Washington Post article on ICMI14

BlindPelican · 2014-07-01T02:24:53+00:00

Once the writer got past the obligatory ironic introduction, it got a bit better.

On balance, not a bad piece. While not a glowing and enthusiastic endorsement of the MHRM I suspect there is enough there to drive curiosity and perhaps some interest.

AlphaWookie · 2014-07-01T05:24:17+00:00

Not the best piece in the world. Still more moderate than I thought. It seems like when people actually show up and listen and ask questions we are pretty good at changing minds. Look at how differant the coverage is after just one confrence. We are on are way now baby. I'm happy

jpflathead · 2014-07-01T03:45:54+00:00

I can't stand bloggers who masquerade as reporters.

She claims to quote Paul Elam but then says Elam pulled down the post.

SO HOW DID SHE FIND THE QUOTE?

She finds the quote and says Elam claims he was being satirical, but as a reporter

WHY DIDN'T SHE DO THE FOLLOWUP TO SEE IF IT WAS REASONABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS QUOTE AS SATIRE?

She may believe she is a reporter, but she is an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

SwanOfAvon22 · 2014-07-01T02:13:17+00:00

The International Conference on Men’s Issues was originally scheduled to take place at a Doubletree in Detroit, but organizers moved the event to a suburban Veterans of Foreign Wars outpost. They said it was a more appropriate and masculine location. (Fabrizio Costantini/For The Washington Post)

Even in a hit piece, that was particularly laughable

BlueDoorFour · 2014-07-01T02:56:30+00:00

The author does a poor job of hiding her snark.

a White House task force studied sexual assaults on college campuses. A shooter in Santa Barbara, Calif., killed two women and four men because, he said in a manifesto and video posted before his attack, he believed women had unjustly withheld affection from him. A #YesAllWomen campaign highlighted broader experiences of misogyny. [...] Men, attendees believed, were the ones under threat of attack.

Not too subtle there... List off recent events, imply that it's all evidence that women are under attack, then say this handful of nutjobs just thinks the exact opposite. Because of course either society oppresses women or men... it can't be both, or some of each, or....

There was no mention onstage of the levelness of a playing field in which women make up 20 percent of U.S. senators and 18 percent of U.S. representatives — but bring it up offstage, and several participants said the men in office are merely puppets for their female electorate.

Sure. Why not draw a nice little cartoon with tinfoil hats, while you're at it? Never mind that this unbalanced Congress was elected mostly by women. Why can't a man represent a woman's interests, or a woman represent a man's interests?

Further -- not mentioning who actually said many of these things. Very little mention of their actual arguments. A lot of quote mining.

Honey Badger Radio left a nice comment though.

Mr5306 · 2014-07-01T10:50:12+00:00

then, they don’t sound like angry white misogynists. They sound like they could be feminists.

I have no fucking words, other than fuck her.

whinemoreplease · 2014-07-01T11:21:29+00:00

This is journalism? What a sad fucking state.

The negativity and lack of bias was palatable. That's not even mentioning the lack of analysis, discourse, and insight.

Edit: to be fair, it gets much, much better as it goes on.

rg57 · 2014-07-01T20:54:57+00:00

It's amazing to me that the writer can't even get past their own misandry.

The first paragraph mocks the death threats received at the previous venue.

The second paragraph belittles genuine issues versus "red pill moments", which the author falsely reduces down to being dumped. A "red pill moment" can be anything, although I don't use the term.

The third paragraph of course brings up Rodger, who "killed two women and four men" because he hated being rejected (get the subtle connection the author is making?). Note, that even the order is incorrect. Closer to the truth, Rodger killed "four men, and two women, and himself". It sounds completely different that way, right, because you focus on what's first... "four men", not "two women". Rodger hated men as much as he hated women, and he killed most of them by stabbing, which is a more personal act than simply shooting.

The next few paragraphs subtly mock the idea that men might have some legitimate grievances.

And yet despite paying such close attention, we only hear that "one [nameless] speaker postulated that women are responsible for all domestic violence" (and if someone did say that, they are a moron and should be called out).

More nameless accusations "The social media coordinator" called a "[nameless] dissenter" a fame whore.

And some actually reasonable paragraphs about not being embryonic.

But then we're told Barbara Kay is against "anti-rape ads". That's not exactly the whole truth. She, like anyone interested in men's rights, is against "telling men, and only men, not to rape", is if they are all suspect, and only they are suspect.

At this point I stopped reading, because it's clear they neither did their job (not even getting names), not can they get past their own sexism to seriously report on the issues.

Title	Washington Post article on ICMI14
Author	iethatis
Upvotes	11
Comments	13
Date	July 1, 2014 1:50 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/29iywt/washington_post_article_on_icmi14/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/washington-post-article-on-icmi14.998519 https://theredarchive.com/post/998519

Comments