and move on to next story please).

As far as women and the news goes, not sure what to make of all this fuss. I read news from all states (local paper and tv stations) and I see a lot of news on women, and men, of all races. Who cares what the MSM shows? They cannot touch 1/100th of all news and with all the time they waste I can go through all news sources of one state in the same amount of time they cover one runaway bride.

I detest MSM, which is why I am online, here at DU, and looking at www.usnpl.com and other sites.

Again, I might be dense and not fully grasping your posts, but it sure is nice to get your thoughts and input on it all!

What we're really talking about, and people are outraged by, is all the distractions perpetrated on the public by Big Media. On DU we don't need the distraction of language that disrespects women. It's difficult for some men to get the concept-- yet they know better than to use racist language that will get yanked by the mods in a flash.

The DU Rules are clear on what is allowed and what isn't. Violators disrupt the process, where people like us, who may be quite different, can communicate with each other about common concerns.

Yet sexist shite shows up all the time. We're sick of it. IT'S UNAVOIDABLE. People leave because of it. Which is why I focused comment on recent recurrence of NEW flippant, put-downs of women.

It seems Big Media concocted this "controversy" over its own coverage of Very Special Victims to distract from the recent actual controversies that reached mainstream public awareness (finally):

Media complicity in catapulting Bushco's lies and bogus war coverage

Media complicity in burying the Downing Street Minutes story and coverage of the Conyer's Basement Hearing

Public disgust over media complicity in the Repug exploitation of Terri Schiavo (another Very Special Victim)

Release of the McCain report on the bogus Ohio election, which Big Media participated in perpetrating on the U.S.

Media reports of Bush poll numbers in the crapper and admissions that Bushwar II is "unwinnable."

And what else? Another Very Special Victim oversaturated coverage and reports about how the coverage is oversaturated.
...................

"I don't appreciate getting smacked in the eye by blind, limp dicks."

There's no such thing as "reverse sexism" :rofl:

Get with the program - "are you now, or have you ever been, a sexist?"

it depends on who is persecu....I mean prose...let's see....it depends on who is asking, yea that's it who is asking.

Is that supposed to be whom is asking? I can never keep that straight and I don't want the grammar police after me.

The Koran says that a husband should beat his wife when she does not
follow his orders. The religion is tremendously misogynistic, as any
observer of islamic culture can profess. So if you're a purist, then
i look forward to hearing you rightfully come down against misogyny
in all its forms.

Are you sure about your info?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Where do you get "Why do you respect Islam then?" ? If you have a problem with religion, you're on the wrong thread, maybe the wrong site. As far as I know, other Good Books contain various pronouncements about man's dominion over-- you know-- everything......

Consistency is consistency.
Bigoted sloganeering degrades DU and Democrats.
Focusing on "blonde white chicks" avoids the issues and the perpetrators.

The issue was the media coverage.period.

not the perps, not the victims, not anything else.

Therefore, no religion based on the Bible deserves respect. Unless, of course, one is being inconsistent in order to single out a particular faith...

'Cause, frankly, it's a dumb, tortured argument that people who post snarky comments about media coverage of missing white women are "blaming the victim" and evidence of "reverse racism."

CBS noted in a recent story about the missing Camden boys that they received only a fraction of the news coverage that the Runaway Lunatic and Aruba girl did. The reporter said that racial reasons could not be dismissed. I suppose this means that CBS is practicing "reverse racism."

Misogyny? Gimme a fucking break. Nobody's blaming missing women for being missing. That's just how you spin it, so you can go on some idiotic rant about how there are 'reverse racists' and 'woman haters' on DU.

It is so short-sighted and divisive, and so COMPLETELY avoids any of the real issues involved in missing persons cases and media sensationalism...

Are you kidding me? THE ISSUE IS THE FACT THAT THE MEDIA SENSATIONALIZES STORIES ABOUT MISSING WHITE WOMEN. But you don't want us to mention that they're white, or that they're women.

You want to talk about DU's rules about respect? Okay. I think your twisting of the issue in order to invent evidence of reverse racism and misogyny insults DU's collective intelligence. So why don't you show some respect.

Whenever we try to have this sort of discussion, there is a pattern to the replies. Those who don't get the concept resort to the same tactics:

missing the point and damn proud of it!
dismissive
insulting
hostile
foulmouthed
without saying much of anything (all start to sound the same)

But you have ALMOST gotten the point:
"that people who post snarky <FLIPPANT, DEROGATORY, SEXIST CATCHPHRASES IN> comments about media coverage of missing white women are "blaming the victim"and demonizing women. (BTW "reverse racism was a question raised and discussed above-- maybe you didn't read the thread). If women are saying these flippant derisions are disrespectful, why do you think you know better? Oh, would that be because our opinions don't count? THAT'S WHY WE OBJECT TO LANGUAGE THAT OBJECTIFIES AND TRIVIALIZES WOMEN AND WOMEN'S EXPERIENCE.

And here is the one person out of all the missing-the-point-and-damn-proud-of-it, dismissive, insulting, hostile, foulmouthed without-saying-much-of-anything (all start to sound the same) DUers who knows how to disagree as part of a discussion, rather than an attack. (Thanks Mayberry Machiavelli)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3945852&mesg_id=3948769

You're right about DU's collective intelligence. Bigotry implies ignorance-- unfortunate but true. Belligerence implies fear.

So why don't YOU show some respect.

BTW democracyindanger, if you care about Democracy in danger, you might try to comprehend how divisive sexist bigotry harms the party and the process.

Nighty nite

are blind to pretty white chick privilege.

Think about it.

WE OBJECT TO LANGUAGE THAT OBJECTIFIES AND TRIVIALIZES WOMEN AND WOMEN'S EXPERIENCE.

"Pretty white chick privilege." Subtle, Mongo. Yet, maybe we know more about that than you would. Maybe the so-called "privilege" has aspects you can't imagine. (Including being commodified by your "industry.")

You slyly insert another canard-- down the slippery slope of having it both ways. Pretending not to understand that the slogans are slurs......the resentment is directed at the "privileged" victims.

There are big issues here. The sexist BS gets in the way.

That's it.

What's the prize?

I could use a common vernacular that starts with a "B" for a prize given for being the worst competitor but given the nature of this thread I think I better keep my hole closed.

the word "hole" might be taken as some derogatory orifice bashing.

Sorry, couldn't resist quoting HAL.

Would it be OK if I get more specific about identifying the hole in question? Something like, "Shut my pie hole"?

WE OBJECT TO LANGUAGE THAT OBJECTIFIES AND TRIVIALIZES WOMEN AND WOMEN'S EXPERIENCE.

Posting in ALL CAPS is the internet equivalent of screaming. :rofl:

It was way too subtle, I know. Let me explain.

I'm going to preface this by saying my comments are not directed at you personally. The following is my thoughts on the general gestalt of a few organized posters and contains generalizations. So read the word "you" as a collective generalization, OK?

There's a witch hunt going on now, to expose rampant sexism on DU. It's really got to the point where every rock is overturned and scrutinized with a microscope to find the sexism that you want to find.

This thread and the Git-R-done thread are good examples. Sorry I was late to the party both times, but so it goes.

In this thread - do you not agree that attractive white women who disappear get more coverage than minorities or disadvantaged or ugly people? I really don't think so.

The problem is someone said the word "chick". Yet the word chick appears a bunch in the feminists group, and it's never objected to, unless it's on a shirt that says "no fat chicks" (which btw, is vulgar and sexist). So the word is acceptable, as long as it's spoken by someone in the in group. Perhaps it's more that you don't want to see pretty white chicks portrayed as someone higher in the pecking order of our society. It doesn't fit the victim mentality that is the general gestalt of the group.

The Git-R-Done thread. Daisy and I were out at the register yesterday and she was the one that caught this. (we talk about DU a bunch, but she has her own, much more relaxed cyber life - she really doesn't care to be here much). Anyway, a customer was leaving and he said "take 'er easy".

Now - yes the skit described in the blue collar show was sexist. But the phrase is much older than the show. Take 'er easy, and git 'er done is dialect - not sexism. Unless you want to argue that german and french are sexist languages too because they infer gender to nouns.

It's a new flavor if McCarthyism. The DU gender police where nothing gets taken in context, and every poster is a woman-hating sexist. We're only here to keep you down.

It was way too subtle, apparently.

The blind, limp dick comment above was too dry, as well. Your cronies jumped on it as if I it wasn't MY joke to make. This must be why Admod introduced the :sarcasm: flashcard. Sorry.

Thank you for the preface. I don't know about the Git thread. You could not be more wrong about the "witch hunt." We don't go looking for this shite. We come to DU for good info, solid news, constructive discussion. The sexist shite is EVERYWHERE. Unavoidable.

You aren't real clear on what we're talking about if you think "The problem is someone said the word "chick"."

:wtf: is this supposed to be: "Perhaps it's more that you don't want to see pretty white chicks portrayed as someone higher in the pecking order of our society." :rofl: Waitaminute! Did you say "higher in the pecking order"? :evilfrown: How are brutalized women "higher in the pecking order?" I refrain from referring to your business but.....

"It doesn't fit the victim mentality that is the general gestalt of the group." LOL "Unless you want to argue that german and french are sexist languages too because they infer gender to nouns." :rofl: I'm sorry Mongo, but I think you're battling some imaginary feminist regime envisioned after eating some bad oysters.

"It's a new flavor if McCarthyism. The DU gender police where nothing gets taken in context, and every poster is a woman-hating sexist. We're only here to keep you down."

NOW we have a winner. The magic word that has been missing from this entire discussion---- CONTEXT.

The new derisive cliches about women showed up recently on DU out of context, with little or no reference to the subject of media bias, AS IF it was common knowledge what the issue was.

The new derisive cliches about women showed up out of context in other threads unrelated to the subject of media bias, AS IF it was common knowledge what the cliche referred to.

As for your rock-turning McCarthyism, poor dear Mongo, here's how simple it really is.

DU Rules are very clear about this. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. The expanded version has the details. That's all it takes. No more "witch hunt." More time for other issues.

That's it.

The DUers who are most vehement and defensive about their right to be sexist feel like THEY are victims, they are threatened, they aren't being recognized. Talk about irony.

at the bottom of this thread, I am saddened by this post.

What can one say to a comment like "limp dick comment above"?

This is how easily and quickly credibility is lost on a message board. It's that fragile, and, accordingly, must be handled carefully. To address one poster with respect means you have to address all with respect - it does not mean, I think, that you have to address all posts.

I thought Mongo made some salient points and did it without disrespect and with thoughtfulness.

There are intelligent and considerate (or, as you addressed it to me - I liked that: "consider ate") exchanges here on DU. I have been fortunate to have been part of them. It's unfortunate this thread was not one of them.

in context?

Nuff said.

I thought it was all unfortunate. And, really, there was little or no context. As with so many message boards, it dissolved into raging agendae and sputtering anger.

As I said, unfortunate.

Your cronies jumped on it as if I it wasn't MY joke to make

Wow, I didn't even know I had cronies. But It's a good idea. Anyone wishing to apply for mongo's crumudeon army, please pm me with your resume.

You could not be more wrong about the "witch hunt." We don't go looking for this shite. We come to DU for good info, solid news, constructive discussion. The sexist shite is EVERYWHERE. Unavoidable.

And once the shite is found, a post appears in the feminist group so the posse can spring to action.

Did you say "higher in the pecking order"? :evilfrown: How are brutalized women "higher in the pecking order?"

Well, judging by the difference in media coverage between crimes against white women and minorities - I guess they are. We aren't putting 25% of our young white women in prison, either.

they were joining this conversation:

Well, judging by the difference in media coverage between crimes against white women and minorities - I guess they are. We aren't putting 25% of our young white women in prison, either.

And please include your previous post about white "chick" privilege as well.

There is no argument from any of us that it is unfortunate and unfair and racist to the core that people of color (and men of all colors) are not treated equally by the corporate media.

There is NO reason to accuse US of racism, nor -- and this is SO much more important -- nor is there any reason to seek to divide us by race, to gin up resentment of women and women's issue because of inadequate attention by the corporate media and by society in general to the issues of racism. We are ALL resposible for addressing and seeking to cure the racism AND the sexism AND the homophobia in our society, and here at DU as well, and this kind of post is divisive and damaging to that effort. Please stop with the race baiting. (What's next, lesbian baiting?)

like the "chicks" that make billions of dollars for mostly men - creating pornography for mostly men that you make a living off of.

Those privileges.


You're a riot. :crazy:

The privilege to choose to be exploited for someone else's gain

(Sells a lot of stilettos for the office now, too!)

:yourock:

Nice.

you must have missed that.

that my sisters of color especially but also my brothers are minimized and basically "disappeared" by the Corporate Media -- except, of course, to protray criminals or "welfare cheats" or drug addicts, etc. (It's true, local and national media have a tendency to haul out file tapes of blacks and sometimes Latinos when discussing various types of crime, even when the crimes involved are committed mostly by white men and women.)

Wht you're missing is that WE AGREE that it's wrong of the corporate media to focus on white women -- invariably young, attractive women -- while ignoring women of color and men as well. But that's no reason to be resentful of the victimized young woman which the media is over-focusing on. See post #24 above.

When you can cite an example, then the argument will cease.

:kick:

You may be having a different argument



Actually, when't the last time I saw month-long coverage of a missing non-black women? People have the choice not to watch this crap. Apparently, the rich/powerful/white-owned megamedia is the source for the new DU meme-- "blonde white chicks" and "missing white women" get it ALL.

"Reverse racism" is not the term. This is a new sloganeering campaign against another sub-group-- and it's "okay" cuz their white, cuz their women.

It's great for Big Media cuz it shifts attention away from what they are doing. They make it a racial issue and get people running around in circles, forgetting about the Big Picture.

not for Terri Schiavo?

The argument is the overt RESENTMENT of the white woman involved. It wasn't her doing, ya know? None of it.

No one's arguing that any and all missing black women (and men), of whatever age, and missing children of all ages and sexes and ethnicities, and Hispanics and Asian and so forth shouldn't get appropriate coverage or that Natalee's hasn't been over the top. Just that it's pointless, wrong and misogynist to express so much resentment about the coverage which Natalee didn't exactly arrange for.

I think most the negative vibes emanating from this thread can be traced back to high school.

The lack of sympathy (real or not) attractive white women seem to garner is probably just a leftover feeling of acrimony from the days when those of us who were NOT attractive white women had to put up with attractive white women getting all the breaks in high school.

It was the attractive white women who refused to date the non-jocks or non-preps in high school.

It was the attractive white women who treated the ugly or plain girls in high school so shabbily.

It was the attractive white women who got break after break in high school, flouting the rules, while the ugly or plain boys and girls were punished for minor offenses.

So now, whenever the media seems to dwell overlong on any tragedy surrounding an attractive white woman, many of us (dare I say, most of us?) who were neither the attractive white women or those they dated flash back to our high school days when such attractive white women had the run of the school. We think how nice, how JUST, it would have been back then for these attractive white women to suffer some cruel fate, if only to bring a little bit of harmony back into an unjust universe.

Not that I am bitter.*

Evil Kumquat
____________________________________

*Bitter? Not at all. Even though the contents of this post could be used as a thumb-sucking repellent for toddlers.

All kidding aside, I was pretty pragmatic in high school. I realized early on that a geek like me (I had brains and was shorter than most girls) had ZERO chance at scoring with the attractive white girls, so I never felt a need to treat them any better or worse than anyone else in the school.

I still stared at their chests, though. I was pragmatic and geeky, not gay.

The Prom Queen is not in charge. She doesn't call the assemblies run the projector. Who's the Principal, who's the School Board, who're the Legislators that control things? And why are they staring at her chest, too?

We have a Cheerleader in the White House. He's not in charge, either.

Pay some attention to The Man Behind The Curtain.

Your overgeneralizations about "attractive, white women" are ridiculous-- and common. THIS IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE BIGOTRY WE ARE CHALLENGING. We are witnessing here that it is condoned and accepted that women be treated as charicatures in the lives of men.

Thank you for identifying the stunted world-view that dominates society and supports the bigotry that this thread is objecting to:

"I realized early on that a geek like me (I had brains and was shorter than most girls) had ZERO chance at scoring with the attractive white girls, so I never felt a need to treat them any better or worse than anyone else in the school."

A worldview seen through the end of a penis.

:hi:

Not to be overly glib (probably too late at this point), men cannot help but view most things through their REAL best friend (sorry dogs).

This kind of behavior is hard*-wired into our psyche.

I only state my personal observations; judge it as you see fit.

As always, I try to remain pragmatic.

Evil Kumquat
________________________________

*No pun intended.

....to be overly glib and overly general:
"men cannot help" that they are raised to think that they are the center of the universe; that the world (and women) revolve around them (and their best friend); and they cannot help being terribly annoyed when anyone suggests otherwise.

Thanks for your perspective (and humor)

Hi, omega minimo. A little late on responding because we have had several power outages here. This is a point I tried to make on a couple of posts a little while back--when the white woman-hating threads were a little newer than they are now. There had been a few--"Entire Island of Aruba Searches for Pretty Blonde Chick," "Are Ugly White Women Safer Than Pretty White Women?" "Let's Dress Civil Liberties Up as a Pretty White Woman" (or some shit)--and of course recently some prick has a thread with pictures, "Christian White Women, The Backbone of the Country," and this is in between their threads on "cajones" and "balls" and "bitches" and "bitch-slapped." Haw, haw, haw! No they aren't bigoted. Still this website does nothing.

I responded on June 17 to a very moving thread called "No one gives a shit if you're black and missing" with this post, called "The Issue is the Oppression of Black Women":

This is the way this issue should be stated--attacking the police, media, etc., for not responding or showing any interest, and questioning why they do not. The important point is that they are choosing to ignore black women (for example) and not only for this type of crime, and that these things will go unsolved and unpunished because the media is totally uninterested when they can't work up a sponsor-pleasing, moneymaking ride out of it. Otherwise, you lose the focus of the issue and the real accusation against them, and end up with yet another of the thousands of threads of woman-haters disguising it as "concern" about this issue--and, surprise, surprise, no one is referring to black women anymore, here either. Solve the violation that is actually present.

Then, as reliable as clockwork, one of their "regulars" posted a snide message about "poor pale little jessie lynch," it killed the thread, and this male proceeded to start another thread on how "great" males are, with yet another "cajones" thread. No more black women. Shifting the subject to attacks on raped, murdered white women rather than the males who murder them--besides being instructive to my group--takes them away from the topic of treatment of black women, and this is what they want.

Bait and switch, right?

"Are Ugly White Women Safer Than Pretty White Women?" was the first thread title that I saw in this new crappersticker craze.

As you say, the tactic is to shift focus from the authorities/media who have selective attention when it comes to crime/news-- and onto another easy target. The overlooked (Sun Hudson, black women "for example," the disenfranchised) drop through the bottom of the bucket and a shiny, blonde Very Special Victim is floated in the media sludge to entertain the crowds.

It's difficult to see thru the crap, to see who's really DOING THIS. Easier to talk shite about the prom queen. Someone above scoffed at me saying this avoids the real issues and told me the focus on "blonde white chicks" IS the real issue!

So. Let's see. "MSM" comes under fire. Bush polls take a nosedive. Bushwar II is unwinnable. Bush tells the public he needs a catapult to shovel Big LIes continuously. The public smells a Big Media rat. TIME TO BRING IN THE BABES! Let's roll the blondes around in the muck-- they DESERVE it!

Don't think about how the Big Media serves as an addictive delivery system for White House propaganda! (Hell, they ARE the catapult). Blame the Victim!

Funny thing: every time I (used to) bring up Michael Jackson (not at DU) in a media discussion about these tricks of the Weapons of Mass Distraction trade, people get it-- and immediately shift to talking about Michael Jackson!!!! Every time!

His trial is over-- time to toss out the Pretty Blonde Princess and let the lions maul her for a while.

While Rome burns.

is that there was a thread a while back in the Lounge called something like "Let's list all the things we love about white men!" The wording might not have been quite that strong, but it was pretty close, and the Lounge dwellers were tripping all over themselves to let the world know everything they loved about white men.

When I point these discrepancies out, I'm suggesting some of this isn't even worthy of a news story and wouldn't be a news story if the "victim" were not white and (sometimes) blond - but usually white, young, and female. It just smacks of the media only looking for a good story - meaning a story that will suck people in and help them sell advertising.

Now with the runaway bride - do I think she should have had to pay the gov't. back for money spent on a search as the result of the media making a very big, hairy deal out of her "disappearance"? No.

Do I believe she should be criminally liable for suggesting that some generic hispanic couple kidnapped and raped her? HELL YES!

...and able to discuss this without depending on sexist slogans to do it. Being descriptive and spouting bumperstickers are different things.

That's what this thread is about. We don't need more slurs against women on DU-- there's already enough that are considered "no big deal," even when they break DU Rules.

It's pretty simple.

:evilgrin:

More and more people are turning television off altogether, as the only solution to how brain dead and manipulative it has become.

I don't watch much tv anymore. I happen to live in the Atlanta metro area so I couldn't miss this one.

The other problem with the white damsel in distress is it presents a false sense of INsecurity - which further encroaches on our hard won and, sadly, tenuous rights.

I haven't been watching this latest fairty tale
but I'd say the Dragon is what we need to focus on

Or am I being dense right now?

:evilfrown:

you're missing the point. It isn't about what color/race this girl is, it's about the media getting to hang out in Aruba while 'working'. Like annual meetings of professionals going to Honolulu, where less than 1% of them are actually employed.

Hawaii? Screw that says one employee... The other is smart enough can look past the long flight, and recognize a bullshit 2 hour day and playing the beach and nightlife of a vacation island on company dollars ;-)

and that includes the Aruba story, which I have given none of my attention.

This thread is asking DUers to think about what they post. About whatever. To not use slogans that are fast, easy, catchy and flippantly divisive, derisive of women.

I'm all for skewering Big Media. Any chance this "white women get more coverage" thing was dropped in the mix by Big Media to deflect from more URGENT, VITAL, DANGEROUS media issues?

Thanks for disagreeing like a human being. That makes 2!

:bounce:

:kick:

:hug:

I agree with you on the gender problems we have on DU sometimes. Inany case, it's all a smoke screen, because the corporate media is targeting an audience. They use ANY attractive/cute face (unless it's a religious thang, i.e. the Schiavo nonstory) for their largest demographics and sensationalize away. All other news is "too complicated" and makes people change the channel in their view.
So what if next time it's a hunky Latino one-legged guy denied entry to the butt-kicking contest. Whatever the target demographic du jour is will get a story that is guaranteed to kill airtime that could be used towards real discourse on issues that matter.

Well, if it's a hunky Latino one-legged guy in a butt-kicking contest, it must be "Twin Peaks: Reunion." If people can remember back that far, the dark ages of Bush War I, when the current techniques of media manipulation had not yet been inflicted on the unsuspecting American public.

Maybe if enough people are outraged enough, some alternatives will be created.

I don't think any of the comments were misogynistic. The case can be made for caucasian media bias. Why would that be a big surprise for anyone? Their(CNN, CBS, NBC etc.) target demographic is more than likely affluent white males age 25-54. I've worked in and around the news media (granted small market but there are some constants) and I tell you, there is a order of priority with any story that comes down the pipe. In the media that I worked in (radio) we had limited news time as do the networks. The 24/7 channels have no excuse though. IMO they should sit there and reports every tragedy in a category that they "wheel out on the meat slab" (my affectionate term for what I call ambulance chasing journalism)

is not being disputed here. Please read the thread. Very insightful comments. Lots of voices (which is what we need, which is why I advocate not using divisive, disrespectful language/attitudes on DU, which bases its Rules on "respect").

"I don't think any of the comments were misogynistic." Think again. Many examples have been provided here and in other threads of comments that you may consider innocuous individually-- so it may help you understand when you see them grouped together in a derogatory, slimy pile.

To repeat:
This thread is asking DUers to think about what they post. About whatever. To not use slogans that are fast, easy, catchy and flippantly divisive, derisive of women.

I'm all for skewering Big Media. Any chance this "white women get more coverage" thing was dropped in the mix by Big Media to deflect from more URGENT, VITAL, DANGEROUS media issues? (See post # 84).

There is a difference between describing/discussing media bias and reinforcing derisive cliches to do so. Thanks for another professional perspective here.

:hi:

Lots of voices is what we need, which is why I advocate not using divisive, disrespectful language/attitudes on DU, which bases its Rules on "respect".

Now let's talk about the issues.

I think the inordinate focus on stories of women who disappear (a) feeds into misogynist fantasy of women as helpless while (b) trivializing/ignoring very real dangers that females are, unfortunately, much more likely to face.

I can understand your reaction to what you call bumper sticker sloganeering, and particularly such slogans which use "chicks." I do believe that most people have been critical of the media rather than blaming the victim, but it's clear that the language used can interfere with the message.

Speaking of which--in my opinion, you did your argument a huge disservice by half-dismissing the media criticism with the speculation that it was "merely puffed-up, self-righteous reverse racism." The discrepancy in coverage is a real concern, and your use of that particular right-wing bumper sticker slogan seemed to dismiss it.

has redeemed the way in which the initial questions were raised.


Glad you're here, gotta go....

“I think the inordinate focus on stories of women who disappear (a) feeds into misogynist fantasy of women as helpless while (b) trivializing/ignoring very real dangers that females are, unfortunately, much more likely to face.”

Which enables objectifying/trivializing women’s experience/identities in general. Which shows up as laissez faire disrespect even here on a board with Rules against it.

“I do believe that most people have been critical of the media rather than blaming the victim, but it's clear that the language used can interfere with the message.”

It also interferes with the discussion, the process and any progress we might make (and frequently, that interference is intentional). It’s not theoretical, it’s the Rules.

“--in my opinion, you did your argument a huge disservice by half-dismissing the media criticism with the speculation that it was "merely puffed-up, self-righteous reverse racism." The discrepancy in coverage is a real concern, and your use of that particular right-wing bumper sticker slogan seemed to dismiss it.”

The general confusion about the OP seems to stem from “it depends on what the meaning of ‘this’ is.” When I asked, “Is this” I was referring to the trend, the recent (bad) rash of post subjects, thread titles and out-of-context slurs that started appearing a few weeks ago. That may not have been clear. I referenced one link and several other examples to reflect the trend. The rollicking discussion helped clarify the issues (including “reverse racism” being an inappropriate term). Your point well taken.

“The discrepancy in coverage is a real concern” as an issue has shown up on DU in really flippant and disrespectul cliches, including in unrelated threads. The lazy language was used to convey (like any cliche or slur) some shorthanded concept WITHOUT THE PERSON GOING TO THE TROUBLE sorry.. going to the trouble of making their point. The cliche becomes the point.

:hi:

Just a couple of points, and hoping this thread stays respectful: One part of the complaint is that all of this media hype of attractive white women who have been raped and murdered, is that it has a tone of male pornography to it. There are countless pictures of the deceased in skimpy clothing (you know--"the chick"), referring to her by her first name, when no one gave them permission, and this pretense that we all "care so much," as long as sponsors are paying (this is the same media that loves "rape the bitch" fictional movies, too). Watch these forensics-type programs, many rape-murders of white women there, and notice how the deceased is not even permitted the dignity of escaping having her naked corpse shown on prick TV.

The other part of the complaint is that it gives a totally fraudulent impression that the crime reports of white women are taken seriously and followed up on. This is a lie--white women, and all women, call in to make reports of rape, stalking, harrassment, abuse and battering, and many other things, every day, and are ignored, called liars, told to solve it themselves, (how often have you heard that "police" will not protect abortion clinics where white women work--I hear about it all the time, still), etc. Do you pretend that Martha Stewart was not railroaded--the Government admitted she had not even committed a crime, but then lied about a statement about it! Susan McDougal, white woman, was railroaded by Kenneth Starr, the devil, and imprisoned for years, and she committed no crime but would not lie about the Clintons, who had also not committed a crime.

People on websites such as this, feel very free--and supported by the crowd--to attack white women with vulgar and hostile language, where similar attacks on other groups are no longer so acceptable. It is as if you think that you are all separate groups with perspectives and histories, but we are just nothing, your mirrors, a target. How do you treat white women? Ask Nicole Brown and Hillary Clinton. Again, hoping this important thread stays intelligent and that males face the bigotry we know they have. I am for ALL women.

what's the point?

Martha Stewart was not railroaded. She got nailed for a small thing, but an illegal small thing that she did. It was justice served.

Anonymity makes the worst cowards the biggest loudmouths. That serves to pretty much nullify almost everything that one reads on message board anywhere. That's a given, and so we see the worst of people in this medium, which is unfortunate. If you're looking for real substance or real intellectual content and honesty, this is not the venue.

But, after reading every post here, I have to say that I do not understand any of it. I tried, but I don't seem to be able to follow what went on here, although I did get the sense that a lot of angry people were perhaps going off in directions that might better suit their own personal agendae, so that would necessarily have made for a confusing dialogue (for want of a better word).

One reason, perhaps, that I didn't follow much of it is because I don't spend a lot of time watching TV. A lot of the posts referred to TV coverage and TV shows, and so I, naturally, was lost. But, that might also be why this dialogue was hard to follow - that's a very narrow frame of reference when held in opposition to the rest of the outside world.

That would make for a profound disconnect in the communications.

In any event, it was lively, and I hope everyone had a good time. I even hope some points were made, and I regret that I was able only to glean the point made when someone referred to the 'get her done' phrase, something to which I was able to respond on that very thread.

...with TV references.

This thread originally was about the question: why was DU being infected with a trend of NEW derisive references about women (because we already have enough of that to deal with). The first one I saw was a thread titled “Are ugly white women safer than attractive white women?” Of course the appropriate response to that is :wtf:.

In another thread someone made a remark in passing about “until the next dying white women story comes along...” More of these types of comments showed up and evidently it was a Thing. Those not in the loop, not watching the crap that has people upset; those who have turned off Big Media in part because of outrageous and manipulative Nuzak, see the NEW disrespectful comments about women on DU and wonder where that's coming from.

So I'm not missing a thing, am I?

It's always a revelatory and liberating moment when people learn what fights are worthwhile and then learn to ignore that which doesn't matter. I learned long ago, as a woman in a man's world - and a not very welcome woman, at that - that it was better for me to decide what was important and stay with it while overlooking the nonsense that might have tied me down and kept me out of the world I wanted to inhabit.

So, while some were busy making noise about nonsense, my sisters and I were busy making history.

Thank you again for the explanation.

The worthlessness of most "new"casts is why many of us are at DU.

You made another point:
"Anonymity makes the worst cowards the biggest loudmouths. That serves to pretty much nullify almost everything that one reads on message board anywhere. That's a given, and so we see the worst of people in this medium, which is unfortunate. If you're looking for real substance or real intellectual content and honesty, this is not the venue."

There seems to be a difference between those who see a conversation as a challenge and the ideas of others as a threat to be overcome-- and those who are receptive, know how to listen and have consider-ate conversation. Outside the bar and the courtroom, discussion does not have to be competitive sport.

:hi:

This recent spate of woman-insulting posts isn't a NEW trend, it's merely the latest outcropping of a very old, existing, ugly truth about DU. Trust me. Maybe some of the names change from month to month or episode to episode, but the picture's the same.

In any case, good thread.

of the same old shit doesn't go down any easier.

Especially gobsmacked were the DUers who weren't in-the-loop on the news coverage that was being referenced (with no explanation). Shows what a difference it makes to not be plugged into the programming.

Seeing a post on another subject contain "until the next dying white women story comes along...." was snide and slimy beyond reason. I know DUers love their snark, but somebody had to point out-- well, you said it.

No ones's asked me. I have no idea who that woman is or what the story is and I can't remember her name..... :evilgrin:

Great comments, Eloriel. Proves we can do this here.

Nicely done.

“One part of the complaint is that all of this media hype of attractive white women who have been raped and murdered, is that it has a tone of male pornography to it. Watch these forensics-type programs, many rape-murders of white women there, and notice how the deceased is not even permitted the dignity of escaping having her naked corpse shown on prick TV.”

Another point being: how often are the victims men, IF EVER?

“CSI:Everywhere” and its clones have built a franchise on the backs of brutalized women. Homes that don’t ever watch the show are invaded by the commercials. Flashing images of dead “attractive white women” and descriptions of the most disgusting, psychotic tortures one could (not) imagine. How many people who think sexism is "no big deal" are allowing the commercials or the shows to burn these hateful, violent images into their kid's brains? This is the kind of programming about men’s and women’s power and roles in the world that infects people to the point that they just don’t get what we are talking about here. It also tells some of us about the value of women in Big Media and WE TURN IT OFF. The new Former Victim as Hot Investigator show has a quickie soundbite hook in every commercial:

“Facesslicedoffhandsdegloved.” Motherfuckers.

“...it gives a totally fraudulent impression that the crime reports of white women are taken seriously and followed up on. This is a lie--white women, and all women, call in to make reports of rape, stalking, harrassment, abuse and battering, and many other things, every day, and are ignored, called liars, told to solve it themselves...”

Today the Supreme Court decided the case of a women whose children were kidnapped by their father, who violated a restraining order. She spent ALL NIGHT begging the police to find and return the children, for their safety. THE POLICE DID NOTHING, SAYING THAT HE WAS THEIR FATHER. He murdered them. Her case argued that she had a Constitutional right to the enforcement of the restraining order. The Court decided (6-2) that this was not a Federal right, and that States could legislate for this if they wish.

You have made The Point:

“People on websites such as this, feel very free--and supported by the crowd--to attack white women with vulgar and hostile language, where similar attacks on other groups are no longer so acceptable. It is as if you think that you are all separate groups with perspectives and histories, but we are just nothing, your mirrors, a target.”

Ya know, it’s like Valentine’s Day. Some men don’t get that just because THEY don’t care it about it, it matters to the women they care about-- isn’t that something? (That’s a rhetorical question-- don’t think there’s a rhetorical smilie :evilgrin:)

Today the Supreme Court decided the case of a women whose children were kidnapped by their father, who violated a restraining order. She spent ALL NIGHT begging the police to find and return the children, for their safety. THE POLICE DID NOTHING, SAYING THAT HE WAS THEIR FATHER. He murdered them. Her case argued that she had a Constitutional right to the enforcement of the restraining order. The Court decided (6-2) that this was not a Federal right, and that States could legislate for this if they wish.

Perhaps if more time was spent on REAL ISSUES like this, real progress can be made.

I'm just saying....FOCUS.

that has been made repeatedly and underlies the motivation in advocating respectful behavior consistent with DU Rules:

We want to focus on issues without divisive, derisive, disruptive, distracting, disrespectful expressions that violate DU Rules.

That's something real-- simple.

It's all on a continuum scale. You can attack the problem from one end or the other end or somewhere in the middle

Disrespectful Language__________________________________________________________Rape & Murder

It matters not. It's all of a piece. All related. One engenders the other. The disrespect makes the rest of it less horrific and even less noticeable; the rape and murder -- and the unequal pay, and the anti-woman legislation, and the inadequate and unequal health care, and so forth and so on -- just tends to prove the disrespect is warranted, as some self-fulfilling, self-reinforcing cycle.

"The disrespect makes the rest of it less horrific and even less noticeable...."

The (myriad indignities) "tends to prove the disrespect is warranted, as some self-fulfilling, self-reinforcing cycle."

Sounds a lot like garden variety bigotry. In terms of communicating on DU, sexist terms are used where racist terms would never be. Folks need to connect those dots and quit defending the right to be gender bigots. The "self-reinforcing cycle" allows for the apparent bafflement of some well-meaning folk on this (creatively) redundant thread, who aren't quite sure they "get it."

Your post above hit the nail on the head (as did this one) regarding the similarities between separate disenfranchised groups..... I think we are ready for those groups to ally themselves and get moving.

superbly made. Thanks.

women provide. White women provide more *bang for the buck*. and the bucks like to get their bangs.

Sex sells. Media needs to sell, above all else. Young, pretty girls are a sexual commodity. No one wants to admit to the turn on they get, having these sexually brutalized young hot white babes brought into their living rooms (at a safe distance so we can tut tut as all proper citizens should--while still enjoying the secret thrill)

I didn't see any of the threads the OP is referring to. But good looking white women are the sex-object of this land, and always have been (media has always gleefully reported on women found dead and NUDE. It sells. If they're white, young and hot, that is).

Because of their status as sex objects, concern for their safety, besides being a sexualized turn on, feeds into masculine savior fantasies (which, in a loop of logic are reserved for those they are titillated by. Minority, unattractive, old, disenfranchised people hold no payoff for the horny. They will not bring in eyeballs. Therefore, they will recieve little to no media real estate.)

A linked issue is the contempt showered upon sex-objects by those who use them. (The "haha, no I won't respect you in the morning" contingent). I think that is also being pointed out here.)

"Because of their status as sex objects, concern for their safety, besides being a sexualized turn on, feeds into masculine savior fantasies (which, in a loop of logic are reserved for those they are titillated by.)"

Adult fairy tales.

The whole subject is twisted and goes back to Big Media manipulation-- people are outraged by what they are seeing but keep watching. Must be something else on the channel they're waiting to see. This nationally televised necrophiliac nightmare needs to be faced head on: Dreamers, you can fly! you can fly!

"Young, pretty girls are a sexual commodity."

Commodifed and dismembered, plastic wrapped and air-brushed. Sex and violence in a nice neat package. A piece of meat wearing make-up.

So be careful and respectful, please DUers, when you speak of the dead; and those brutalized by the Big Media titillation meatgrinder.

OMG-- thanks FizzFuzz, I just realized. It's a titillation meatgrinder distraction from the military meatgrinder of Bushwar II.

It trivializes and glamorizes death and mayhem-- it distracts from the death and mayhem being experienced in Iraq and beyond.

Thanks Big Media, for feeding the Big Lie! Catapulting the corpses into American living rooms, all prettied up.

:evilfrown:

When O.J. with a gun was driving down the freeway forever and it was the only thing on all the channels and it felt like the nation was waiting for blood....I turned that shit off too. Sometimes, people, that's the ONLY option. Since they want the eyeballs, do you think they might notice a BOYCOTT?

The original poster was at least partially correct - missing white girls get minute-by-minute coverage, while other races may get a mention. Sometimes more. No, it's not the girls' fault; but the poster didn't say it was.

No guilt inducement here.

So it's got THAT going for it. Which is nice.

That's 3!


:smoke: If you don't care about bigotry, why do you care about post counts?

Nevermind.

Interesting.

"49. It's funny"

"....Whenever we try to have this sort of discussion, there is a pattern to the replies. Those who don't get the concept resort to the same tactics:

missing the point and damn proud of it!
dismissive
insulting
hostile
foulmouthed
without saying much of anything (all start to sound the same)
on edit: petty


"If women are saying these flippant derisions are disrespectful, why do you think you know better? Oh, would that be because our opinions don't count? THAT'S WHY WE OBJECT TO LANGUAGE THAT OBJECTIFIES AND TRIVIALIZES WOMEN AND WOMEN'S EXPERIENCE.

"Bigotry implies ignorance-- unfortunate but true. Belligerence implies fear. Divisive sexist bigotry harms the party and the process."

Or did you already know that?

edit:
Pettiness implies spoiled brats with nothing better to do. Don't know why you guys even bother....

Why don't you direct your paranoia at another target? :rhetorical:

keep it up!