In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.”
In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public.
So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women.
Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday.
According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”
Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work.
In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.
Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are.
Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers.
The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements.
The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.)
Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind.
Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney.
The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.”
It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy?
Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues.
Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.”
Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.”
The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why?
The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.”
As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters.
The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines.
Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention.
You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit.
It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists.
The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves.
Source
The UN is a very dirty joke as far as I'm concerned and it is a major obscenity as well. Let's just defund this worthless organization and disband it too. It just sucks in American tax dollars and contributes nothing but its own excrement. It's time to just say good bye and good riddance to the UN. Write your Representative and Senators and tell them to defund and disband the UN.
Showing posts with label feminist censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminist censorship. Show all posts
Monday, September 28, 2015
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Feminist groups pressure Facebook
From A Voice For Men:
It’s on by Paul Elam
This is probably the most important article I have ever written, and it addresses what I believe is the greatest challenge the M(H)RM has faced so far.
Victor Zen just brought us an important bit of news that I have also known about for several hours, and about which I am already getting emails. Facebook has just bowed to public pressure from feminists to start policing its pages and removing what is ostensibly called hate speech and the glorification of violence toward women.
Please don’t make the mistake of believing that this is the real agenda.
Let’s dispense with the basics first. As Zen has already pointed out, the sexism that Facebook has agreed to root out is that which is identified and defined by ideological feminists only. No MHRA perspective on the subject, or any other perspective for that matter, is relevant. Consequently the hundreds and maybe thousands of male bashing pages on the social network giant will remain, and only those pages identified as a problem by moderators “trained” by feminist ideologues will be targeted.
Unfortunately, that is not near the worst of the news.
What is happening, and it is going to happen more swiftly than you can imagine, is that just as we have seen in academia, in the military, in many workplaces and more recently in the secular community, feminists are using whatever tools are at their disposal to ensure that their narrative is the only one allowed.
To put it more bluntly, feminist ideologues are co-opting Facebook, and they will root out any and all opposition to their worldview. That will include, at some point, the AVFM Facebook page and its nearly 3,500 fans (2,000 of which have come in the past two months).
How important this is? In a word, very.
Facebook accounts for roughly 10-13% of our traffic on most days, and with a rapidly growing fan base that promises to represent a continually increasing number of actual visitors to the site.
To be honest, this does not mean that the loss of our Facebook fan page would result in a complete loss of traffic from Facebook. Many individuals post our articles on their pages, so that resultant traffic does not come directly from the fan page. But that is a minor detail when you consider the actual agenda here and its potential for harm to our community.
The machinations of these ideologues do not begin or end with Facebook. Still, as a battle ground in the ever increasing conflict between radical feminists and their opposition, it is of massive importance.
Have you ever known an ideologue to be satisfied with a victory? Where do you imagine, if they are successful at eliminating men’s rights discussion from Facebook, they will go next? Reddit? YouTube? How about Google?
Do you think they are above trying to have men’s rights websites de-listed from Google search returns? Why don’t you ask them at Norton Symantec or O2, who have already blocked nearly ALL men’s rights related websites?
If you believe that these ideologues would not seek to wipe out all opposition to their worldview from the internet, then you likely believe that the current campaign on Facebook is to simply address sexism and sexual violence against women. You will probably believe that till the day you come here and find an error message instead of a website.
This is not the somewhat comical antics of the SPLC. It is not the even more comedic histrionics of the University of Toronto Student Union. This is actually a well-planned agenda that that could ultimately deal very harsh blows to the Men’s Human Rights Movement just as it is beginning to emerge.
And we need to do something about it.
With that in mind, I am respectfully calling on all men’s organizations, father’s rights groups, men’s issues bloggers, secular organizations and anyone else concerned with free speech and evidence based solutions to social problems to take a stand on this issue and to demand that Facebook make a public commitment to the free speech of men’s rights organizations.
Facebook should also include a non-feminist anti-sexist perspective to be given equal weight when evaluating what is and is not hate speech as well as what constitutes the glorification or condoning of violence against women.
Facebook should also make a public commitment to take precisely the same measures against online misandry that they take against alleged misogyny. That commitment should include addressing the promotion of violence against men. And they should follow through with this commitment in a verifiable and measurable way. At AVFM we support free speech for all, but if it is to be abridged in any way, that abridgment should not be driven by sexism.
We are entering very, very dangerous times. Ideological feminists are witnessing the deconstruction and debunking of their theories. They are watching a once stagnant and ineffectual men’s rights movement start to gain momentum. The hegemony they have enjoyed for 50 years is under direct and long overdue attack.
They are not just going to let it happen.
So far, we have witnessed only bumbling attempts to paint us as a hate movement. Most of their efforts have simply blown up in their face. We have had more than our share of good laughs, and have been thrilled to see their hateful, disingenuous efforts result only in more growth for us.
It has been enjoyable, but it has also had the potential to make us soft. We can hardly afford that.
From this day forward, we need a directed and organized response to this problem. As we are just initiating this response, there is but a few details available now on what our efforts will be, but I will share them with you and advise you as more information becomes available.
One, I will be conducting outreach to NCFM, of which I am a member, and other similar organizations to initiate a coordinated response, and more importantly to make contact with other mainstream entities about this problem. If there ever was a time to think “the enemy of my enemy” this is it.
AVFM will establish monitoring of Facebook, to see what kinds of pages are deleted and for what reasons under the new Facebook guidelines.
This is also as good a time as any, though I wish it were under better circumstances, to announce that thanks to your donations to AVFM we have finally been able to hire Editor-in-Chief John Hembling (JTO) into a salaried position for AVFM. He is scheduled to start working for us full time on June 1, and not a day too soon. I am sure his dedicated efforts on this important matter will be invaluable.
While it is obvious that nowhere near all our plans are set, or even envisioned at this early stage of the game, it is just as clear that this is going to be a fight. It is also where you will be able to see, in clear public view, which “men’s organizations” will take a stand when it absolutely counts, or whether they have feet of clay.
Finally, as always, we have to ask you to make the real difference. When we initiate email campaigns, which we surely will, please participate, regardless of where you live. Post this article to your Facebook page and other social media. If you are on Facebook, this article is also posted right here. Come and leave a comment encouraging others to take action. If you have not “liked” our page, please do so. If you are not on Facebook, please join, and then see the previous two sentences.
Go to the Facebook page about these events now and make your opinion known, respectfully, firmly and briefly. Be prepared to give some of your time and effort more than once. More than ten times.
Dig in, folks. This is going to be a long one. If you want a men’s movement, YOU are going to have to fight for it.
Source:click here
Sounds great to me,I went to the facebook page and left my two cents. If you don't want women's groups dictating what you can see on facebook today,tomarrow they will dictate the entire net. Sound good to you? To me it sucks and I'm going to do everything I can to fight it.
It’s on by Paul Elam
This is probably the most important article I have ever written, and it addresses what I believe is the greatest challenge the M(H)RM has faced so far.
Victor Zen just brought us an important bit of news that I have also known about for several hours, and about which I am already getting emails. Facebook has just bowed to public pressure from feminists to start policing its pages and removing what is ostensibly called hate speech and the glorification of violence toward women.
Please don’t make the mistake of believing that this is the real agenda.
Let’s dispense with the basics first. As Zen has already pointed out, the sexism that Facebook has agreed to root out is that which is identified and defined by ideological feminists only. No MHRA perspective on the subject, or any other perspective for that matter, is relevant. Consequently the hundreds and maybe thousands of male bashing pages on the social network giant will remain, and only those pages identified as a problem by moderators “trained” by feminist ideologues will be targeted.
Unfortunately, that is not near the worst of the news.
What is happening, and it is going to happen more swiftly than you can imagine, is that just as we have seen in academia, in the military, in many workplaces and more recently in the secular community, feminists are using whatever tools are at their disposal to ensure that their narrative is the only one allowed.
To put it more bluntly, feminist ideologues are co-opting Facebook, and they will root out any and all opposition to their worldview. That will include, at some point, the AVFM Facebook page and its nearly 3,500 fans (2,000 of which have come in the past two months).
How important this is? In a word, very.
Facebook accounts for roughly 10-13% of our traffic on most days, and with a rapidly growing fan base that promises to represent a continually increasing number of actual visitors to the site.
To be honest, this does not mean that the loss of our Facebook fan page would result in a complete loss of traffic from Facebook. Many individuals post our articles on their pages, so that resultant traffic does not come directly from the fan page. But that is a minor detail when you consider the actual agenda here and its potential for harm to our community.
The machinations of these ideologues do not begin or end with Facebook. Still, as a battle ground in the ever increasing conflict between radical feminists and their opposition, it is of massive importance.
Have you ever known an ideologue to be satisfied with a victory? Where do you imagine, if they are successful at eliminating men’s rights discussion from Facebook, they will go next? Reddit? YouTube? How about Google?
Do you think they are above trying to have men’s rights websites de-listed from Google search returns? Why don’t you ask them at Norton Symantec or O2, who have already blocked nearly ALL men’s rights related websites?
If you believe that these ideologues would not seek to wipe out all opposition to their worldview from the internet, then you likely believe that the current campaign on Facebook is to simply address sexism and sexual violence against women. You will probably believe that till the day you come here and find an error message instead of a website.
This is not the somewhat comical antics of the SPLC. It is not the even more comedic histrionics of the University of Toronto Student Union. This is actually a well-planned agenda that that could ultimately deal very harsh blows to the Men’s Human Rights Movement just as it is beginning to emerge.
And we need to do something about it.
With that in mind, I am respectfully calling on all men’s organizations, father’s rights groups, men’s issues bloggers, secular organizations and anyone else concerned with free speech and evidence based solutions to social problems to take a stand on this issue and to demand that Facebook make a public commitment to the free speech of men’s rights organizations.
Facebook should also include a non-feminist anti-sexist perspective to be given equal weight when evaluating what is and is not hate speech as well as what constitutes the glorification or condoning of violence against women.
Facebook should also make a public commitment to take precisely the same measures against online misandry that they take against alleged misogyny. That commitment should include addressing the promotion of violence against men. And they should follow through with this commitment in a verifiable and measurable way. At AVFM we support free speech for all, but if it is to be abridged in any way, that abridgment should not be driven by sexism.
We are entering very, very dangerous times. Ideological feminists are witnessing the deconstruction and debunking of their theories. They are watching a once stagnant and ineffectual men’s rights movement start to gain momentum. The hegemony they have enjoyed for 50 years is under direct and long overdue attack.
They are not just going to let it happen.
So far, we have witnessed only bumbling attempts to paint us as a hate movement. Most of their efforts have simply blown up in their face. We have had more than our share of good laughs, and have been thrilled to see their hateful, disingenuous efforts result only in more growth for us.
It has been enjoyable, but it has also had the potential to make us soft. We can hardly afford that.
From this day forward, we need a directed and organized response to this problem. As we are just initiating this response, there is but a few details available now on what our efforts will be, but I will share them with you and advise you as more information becomes available.
One, I will be conducting outreach to NCFM, of which I am a member, and other similar organizations to initiate a coordinated response, and more importantly to make contact with other mainstream entities about this problem. If there ever was a time to think “the enemy of my enemy” this is it.
AVFM will establish monitoring of Facebook, to see what kinds of pages are deleted and for what reasons under the new Facebook guidelines.
This is also as good a time as any, though I wish it were under better circumstances, to announce that thanks to your donations to AVFM we have finally been able to hire Editor-in-Chief John Hembling (JTO) into a salaried position for AVFM. He is scheduled to start working for us full time on June 1, and not a day too soon. I am sure his dedicated efforts on this important matter will be invaluable.
While it is obvious that nowhere near all our plans are set, or even envisioned at this early stage of the game, it is just as clear that this is going to be a fight. It is also where you will be able to see, in clear public view, which “men’s organizations” will take a stand when it absolutely counts, or whether they have feet of clay.
Finally, as always, we have to ask you to make the real difference. When we initiate email campaigns, which we surely will, please participate, regardless of where you live. Post this article to your Facebook page and other social media. If you are on Facebook, this article is also posted right here. Come and leave a comment encouraging others to take action. If you have not “liked” our page, please do so. If you are not on Facebook, please join, and then see the previous two sentences.
Go to the Facebook page about these events now and make your opinion known, respectfully, firmly and briefly. Be prepared to give some of your time and effort more than once. More than ten times.
Dig in, folks. This is going to be a long one. If you want a men’s movement, YOU are going to have to fight for it.
Source:click here
Sounds great to me,I went to the facebook page and left my two cents. If you don't want women's groups dictating what you can see on facebook today,tomarrow they will dictate the entire net. Sound good to you? To me it sucks and I'm going to do everything I can to fight it.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Let's tell CBS to rebroadcast "Men Don't Tell"
On March 14, 1993, CBS aired "Men Don't Tell", a TV movie about domestic violence in the home. After its initial broadcast, CBS came under pressure to never show the movie again, or allow for its release on VHS. Nor has any other movie of its type ever been made again.
WHY? The movie had a twist to it. Based on a true story, the main character, construction executive Ed MacAffrey, was being abused by his wife, Laura.
Starring Peter Strauss and Judith Light, the movie was the first of its kind to ever be made addressing the problems and issues of 40% of domestic violence victims, who happen to be male.
March is the 20th anniversary of the original broadcast. Join the effort to get CBS to rebroadcast the movie, and bring together the still surviving members of the original cast and the director, Harry Winer, for interviews of the making of the only movie ever made addressing the problems of male victims of domestic violence.
Source:click here to send email as well.
Let's break the feminist stranglehold on the old media and send in emails in support of rebroadcasting "Men Don't Tell". If the genders were reversed the feminists would demand this be broadcasted everynight but since it shines a light on something they don't like,that they abuse men too they don't want it shown. Too fucking bad,I don't care what they want they can go fuck themselves. I want this movie to be rebroadcasted and released on video and I don't want some fucked up bitches deciding what I can or cannot watch. That may have gone down when I was a child but now that I'm a grown man I'll make my own decisions and if someone has a problem with that fuck them. There is a lot email to write but I'm up for it,I'll do it. Are you on board?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)