“They said you were touching girl’s asses,” the school’s principle, Diane, who had called me in for my transgressions. Luckily for me, she was a nice lady who was interested in at least hearing what this criminal had to say.
This was nonsense. I was just playing hard. What the hell was she talking about? We are playing sports together!
Reflecting On My Sins
In the end, I was blindsided and ended up fessing up to something I really hadn’t done, because I didn’t want to get in any more trouble. It was as if I had come out on top, but my victory had been tossed away due to steroid use.
My persecutors were two girls in particular who were actually both 8th graders, who also had a hard on for me that wasn’t sexual in the slightest, but rather one in which they vindictively felt better by helping to bully a kid like me who was already somewhat of an “outcast”. I knew it was them, but what could I do? It would be one of the first times I realized girls fought behind your back with words, unlike boys who would fight with fists before your eyes.
I hadn’t touched their asses as much as I had bumped into them or their boobs trying to catch the football before they did when we jumped in to the air. They wanted to play with us, afterall. I figured that if the girls wanted to play with the rest of us boys, we of course shouldn’t treat them any differently. I was very competitive and to quote A Day To Remember, “2nd Sucks,” and letting the girls who were also playing with us get the ball instead of me felt like a violation of what every boy usually wants when it comes to a competition; to win. In order to do that, I had to play hard.
Boy, was I wrong.
It didn’t even matter that I wasn’t really attracted to fine bootys, and still am not till this day. I remember explaining my situation to another classmate who related how he got in trouble for the same thing – though I don’t know if it was intentional, but now I suspect it wasn’t. Apparently I got off easier as I was becoming a charmer even at 12.
I was a spunky somewhat nerdy 6th grader, who liked to play hard. Yes, I was still a geeky booky nerd who enjoyed board & table top games along with PC games, but I liked to tumble, so to speak, and I was desperate to prove my capabilities to the rest of my classmates who still viewed my poorly groomed self as someone to be made fun of. Recess was my favorite part of school usually, and I looked forward to it as a way to finally get out of my seat and prove myself on the playground.
Soccer was very popular at my school, and we all played it. I knew that proving myself on the field during recess and lunch time would at least give me some measure of respect in the eyes of my “bully” who the soccer god at school and whose words shaped opinions on just about everything. It was one of my first exercises in masculinity – proving my worth.
This included the girls, some of them who were pretty damn good. At first, I would slide tackle them as I would anyone else, however when I did, I always received some kind of scorn if one of them got “hurt” during the tackle. Even if I was treating girls equally in how I played and competed with them, I was still “bad”, if they got hurt in the process. The “protector” instinct manifested itself with the rest of my male classmates and those who violated it – even in an unknown demonstration of “equality” on the playground – would know about it.
I can recall another time when another female teacher – she was a good lady – pulled me aside off the field after several of the girls playing along with us complained I was playing too hard and was acting “crazy” in my desire to win the ball back. She told me something along the lines of how she understand how I played hard, but the girls didn’t. Imagine me in a similar situation in the present day.
Now that I think about it, if I was now in sixth grade in a public school, I could have been accused of sexual harassment for my rough play. It didn’t even cross my mind at the time, but considering how hostile public schools now are to young males, I could have been railroaded because the teachers would have already assumed I was inappropriately touching female classmates during physical play at recess. Even more unfortunate is that with teachers and staff being 90% female, they might not understand the rough play isn’t sexual in nature, even if they have sons, because it is the age in which boys often have just hit puberty.
Even if they do realize the above and choose not to play with the girls, they can still get in trouble for excluding the girls, specifically if some demand to play with them. Of course the boys shouldn’t have to worry about the risks of accidentally touching or brushing up against them the wrong way, and should be happy to use the time as a reason to connect with those girls later and get to know them better. (At least that’s what I tried to do at the age because most girls didn’t like drawing pictures of Sonic , playing Tony’ Hawks Pro Skater 2, or nerding out to tabletop games.)
Occasionally, I’ll play floor hockey that’s technically “co-ed” on Sunday nights and I’ve noticed I’m afraid to play hard against any girls – the ones who actually show up – for fear that if they get hurt, I’ll be looked at like some form of Hitler.
Some co-ed sport activities aren’t a bad time, but if you want to unleash your inner competitive animal, it won’t happen when your afraid of accidentally hurting someone else’s wife or girl in front of the entire gym. The guys only floor hockey I played in a few times on Thursday’s demonstrated the satisfying feeling of not having to worry about holding back, so much so in fact, that there’s almost been a few fights with the smell of sweat rank in the air.
I feel bad for young boys today who want to play hard with their female classmates, but when they do, realize that there are unexpected consequences for embracing the “equality message” preached in schools, which wont be an acceptable defense when they end up brushing up against the ass of the wrong high-school queen who might exact vengeance through both white knights and school staff on the lookout for sexual harassment.
Note I went to a private Christian school for 6th grade, with well-meaning staff and teachers.
Inspiration from 2nd sucks comes from this song, which I will admit, moshing to anytime it’s played live.
Finally, the angry self-ridden guilt posts to appease the privilege-checking sky gods is over. October 12th, the day we rant about Columbus and rave about the nobility of meso-america is over, but not without the usual stir. Even a week later, there was a few guilt-ridden white kids making sure to post their obligatory, “Columbus was a bad man” post.
Think about it for a moment.
Memes, links, and articles flood your Facebook about how terrible of a person Columbus was – some of which is true – and how “sinful” it is to celebrate Columbus for any reason. Whatever good Columbus may have done apparently matters not, and the same applies to many other historical heroes who have slowly become evil because they like every other single ancient, classical, and medieval historical figure might have owned slaves or rampaged through enemy lands at one time.
Twitter of course tells you that the day should be changed to celebrate “Indigenous people” who clearly weren’t pillaging, raiding, raping, and mass exterminating each other in massive numbers before the unfeeling European bastards encountered the noble savage. Tumblr is even more rabid. Columbus and all heroes of old that are European are evil.
You don’t even have to guess the sophistic tripe that the Huffington Post and Salon mewed about it. Not surprisingly, neutral and non-biased journalist John Oliver jumps on the train.
Very few people know anything about history or do they care.
Let’s think about how countries, empires, and even the Pax Romana came about – through bloodshed. In fact, name one major successful historical civilization on the planet that didn’t commit atrocities that ranged from massacres of captured cities to full out genocides. The very nature of history is built on conquest. It is remembered by the battles that were fought and by the winners who went on to tell the tale.
I find it extremely odd that I don’t see modern day Mongolians living in self loathing and guilt for conquering half the world and killing 30 million in the process. They don’t exactly denounce Ghengis Khan and his descendants from their historical history and I don’t necessarily believe they should. You aren’t responsible for the actions of your ancestors hundreds, let alone thousands of years ago, regardless of what the “privilege” spewing academic crowd has to say about it.
The Turks aren’t exactly weeping in sackcloth and ashes for their historical Ottoman misdeeds which include almost completely wiping out Bulgarian culture and identity, enslaving and oppressing the Greeks – “the tribute of children comes to mind” -for hundreds of years, rampaging and pillaging through the Balkans and much of the nearby Middle-Eastern countries of today. They don’t seem to feel the need to prostrate in despair for subjugating, enslaving, and massacring my Armenian ancestors with the 1915 genocide only being the tip of their historical iceberg.
I haven’t seen modern day Spaniards lamenting about the terrible invasion and conquest of Gaul and most of Iberia by the Visigoths during and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire or their destruction by the invading Moors from North Africa even later. Do said Spaniards revile every day of their conquest and colonization of South America, the Philippines, and Cuba? Obviously an example of European colonial oppression that trumps the Phoenician colonization of Carthage as an example of white supremacy.
The descendants of the Rashidun Calliphate, the Timurids, and the Mughals still haven’t thrown themselves to the dirt in mourning for their ancestors misdeeds yet. In fact, the Mughal rule of India and oppression of the Rajputs and other Hindus isn’t exactly castigated by Pakistanis. Attila The Hun – The Scourge of God – still hasn’t been properly decried by his Turkic, Mongolic, and Ugric descendants.
I can’t remember the Egyptians shaking their heads in dismay about how they subdued various Kingdoms all around them for thousands of years. Even their Nubian neighors aren’t checking their privilege for conquering the lower Kushite barbarians.
Why wont these terrible henious modern people of today check their privilege and revile their bloodthirsty rampaging ancestors?
Because there is no reason to apologize for events that occur far before your time. Yes, you can acknowledge and learn from history, but you don’t have to kneel, weep, and sigh over the annals of yesteryear. What has happened – good or bad – has shaped the course of history.
Determining morality in history is a daunting task in today’s era of revisionism based on ideology, but a necessary filter about how to view and digest history itself has been presented quite articulately by Quintus Curtius;
The laws of history demand that we look at the context of the time for the actions, words, deeds, and culture of those terrible sexist misogynist religious zealot barbarians. History doesn’t occur in a vacuum and what we view as reprehensible today; slavery, genocide, vicious sackings and slaughters, et cectera were deemed as acceptable by their participants in which they occurred.
Our role isn’t to condemn them, but to understand why they did what they did, without passing some arbitrary judgement first as to why it is wrong or right. Enjoy the literature and culture for what it was, not for what modern standards demand it should adhere to.
Modern day mongols don’t weep over the sack of Baghdad and neither should any American weep over Jackson’s Trail Of Tears. Some event’s may be appalling, but they serve as lessons rather then memorials to be wept over daily to placate Faceborg friends who (1) don’t really care and (2) don’t actually know anything about history because they don’t care enough to make the time.
Vox Day via Milo Yiannapolous makes an important point in a recent post, “Embrace Your Extremists” regarding the current culture war and how we should deal with particularly active, aggressive, and rabid SJWs who are on the attack.
“If you want to stop people using bad tactics, the only way to do it is to make them prohibitively costly. And the only way to do that is to use the same tactics with such brutal efficiency that they cry “uncle” and agree to a ceasefire.”
I’ve come to realize that the moral high-ground isn’t just useless vs particularly active and vicious SJWs, but a dangerous handicap. As Internet Aristocrat has said, “You can’t reason with these people. They don’t care. They are narcissists to the core.”
Now each situation is different, but when you deal with SJWs actively trying to go after you, fighting fire with fire is an absolute necessity – for instance when they try to change the Code of Conduct of a company/organization to begin their Stalinist purges and thought-police even the most meek of dissenters. Note that these dissenters are often moderates, who at a certain point will get fed up.
Companies and corporations still have yet to realize that disgruntled people sending emails to them usually don’t represent even 5% of their customer base. Until they do, these tactics will continue to be effective and we should utilize them like our cultural enemies are.
To be honest, Sarah was trying to engage in a philosophical conversation over the issues of age of consent, sexuality, ect on “her” forum posts and blogs. However, when she started labeling opponents – namely #GamerGate and others with every “ist” and “ism” under the scalding sun – while trying to destroy any critics and GamerGate supporters, she began her own Pearl Harbor and the response she is receiving is her just due. She refrained from actual honest intentions in her dialogue and began her campaign of extermination.
Now every SJW isn’t Sarah Butts.
I know some SJWs in real life. They aren’t active and they don’t participate in email and social media campaigns to destroy people. They should be treated as POWs. Never employ “scorched earth” against those who haven’t initiated it first. Guilt By Association SHOULD not be attached to what I would call the, “nominal SJWs.”
We don’t want to turn “thinkers” into flag-burning revolutionaries so to speak, which is why each SJW individual should be handled differently based on what they actually do and endorse.
Vox’s use of the word “extremist” is also telling and its an important indicator of how important the war over words actually is. Consider what used to be considered an “extremist” 100 years ago or yet better a “fundamentalist”.
The connotation went from having fundamentals to being some sort of religious… extremist. Brilliant when you think about it. “Extremist” is today’s current expansion on that concept and it’s unfortunate that the radical social justice left is winning when it comes to attaching a specific connotation when the word is used.
Labels are again the primary weapon. SJWs will label anyone who dissents from their narrative as extremists. Now any normal person who hears the word “extremist” attached to an individual or group will immediately assume a negative about them before hearing anything they have to say.
It’s important for us to use the word when referencing SJWs so that (1) their wordplay can’t be used to control the narrative, (2) they cant effectively utilize attacking the individual instead of the ideas by causing people to dismiss “extremists” without hearing what actually makes them extreme from a source that isnt an SJW.
Remember, when your opponents engage in demagoguery, label slander, and every other slight under the sun designed to destroy your character and reputation, it is absolutely necessary to not only fight back with their same tactics, but to do it with urgency.
Reputations of semi-private individuals can be destroyed online and the truth won’t matter, rather what the neutral public observes from the loudest mouths will shape their perception of who you and what you stand for. It’s up to you to shape that.
It all started at the local DipStick that I get my regular oil changes from. Everything seemed like a regular morning around 7:30 on my way to work. Two hours later, my facebook feed blew up. #FoxLake was trending on Twitter.
The small town of 10,000 where I lived was national news.
I thought it was perhaps another deadly accident that had killed three and left a huge black mark on the tree besides the road that didn’t budge an inch. I then got a text from a friend and began to scour twitter and the Mchenry County Scanner FB page that people were posting every tidbit of information they knew. Details began to emerge.
The suspicious suspects – which our town is constantly full of if you know anything about the people who live here – were actually very dangerous for once. (I’d estimate about half our town looks “suspicious” on a given day, which is why officers sometimes wisely employ their discretion. ) Murky details confirm that Lt. Joseph Gliniewicz spotted them, described them, and then gave chase.
Minutes later, he was dead.
Even worse – or better if you consider overall surveillance implications – there are no cameras in that area. I can’t recall any cameras at the Dipstick, the old car dealership across the street, or the Fox Lake Animal Hospital. The abandoned cement plant where drug deals and other nefarious activity takes place certainly doesn’t have any.
The suspects would run toward the heavily forested and hilly terrain that somewhat reminds me of scenes from Rambo: First Blood.
We have no way of knowing whether the suspects were actually armed – all of them – or if they managed to get ahold of Joe’s sidearm and murder him with it. Regardless, this lack of clarity doesn’t matter when it comes to jumping on tragedies for political use. No side or cause is immune to this jump, but often the wiser elements give it some time before they use it as a talking point on CNN.
Enter Shannon Watts
Joe’s death didn’t stop degenerates like Shannon Watts of “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America” from pissing on our towns tragedy for her twisted political gun-control nonsense. In fact, it encouraged her to trash those of us who do own firearms in the town – probably 75% of us terrible uneducated rednecks who don’t believe in “white privilege” – or better yet don’t have time in a quest to survive.
This isn’t even close to the first time she’s pulled this. It’s a consistent pattern with her. This behavior has become the norm for virtually every ideologue with a dragon to slay. The real victims – our community – be damned. This is of course to be expected from urbanite “educated” liberal types who think they know whats better for us then we do.
She clearly isn’t aware of the criminal element that exists in Fox Lake that doesn’t care about legally purchasing guns let alone drugs.
Practice some of your tolerance and demand for diversity with observing history and those of us who have had our ancestors go through genocide because of gun-control. As someone who is half-armenian and whose ancestors were subjected to the genocide, check your white middle-class liberal privilege.
Thanks to “gun-control”, the entire history of my Grandfather’s side of the family has been wiped out. I couldn’t even find out that much about his side because his mother was so distraught from the genocide, that she cried and broke down every-time he tried to ask her about it.
What do my dead ancestors know though? Shannon Watts knows best.
What happens in Fox Lake these days?
Cars are broken into. Garage doors are tagged. Attempted house break-ins are becoming normal. Crack addicts live three houses down from me and end up completely naked except for a shirt in my driveway. Bouncers are shot by thugs that come to Pugs from Waukegan.
In fact, years ago, I was almost beaten on Forest avenue by gangbangers armed with bats and knives who mistook me for someone else. As I began to panic, I put down the hood on my sweater and to my relief,they got back in their car as I overheard, “Oh it’s not him.”
Fox Lake residents have had a mixed relationship with our PD and its differed quite a bit depending on our residents. The more well-off avoid encounters with the police, but the section 8 and bad housing areas of the town certainly don’t.
I won’t name any specific names, as I can’t risk being targeted, but the power tripping abuse from some of the cops in the department is so bad, that our Chief of Police was finally forced to step down for some of the incidents he continually swept under the rug. Perhaps the trustees of this town and the municipal policies they have been pushing to fund Grant Highschool share part of the blame.
Despite how much damn money is poured into the highschool alone, they always need more. It is literally a financial blackhole and the blatant evaporation of money is treated as excusable because “our students!” Several molesting and drug distributing teachers later, the slogan is still employed. This doesn’t even include the other stories I’ve heard from students.
Rather then actually tackle these problems, the police here do what they do best – generate revenue. A cop hides down the hill from me waiting in a private citizens driveway where he anticipates the inevitable physics of speed to pick up in order to nab speeders.
They hand out “public intoxication” tickets in a town defined by its insane amount of bars to residents and those of neighboring towns who instead of getting a DUI have the good sense to walk home. Yes, lets punish those people who have absorbed the lessons of Illinois, “Don’t drive drunk” commercials, because that makes perfect sense.
He actually cared about the community, and this is precisely why his death has been so mourned. I realized this after chatting him with twice. My brother from my second family Caleb experienced his good and gentle nature through his two years in the Explorer program that Joe ran.
He was for all purposes, our Andy of Mayberry.
Fundamentally Joe understood that the police are supposed to protect their communities rather then harassthem; a lesson some of the younger officers on the FLPD force have yet to learn in their attempts to “prove” themselves. It’s why so many people showed up at the vigil to remember him and rally around his family and friends.
Now, despite the racist bullshit spewed by the #BlackLivesMatter movement, there are good cops out there, and we need to not only support them, but rally around them and their families when tragedies like this occur.
Let me make this clear; not even the worst cops deserved to be murdered in cold blood. To go even further, no one deserves that.
Not all the cops on the PD are bad. Unfortunately, the blue code of silence has prevented the good cops there from addressing some of the uniformed thugs out to make a name for themselves.
The rule of law must be respected, and I say that as a very anti-authoritarian thinker. Yes, I understand how pissed people are the cops, as I am one of them. I’ve said some rather insane things about how to deal with the cops before – including predicting tragedies like this to happen frequently, but in hindsight it’s a bit of a shock when it happens to cops you know – particularly the good ones, and not the abusive gestapo type frequently portrayed on Copblock.
It is absolutely VITAL that the relationship founded on trust between civilians and the police is restored.
This however will not happen until bad cops are held accountable for their actions, police unions are weakened, external independent investigations of complaints become normal, and the blue code of silence is reformed by giving police officers and environment in which they won’t fear alienation and a lack of backup from their fellow officers for calling out and addressing the actions of the bad officers in their department.
Good cops do exist. Plenty of them are out there. My aunt is one of them.
If you shoot at her, you can rest assured that I and the rest of my family will find you and hold you accountable by any means possible.
Now if I’m completely honest, I don’t necessarily respect the police. I respect individual officers who have earned my respect and/or trust. I hope to expand this to more of the police force as time goes on, but it’s tough when you never know if you can trust the blue or not.
Remember, it was illegal with threat of a felony up until just two years ago to even record cops without their consent – and when it was finally made legal, the police unions and Fraternal Order of Police protested vehemently.
They are the real enemy, and should be treated as such.
For the true liberal types out there, “Minority rights” and police accountability can’t exist when Police Unions have the power they do to erase all accountability. Either choose your token minorities or choose your police unions. You can’t have both.
Don’t forget about the municipalities either who will turn a blind eye, if not outright encourage and mandate the bad behavior we see from the police. Often there is a mayor and a board of trustees behind the push for greater tickets. This is often forgotten in the attention placed on departments who police for profit. That push is coming from the corrupt towns, counties, and numerous government bureaucrats who have realized that if they can’t increase taxes anymore, they can easily make that revenue by harassing, abusing, and slowly destroying the poor of their communities.
It this kind of behavior which will make shootings of government officials and police a norm. I’m not encouraging it, I’m merely predicting that it will become much more frequent until changes happen.
Disclosure: I’ve recently talked a bit with Ben via digital means. He also points out that he does not identify as a feminist.
Ben was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
The vengeance for all of the cat-calls, all of the “creepy” men with their ingrained misogynistic awkwardness, and the sum of all “harassment” that they had ever experienced was visited upon Ben. His apology was scorned. These militant feminists; they know not what they do.
Or do they?
You terrible male cis shitlords, check your privilege.
It wasn’t until this week that I found out who Ben Schoen was. He is actually the the owner of Feminspire and what one would call an equality feminist – similar to that of Christina Hoff Summers. Arguably, he’s put a lot of time, effort, and resources into fighting the good feminist fight.
But, based on a series of interactions that certain feminists didn’t approve of, none of that mattered at all. Anything he had done to help women was all thrown out the window. Today in popular feminist online blogging and academic culture, the burden of the sinful male feminist is a tough, exhausting, un-rewarding, soul-sucking, and constant mandate to prove the support they have for their female feminist masters.
Ben’s mistake was one he was born with, one that all of us terrible male shitlords who breathe oppression suffer from on a daily basis – he is male.
This is the original sin of not just 3rd wave feminism, but of much of today’s social justice tripe that focuses on only your biology, while entirely ignoring your character.
The Entitled Interaction
Our story begins with a message to a Buzzfeed writer, Grace Spelman who decided to air all of their personal dirty laundry which started this twitter lynch mob – something that should surprise none of you. (Note that when I tweeted at Ben, she suddenly followed me then blocked me. I reciprocated the favor.)
Ben used to be involved in a Harry Potter fan podcast and she friended him on Facebook because of that podcast about eight years ago. Forward to present day and a certain site had an article on Grace’s twitter – or instagram – profile as one with 10k followers that people should check out.
Well, he did just that and realized he knew her. He then sent her several tweets, to which she didn’t respond. So he sent her a message though Facebook, one that I must admit while somewhat humorous was awkward. (Another reason why men should learn about Game.)
Then he moved to Facebook. I politely told him I was seeing someone and then blocked him on FB & Twitter pic.twitter.com/k84dCJ3OrT
Consider some of the gems Grace has written for Buzzfeed.
“30 Shirts For The Weirdos In Your Life” with the sub header, “Embrace Your Inner Weirdo”. Besides all the shirts apparently being made off Zazzle’s shirt maker in 30 seconds, that inner weirdo embrace definitely didn’t seem to apply to Ben.
18 Pickup Lines You Should Try Immediately” I particularly enjoyed “6. I noticed your arm grazed against my sweater. Pretty soft, huh? Go ahead, feel it. Do you know what it’s made of? Cashm-—CRAP, I mean, “boyfriend material.” I’m sorry. I’m really nervous.“
18 Sexts You’d Actually Love To Get. My personal favorite, “About to go through your Facebook and like all your profile pictures.” That’s not at all creepy and stalkerish that every male feminist should embrace…
Ben would then send her an apology though email, which would be the last contact he would have with her.
It was here that Ben made a crucial mistake; he apologized to this nasty harpy innocent glorious snowflake princess worthy of all admiration. His mistake is highlighted in Mike Cernovich’s excellent post, “How To Survive A Public Shaming” which I suggest you all read and thoroughly take to heart, because any of you male feminists – no matter how devoted to the cause – could become next.
What remains to be seen is why Grace felt compelled to publish the messages and emails, despite the apology. No, I’m joking. Never, ever, apologize to people like her. They don’t want an apology, they want blood.
They would get that blood when Spelman shared these conversations between them available to the ever controversy and outrage hungry feminist audience. (In all fairness, Ben did express his fustration on twitter before Spelman made these public.)
The Bleeding Frenzy
The timing of this was of course fantastic. It all happened right during the hashtag prominence of #ThingsFeminstMenHaveSaidToMe. A male villain to go with the tag had just presented himself and confirmation bias would strike a vicious blow with Ben as its target.
Eight hit pieces came within a matter of 72 hours from sites that all publish articles concerning Feminism and how it also care’s about men. I thought I was a terrible piece of sexist misogynistic male anti-feminist racist homophobic transphobic ableist trash, but I would have nothing on one of their own, namely Ben Schoen.
I didn’t even bother linking the hordes of other ones off blogs. I’d estimate there are over 100 different sites which covered his terrible misogynistic actions. These actions of his were of course so atrocious, that they make women cower in fear for their very lives every time they sneak a look at Twitter, read an email, or browse through Facebook in search of the powerful patriarchal oppressors who control every aspect of society.
These articles would direct thousands of tweets to Ben’s twitter, all telling him what a terrible misogynistic piece of shit he was. His tweets specifically were pointed out as tweet rape harassment as tweeting at someone must be a consensual activity governed by enthusiastic, clear, and concise verbal consent.
Feminist hurricane Spelman would continue to rage, but she would make one very interesting admission concerning why she didn’t accept the apology. This might not be as ideological driven on her part as I initially thought.
That angry mob spewing threats, harassment at Ben, and every other vicious form of Twitter rape at him was funny. I think we know who the real victim is here Scoob.
Yea, she found it funny, but the lynch mob angered over his vicious retaliatory responses to her “rejection” didn’t and they would continue to go after Ben.
This was all deliberately blown out of proportion for the sake of the cause – the unwilling martyrs of #ThingsFeministMenHaveSaidToMe – don’t matter.
The supposed sin that Ben committed was that he didn’t respond the “right” way – according to SJW feminist dogma- about how to handle his “rejection”. He was accused of the usual “male entitlement” when it comes to conversations with women. Observe the tactic from the NewYorkMag:
“The whole exchange is pretty emblematic of the inherent difficulties of rejecting men, both online and off. Women are frequently made to toe a line between being polite enough to not set off the suitor, but not so polite that their manners are interpreted as flirting.
“You can’t win in these types of situations,” Spelman told the Cut. “Even if you are polite in your rejection, they’ll demand that you tell them WHY you did it. It’s just a mixture of entitlement and the fragility of the ego … Because you don’t know how they’re going to handle it, you don’t know if you should be afraid or not.”
“I still am not quite sure if I should be scared of this guy or not,” she added.”
Considering who the mob’s pitchforks have been stabbing, I’d say Ben should be scared.
Now reverse the genders for a moment, and you will notice that this same concept of “entitlement” in regards to conversations between the genders is not applied. You will also notice a specific expectation – or dare we say entitlement – by feminist women as to how men should respond to “rejection” in conversations.
Who are the real entitled one’s here?
Rhetorical question, shitlord. Of course it’s us terrible male cis straight oppressors.
You will respond how they think you should, or you will be castigated with every “ist” and “ism” under the sun. They don’t care about the women and angry girlfriends in the thousands of YouTube videos who are destroying their ex’s car, home, possessions, and property. In fact, it’s considered funny. Humorous.
Now could Ben have initially handled it better?
Is it “harassment”?
No, not even close. But that’s the key tactic at play. If you can label this as harassment, Ben is a complete and utter shitlord, despite how ACTUAL interactions between men and women occur.
This is as much “harassment” as is Dish sending you two more additional letters asking if you would renew your Cable subscription with them.
Observe some of this BS
@GraceSpelman It reads like your typical sexual harassment case. Guy offers the promise of employment in exchange for fringe benefits.
You know what’s worse then being called a slut? Being called a creep. People at least want something from sluts. They prefer to completely avoid creeps. It’s not enough to shoot someone down, you have to label him in to practically an untouchable for his awkward approaches. That’s the kind of forgiving 3rd wave feminism encourages.
Think of what this entire situation implies to all male feminists out there.
Have an interest in a girl who is an ardent feminist and you are a male feminist?
Don’t bother. You are a manipulative oppressive betraying shitlord who is taking advantage of her trust placed in you as a worthless slave ally. In fact, expressing interest is harassment and a manifestation of Patriarchy, so back the hell away and check your privilege for the 1000th time today.
Obviously, you should wait for her to express interest in you, and if that never happens, too bad. Sit down, and shut up. Listen in silence like the slaves you are and make sure to kiss her shoes while you are bowing down, face to the ground.
The Disposable Cannon Fodder Ally
I ask myself, “How can one allow themselves to be treated with such disrespect and dehumanization?” Female feminists take their male allies for granted, that is why. They demand respect, but refuse to offer any in return.
Respect is earned, not given. Until male feminists realize this, they will be treated like dirt and disposable tampons for purely emotional use and support. Ben was then further accused of harassing her by threatening her job. Well, let’s look at what he said.
The so-called threat was Ben hinting that he was going to check Buzzfeed’s policies on the matter. Ben’s response:
Your article is printing a flat out lie. I never threatened her career. She started posting private emails and I said I would let her bosses know as that is against the policy of many media companies.
Of course, this was made out to be vicious harassment, despite the fact that companies like Buzzfeed have policies about not publishing people’s private emails and correspondence. As the infamous shitlord Vox Day has said, “SJWs always lie.”
Regarding his own employment, the mob would wish him well:
They literally blew up his private life, bringing up conflict between him and his ex-girlfriend who had been the co-partner of the site before he bought her out. His side of what happened in their relationship was irrelevant to their narrative.
Ben would go on a livestream with infamous and now Twitter banned Chuck Johnson to explain his side of the story.
During the interview Ben points out that he still identifies as a feminist – don’t ask me why he tortures himself. He did however make a key distiniction about it, “I am sincere about being a feminist when feminism truly means equality.”
Considering modern day feminism has nothing to with “equality” when men are the subject of conversation, that will happen when pigs fly across the English Channel.
Notice something else about these harpies; Both Ben and Chuck were attacked during their interview for their weight.
So much for Fat Acceptance.
While it’s amusing that they think grade-school like insults based on someone’s physical appearance will hurt them or their arguments, it highlights an internal inconsistency in the “fat is beautiful” crowd; the body positive image part of intersectionality -another faux cause feminism claims to advocate for – is subject specifically to the person in question.
If you don’t personally like them, that oppressive male shitlord should feel not only creepy, but ashamed of his overweight exterior which apparently is not very beautiful at all.
I have a question for you male feminists: Why do you let these small groups of malcontent harpies dictate no only how you should act, but how the rest of us of how should behave and respond in interactions between “insert marginalized/oppressed group here” and whoever else seems to rank lower in the progressive stack?
This whole fiasco and public shaming debacle is what happens to male feminists who are “Allies” and mess up – even slightly – regardless of their apologies. Yet woman like, Bahar Mustafa who writes #KillAllWhiteMen and bans certain people from diversity meetings because of their biology isn’t condemned or called out, but rather affirmed as an SJW of courage? She messed up that bad, and no lesser white feminists of note/faux journalists even called her out.
Speaking of her, shes actually Turkish. Turkey is a nation that has been oppressing everyone around it for over 500 years. Fun Fact: Talking about the Armenian genocide there is illegal, let alone acknowledging it, I consider her an oppressor whose privileged ancestors brutally murdered, oppressed, enslaved, subjugated, and genocided my ancestors for hundreds of years deeply and profoundly triggers me. Her ancestors are one of the primary reasons my ancestors have a hell of alot less today than they should have.
Back to you male feminists: You are considered scum of the earth by radical female feminists. Everyone else matter and needs a voice – except you. Your role is to listen and shutup. R.S. Mccain sums it up well, “Feminists who say their movement is about “equality” are lying. Feminism is a movement about power — absolute and unlimited power — and therefore the first rule for men in feminist movements is, SHUT UP. “
These man-haters aren’t even trying to hide it, in fact they are deliberately trying to make your life hell. Ever heard of Kafkatrapping? It’s a rather devious, sinister, and merciless tactic used to intimidate and bully “allies”.
“No matter how “nice” you are to a feminist, she will never respect you. The feminist always mistakes male kindness for weakness, and is incapable of gratitude toward males, so that being “nice” to her will only serve to convince her of how infinitely contemptible you are — a servile lackey, a fawning slave who appeals to her sadistic impulses.”
Here’s a confession: I’ve slept with two self-identifying feminists who were well aware of what I think about feminism and social justice. It didn’t matter. Ever wonder why they choose to sleep with “misogynistic sexist deuchebags” like myself instead of their male servants who think all the right things but aren’t ever seen as even the slightest romantic and/or sexual possibilities? (Of course being attractive, good at sex, in good shape, and having some game greatly helps, as it did in my case.)
The call-out culture these feminists in their Twitter lynch mob happily engage in as they target Ben is toxic. However, when fighting a war involving scorched earth – I mean men who have their lives and reputations deliberately destroyed to try to make them permanently unemployable (Yes, some women as well) – I encourage all of you to engage in like reciprocity of call-outs and shaming with feminists who throw the first punch.
Fight back. Stop calling yourself a feminist, because the movement isn’t just not about men, it despises them. There are men and women out there who actually care about you and want you to succeed and prosper as a man, despite the tripe and lies feminists spew about them.
“As feminists, we rightfully put the interests of women first, and we are sceptical of ostensibly feminist arguments that appeal to men’s interests.Solidarity should motivate the privileged in their struggle for change, not self interest; to make an analogy, it would be offensive and misguided to ask the black leaders of the Ferguson movement against police violence to tout the benefits of anti-racism to white people. Likewise, feminists should not be obliged to sell feminism to angry men.”
“But I would offer another analogy: when we combat fascism, it behooves us to offer an alternative to those that fascists would recruit. We may not be able to reach the most hateful misogynists, but feminists must directly attack the false ideology of men’s rights. We must offer a real answer for men consumed by anxiety, and especially those who feel a sense of sexual frustration.”
Avoid vicious women and men like this. Avoid people who label themselves as such feminists and constantly use social media to go after people’s jobs. They don’t care about you. They only care about your original sin- that you were born with the wrong set of genitals.
—— Grace Spelman has had her spotlight, online fame, and reputation boosted from this encounter from the internet trampling of Ben. Evidence of this and her hypocrisy will be exposed and documented in a later article.
A few weeks back, I attended the rather family friendly music and entertainment fest known as “Summerfest” in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Me, my best friend Tim, and one of our other friends Bill all drove up together to “enjoy” the fest and the insane price of beer which averages 8$ for a splendid cup of piss-water domestics such as Miller Lite. We had several hours to kill before we would see “A Day To Remember” and “Linkin Park”
Before A Day To Remember started, a rather terrible band by the name of “PLP MVR” began to play – my guess is that they won a contest to open up for what was rather a large crowd in the Marcus Amphitheater on the summerfest grounds.
Me, Tim, Bill and several other people all joined in making pointed jabs at how bad the band was. I overheard one guy near us remark, “This is like a bad trip from shrooms without the shrooms.” He was of course quite correct. The band was literally dressed up in costumes that resembled “furries” and the drummer looked like Barf from Mel Brooks classic parody, “Spaceballs.”
Now this is necessary to disclose: if I’m honest, I have a loud mouth, am outspoken, and sarcastic.
No, this isn’t a bad thing, and I fully embrace this part of my personality and utilize it – it gets me laid. Unbeknownst to me, a large and fat tall man about two benches down was fuming and I didn’t see the steam pouring from his ears.
Instantly a giant of a man – about 6.2 or 6.3 was out of his seat in what seemed to be slow motion and suddenly was winding up his fist to take a swing in my direction. My best friend Tim managed to put himself in between the beast – who was at least two times my size – and myself. I’m lucky, because I frozen. No warning, nothing. He hadn’t said anything to me or Tim and Bill, so there had been no indication that he was angry.
Table of Contents
I froze like a piece of ice in -30 degree weather.
I would have taken several punches before my instincts of getting away would have kicked in. (More on that later. It was then and there, I decided I was going to have to de-escalate the situation and it meant that I was going to have to essentially beg for mercy. I did.
“I’m sorry man, you’re right, you are right!!!
“You are Right!”
I pumped this phrase out multiple times in under a minute and it seemed to get him to back down after the first initial, “You little punk ass bitch.” (Note that’s all I remember of the insults he managed to spew. That and something about beating my ass.) Somehow, I was consciously aware that I didn’t want my best friend taking punches to the face for me, nor for our other friend Bill right besides me to have the same happen to him.
Note, this is basic placation on my part and you’d be surprised how many people’s ego you can stroke and in the meantime the bombs you can defuse by uttering the phrase, “You are right”. On some sub-conscious level, hearing that from a perceived opponent makes us feel victorious.
If you don’t already know, I’m one of those “lover not a fighter” types. Also, remember, this guy is at least twice my size.
When situations have gotten “dangerous”, I’ve always been able to evade possible brutes by the fact that I’m simply much faster, nimbler, quicker, and in better shape in my 5 foot 7 body. Luckily, I have more aggressive physical friends who are willing to get in trouble with the law to fight off guys they consider to be picking on me; someone who is usually “not my size.” Note, those specific friends WERE NOT THERE.
My pride was somewhat thrashed, but my face was intact. That’s actually a big deal, because my face is my moneymaker and what has allowed me to land girls with my game still needing plenty of work.
Minutes later, the thought continued to roar through my head…
Why didn’t I quickly bounce off my seat and dart away?
I’m fast, quick, and agile. I pride myself on it.
Why I had been frozen stiff like a piece of cardboard?
The amphitheater benches around us had plenty of room for me to jump off my seat and simply jump step from one bench to another and eventually down to security in the lower deck area and the various police on duty for the event.
Now in my defense, I really wanted to see both of these bands – specifically Linkin Park who I had never experienced live. I didn’t want to take a chance in us getting kicked out and I prefer to avoid contact with the police whenever possible. (Insert my half middle-eastern identity politics card right here.) I now believe I showed the proper discretion in apologizing profusely and preventing an actual all out brawl between this guy and the three of us.
Chances are, we would have all been kicked out and it would have been my fault considering it was my loud mouth that essentially kickstarted the entire debacle. The price of the tickets, gas, ect would not have been the only issue, but taking off work, and finding another time and date the bands were coming through would have caused me to hurt the night my friends had anxiously anticipated for weeks now..
Later the next day, I mentioned this experience to Tim’s cousin Justin who is also both of our best friends; the three of us are like brothers. (All three of us have known each other for over 15 years as well as having lived together.)
(1) Justin mentioned that he can remember at least one time, I essentially dissed some girl – easier to do then you realize – in a bar and two of her male friends were about to white knight and beat the shit out of me. Again, luckily for me Justin and two of his more physical friends were there who have a reputation in the town and those two white knights backed down. (2) In fact, I can recall another time where a friend of mine mentioned that my loud mouth at a bar was attracting the attention of at least one guy who looked like he wanted to fight me. He pointed this out later that night, and I was again completely oblivious to it.
Confession: I haven’t been in a physical fight since first grade. I was THAT sheltered. Or if you look at court costs, tickets, and fines these days perhaps I was that wise and mature. Either way, I don’t know how to defend myself besides “legging” it.
Lacking “Flight or Fight” Instincts
This all caused me to realize I have a glaring deficiency; I dont have strong instincts. I didn’t see that guy coming at all, nor was I aware of the white knights who were looking to beat my ass.
What happens if my friends aren’t there one of these times? I’m a rather outspoken person when conversations occur, and at some point, it will land me in trouble, because I won’t back down from what I say, I’ll just hightail it away. Now, while I’ve shot some firearms and I fervently watch the UFC, I have no real idea how to throw a proper punch or how to defend myself, so I count on my quickness and speed to get myself out of dangerous situations. In this case none of that matter; I was essentially blindsided and oblivious to him until his fist was raised and I noticed Tim was in front of me. I was frozen stiff and only was then suddenly registering what was about to happen. .
What use is my speed and quickness to avoid punches if I wasn’t able to see them coming? Take note that the guy was (1) two benches down from me (2) had to climb up towards me (3) at his easily bulging 350+ pounds he was probably much slower then me considering just how obese he was.
It took this experience to show me this and it’s one I won’t forget anytime soon. Any man should know how to defend himself and have the instincts to do it – especially considering that I want a wife and kids – so I better know and be able to protect them.
As one astute commenter pointed out, “Isn’t fight-or-flight the accepted response to danger to one’s physical wellbeing? In the case of being surprised by a angry boar or a potential mugger, I’m not sure “tend-or-befriend” are a valid fundamental dichotomy.” I faced a walking fat bear, and I was definitely surprised.
(4) Pyschology Today suggested in “Is Our Survival Instinct Failing Us?” that the instinct doesn’t even work well in modern warfare and again dealt with “stress.” (5) Calm Clinic again addressed stress, but emphasized exercise as a way to cope with anxiety. It did however bring up the point that we face a “lack of dangers”, which perhaps suggest that this is an issue of training.
Quintus Curtius in his masterful book, “Thirty Seven: Essays On Life, Wisdom, And Masculinity”, addresses the idea of training and education for young men in chapter seven of the book by drawing on Italian humanist and literal Renaissance man, Pier Paolo Vergerio, for inspiration. Quintus sums up Vergerio’s points regarding the issue of training and education with 27 points, three of which are pertinent to what happened to me.
11. The finest studies for leadership are those based on arms (military) and letters (history, philosophy, languages, and rhetoric). Everyone wants to be learned in old age, but to achieve this one must start early and exert “zealous effort.” Being learned in letters and arms will provide a remedy against “sloth” and solace in the face of worry and stress.
16. The training of the body is of paramount importance. It should be conditioned from a young age for rigorous service, military ability, and endurance. Young men should be hardened from a young age to endure pain and discomfort of all sorts , so that they are not broken by the strains of life and struggle. They should also be taught to “dare great things.” The Cretans and Spartans valued hunting, running, wrestling, and jumping, and sought ways to train themselves to endure hunger, thirst, cold, and heat. Luxuries weaken the mind and body.
19. Since battle tactics are constantly changing, a forward thinking youth will attempt to master the martial arts and self-defense arts of his day. This should include mastery of weaponry, personal combat skills , horsemanship, and movement over rugged terrain carrying heavy loads or equipment. There are many different kinds of combat. “For things are done one way in a melee; another when the decision rests on a battle formation; another when there is an infantry charge, and another when combat takes the form of a duel.”
Unfortunately, I was never taught martial arts, tactics, or any training of the body. I won’t make the same mistake with my kids however.
Another day, another stumble upon a new educational “field” that most of us don’t want to pay 40,000$ to impress our family with. Today’s discovery is that of an older post concerning that social justice culture blog, Vox Populi and “psychopolitics”. (No not Vox Day’s Vox Popol) It starts off rather innocently and ends in an interesting and unintended rabbit hole
In particular the about me “resume” of one of the co-founders, Nisha Gupta, is probably one of the most ironic I’ve ever seen.
“She explores the use of art and social media as interventions to foster societal empathy and bridge differences.”
I’m almost flabbergasted in this could be mistaken for veiled sarcasm, but assuming she isn’t a usurper troll of vast privilege, this is again some rather real irony.
Since when has social media ever been used as a means to foster social empathy on targeted heretics? Memories Pizza anyone? Donglegate? The call-out culture social justice warriors use doesn’t bridge differences, it exacerbates them. It eliminates the “civilians” and turns everyone into front-line soldiers that are essentially cannon fodder with no training. They never expect the war, but it doesn’t stop their lives from being turned into WW1 no-man land’s shell shocked moonscapes.
Maybe I’m reading into this, but “interventions” on social media are more like inquisition racks. Someone is called out, and everyone shames them for at least a 48 hour period. Perhaps, that is the entire point. Now the interventions she desires are far more devious in nature and not just limited to those on social media. To understand this, you have to enter the underground manifesto like world of “Psychopolitics.”
What In The Hell Is Pyschopolitics?
“Psychopolitics“ is an apt description for “Clinical Psychology” that deals with the impact of social justice in that it’s often rather psycho in the treatment of the supposed bad privileged people perpetuating those worldwide social injustices.
I didn’t exaggerate the psycho nature of “psychopolitics.”
Most of us who live and interact in the non safe-space real world probably have never of this term. I sure as hell hadn’t. A necessary google search turned up a rather nasty and blunt summary of “Psychopolitics.” on the first page.
“Asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses…”
Well, at least it’s honest.
Here’s a fun summary from Pyschopolitics on the subject with the same name, of which is some kind of communist manual on conquering populations.
“A psycho politician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of “mental healing.” He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of “mental healing.” He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of “mental healing” until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.”
Substitute “communist” for Social Justice Warrior, even though alot of SJWs would embrace the principles of communism if not the label outright. Mental healing can be substituted for fostering social empathy. Try doing some more substitutions below:
“A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of ‘mental healing.’ He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of ‘mental healing.’ He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of ‘mental healing’ until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.
To achieve these goals the psychopolitician must crush every ‘home-grown’ variety of mental healing in America. Actual teachings of James, Eddy and Pentecostal Bible faith healers amongst your mis-guided people must be swept aside. They must be discredited, defamed, arrested, stamped upon even by their own government until there is no credit in them and only Communist-oriented ‘healing’ remains. You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of ‘psychology.’ You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims.”
“The interdisciplinary nature of psychopolitical validity lends itself to empowerment studies and social change  and could potentially be a useful construct in other critical disciplines within the academy. Prilleltensky and Fox suggest that psychopolitical validity should be institutionalized as a method of preventing wellness and justice from being discussed in isolation. This type of validity brings the two concepts together and politicizes the concept of wellness promotion.”
Anyone else seeing that mutual connection or should I say synonym-like exchange between “mental healing” and “wellness promotion?” But why focus on the mental wellness fields for interdisciplinary reasons?
The definition which I assume comes from Prilleltensky is rather telling:
“Psychopolitical validity refers to the extent to which studies and interventions in the community integrate (a) knowledge with respect to multidisciplinary and multilevel sources, experiences, and consequences of oppression, and (b) effective strategies for promoting psychological and political liberation in the personal, relational, and collective domains…”
The use of this word and what it means to Social Justice advocates is telling. It’s just yet another example of how important the war over words in our culture and the connotation of who uses them is so important.
That cushy and noble concept of “liberation” in social justice speak is yet another code for the chaos and resulting domination mentioned from the Pyschopolitics website. By liberating the “mental health” and wellness fields, they seek to destroy it and then rebuild it in their own god-like image with their own definitions, experts, and influence . Note, this is the exact same thing that’s happened to much of higher academia since the last 1840s and Horace Mann and John Dewey didn’t even try to hide the social conditioning element to the education they had planned for the country’s malleable youth.
A rise in what psychologists could consider “disorders” these days might be more political in nature then we realize. If you are deemed to have any kind of mental disorder – a list that is expanding exponentially every year – there are alot of fields, jobs, and other lifestyle choices you would be excluded from as well as numerous amounts of medication you would constantly need to swallow.
You of course can’t run for political office because you aren’t mentally “well” in the social justice definition of psychology. For one, you most certainly can’t own a firearm. (In fact, in states where I live like Illinois, just 1 out of 10 doctors declaring you mentally unstable or “mentally retarded” is enough to ensure that you can never legally own a firearm.) You also might be excluded from certain public places, buildings, and jobs because of the “risk” you might present.
Any dissenting opinions could be considered a disorder of some kind and those of course are expensive and MUST be treated. The pills, clinics, therapy, and health services would ensure financial profitability. On the trendy side, at least the new normal will be to not be normal – which would include a large segment of the population.
If you think about about it, this is exactly what social justice advocates are trying to in every sphere of life today. Diversity of opinion isn’t for those who have “privilege” and individuals who step out of line and they would need to be subjected to accepted thoughtspeak and wellness promotion to get them back to mental health.
A New Impending Attack
Look at who controls much of mental health institutions and it probably only a matter of time before the concept of “mental healing” takes on a very ideological underside. Maria Konnikova made the case about how dominant those of liberal persuasion have become in the higher academia departments of Psychology point in her article, “Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans?” for TheNewYorker They of course hold that field of “study” with an iron fist. (Again an example that absolute power corrupts absolutely.)
“Explain to students that psychology is not always value free. Modern psychology is often framed as a science that uses empirical methods to advance knowledge about the mind, the brain, and behavior in an objective manner. However, students also should understand that psychologists’ worldviews shape the questions we pose in research, the strategies we use to answer those questions, and how we understand phenomena.
For example, most psychological research uses quantitative methods. Students learn to conduct quantitative studies in research methods courses; instructors most often rely on quantitative findings to inform their lectures. Psychology instructors can teach about qualitative research that models greater power-sharing between researchers and participants through its open-ended questioning and community immersion (Kidder & Fine, 1997). Moreover, qualitative research can advance social justice by amplifying the voices of research participants, particularly people who have been mischaracterized by psychology and broader society, such as women, people of color, and sexual minorities.”
Whenever SJWs talk about “amplifying” marginalized voices, they really mean is that you would give far more emphasis, validity, and credibility to those specific voices and the research they produce – often of very dubious scientific nature. Alot of the early “privilege” theory comes from what is known as “Standpoint Theory” along with “Muted-Group Theory” which is basically the idea that because marginalized minority voices haven’t gotten enough voice in history – a mistaken and false conclusion – researchers, teachers, and society overall must give much more attention to said voices then any other ones. Essentially, those minority marginalized voices must be given 70% or more of the attention and the scraps will be distributed among the rest until society is “balanced” Note, no SJW knows or has even formulated a position as to when that actually will occur so luckily for them, that horse can always be beaten for eternity.
I wrote this article over two years ago and I still make updates. Social media still drives media stories, but in the age of “#RESIST” Trump, coverage is more weaponized than it’s ever been. What’s good for ratings is now the dominant driving force in coverage. After all according to CNN’s producer, they are there to make money and journalistic standards are a naivete for fools just out of journalism school. He went as far as to admit that the Russian influence story was bullshit, but ratings are ratings.
To follow that bombshell up, CNN was so angered by Trumps tweeting of a meme of of him bodyslamming a photoshopped CNN figure in a WWE clip from years ago, that they actually went after a private citizen they thought first spread it. The overt threat to dox him a.k.a. #CnnBlackmail if he did anything else to irk seems to be the biggest low we’ve seen in years from any journalistic outlet, to say nothing of other questionable ethical coverage if Trump is the subject.
So what happened? How did we get here?
In school we taught that an attentive, honest, and responsible media must cover the pressing issues of the day, as well as what is considered news. Trump is apparently ground zero, but what drove headlines before? Often it was the mid level outlets online that pumped out stories ripped from social media feeds, which if big enough would work there way up to the national media.
This mid level media would choose WHAT the newswould be often based on what roused people the most. The latter part of this article will prove that anger is what rouses people the most to share, tweet, and to fuel that firestorm. Fuel for that fire is often sought and driven by “news” plucked from whatever the newest twitter storms, Facebook trends, Reddit’s front page, and whatever other platforms are blowing up what is often the latest tragedy.
Well, should journalists actually cover these kinds of stories? Are they even stories worth covering? Should they be covered? Are they actually newsworthy. I guess that now depends on who is the subject matter.
One of the primary duties of the press has always been to cover the activities of our government and hold them transparent, as well as to focus on ethical issues that directly affect our societies and communities. At one point, we had a slight bit of trust in journalists to show “discretion” in how they went about this – particularly after the early days of yellow journalism. (More on that later.)
The internet though has changed all of this and much of that change has been bad. It can be seen in a series of steps, too often repeated:
Getting the scoop ALWAYS takes precedence. This is the golden rule of today’s internet journalism, because the buzz is always changing throughout the day. If you want to remain relevant and continue to maintain meager ad revenue; publish first, ask questions later.
In the 24 hour news cycle of the digital media age, the media – old and new – are the ones who set the agenda through the stories they choose to cover, what we would call the “narrative.” Because of this cycle and the prominence of digital publications, the concept of a “journalist” and what actually constitutes journalism has been drastically altered. We really still don’t know as to how much or where that alteration will culminate, though we can see who and what is being left behind in its wake – it’s often not pretty.
A significant moral responsibility exists for media publications both in which stories they choose to cover and the kind of coverage they give said stories – in particular the disclosure of private details necessary for a story and the balance at stake of the individual(s) in said story.
Again, the duty of a responsible media in a democracy is to objectively inform the public of issues and decisions that effect their society. This assumption is often applied to public figures, politicians, corruption, and social issues and to generate debate about them.
However because of online media in the last decade it has been applied more and more to people who aren’t public figures or even in the spotlight. The ethical guidelines for protecting the privacy of the public has arguably become much more important in the last 20 years with the rise of digital media. Everyone in the process is now in the crosshairs.
As it’s been said, “If it bleeds, it leads.”
If I am honest, the concept of “ethics” in concern to media journalism is not exactly a black and white issue. In fact, its rather murky, especially when all the factors of privacy, loyalties, principle, values, and perspectives come into play.
One of the journalism classes I had to take was a capstone class called, “Media Ethics” which was taught by a rather smart woman. I would describe this professor of mine as “oldschool”, conservative, from South Africa, rigorous with her writing standards, and a strong distaste for dancing. She is also one of the best professors I’ve ever had.
What she forced me to do was to go through over 60 case studies and to examine how the story was told and whether it was broken the wrong way, who was hurt by it, the necessity of it, and the effects of it later. Oh, and she had a ban list of how we could write about said studies and examples in our papers.
One of the studies dealt with Matt Drudge of the now famous online news giant, The Drudge Report, and how, when, and why he broke the Monica Lewinski story.
Newsweek wouldn’t publish the story. One suspects this is probably because of their more liberal bent, but it wouldn’t stop Drudge from taking what would be his shot to prominence. However, one very important question that still remains is, “Should he have broken the story?”
As a noted conservative, it should be fairly obvious that Matt Drudge and other conservatives stood to gain something in the public eye and political debate by the revelation of President Clinton’s tempestuous actions of infidelity in the oval office. It was after all Clinton’s private life – specifically sexual privacy in general. While he was THE public figure, did that entail the press to coverage about it? Legally yes, but morally, I’m not so sure.
Whether this was a matter of respect for the office, a secretive agreement and support for those president’s policies and actions by the press, or a combination of both is up for debate. I would point out that the “respect for the president” is a myth when you look at the history of newspapers in America.
Not only were publications prone to bias, personal attacks, outright lies, and throughout the 1800s they were powerful and, “purposeful actors in the political process, linking parties, voters, and the government together, and pursuing specific political goals”. In fact, consider how vicious newspapers were as early as the presidential election of 1800 which would involve threats, libel, and actual imprisonment by those involved with the press of the time.
However, Drudge’s disclosure has become child’s play in light of the new players that have bullied their way onto the block and what details of public and semi-public figures can go viral for the world to see. The rise of online media giants like Gakwer, Vox Media, and Buzzfeed have contributed to a noticeable and worrisome change in what both journalists and readers accept – or become desensitized to – in concern to the ethical guidelines for fellow journalists and publications.
These publications in particular have started to attract millennials who go to these publications for their main source of news even though these publications have ethical standards that often resemble those of celebrity tabloids – Gakwer’s Neetzan Zimmerman rise to “viral” power should come to mind – to the chagrin of any real journalists that still exist.
One specific issue that arises with site like Gakwer, Vice, Upworthy, and Buzfeed is that too many people consider them to be a “rough” form of journalism, even though they don’t necessarily flaunt their supposed journalistic integrity and standards. Essentially, they engage in forms of “journalism” without any actual standards or responsibility to go along with it. Does that at all sound familiar on a certain buzzword in today’s culture wars?
In fact, I’ve seen stories from parody sites that aren’t humorous in nature, so they slip right past the Spidey sense that almost no one on my Facebook feed possesses. I point out that its actually from a parody site, and I am rewarded by becoming the bad guy that is “too” serious.
Studies and “statistics”– which have become a buzzword in their own right – have been suggesting people are becoming more apathetic and less aware on issues and when it comes to the media it becomes more apparent. In line of the recent “gate” labels for controversy, “GruberGate” is evidence of politicians and their well paid consultants who literally think that the public is stupid. They might actually be correct, though in all fairness Gruber didn’t just outright mislead people – he lied.
“In 2013, for instance, I asked Gruber if Democrats understood that the ACA would slowly and methodically erode the system under which millions of Americans get health insurance through their jobs. In pitching the ACA, Democrats had been adamant that the law would support and sustain the employer-based system, not erode it. But Gruber knew better and he told me so, likening workers being kicked off job-based health plans to people “falling off a building,”an outcome that architects of the ACA knew was likely and had planned for.”
Consider the ethical standards of Gawker who have actually developed a feature called “Gawker Stalker” which helps people stalk celebrities via GPS on google maps and relay information about their exact whereabouts in real time on twitter which TMZ can then pick up on for their daily news scoop. That is what the ethics standards for a publication like Gawker advocate on concepts like privacy. This is especially ironic considering how much Gawker subsidiary Jezebel has ranted and raved about the atrocities of violating the privacy of female celebrities which they have directly encouraged with the fore-mentioned feature.
Of course, it is very comforting that these kinds of outlets have become the main source of news for millenials, but it gets worse as we get even more “news” from a kind of new quasi-comedic journalists/whistleblowers such as Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and even John Oliver.
They aren’t even actually journalists, but rather mildly amusing opinionated comedians – usually with a left-wing bent – who make fun of particular journalism and stories they disagree with, while putting their own opinionated spin on what Fox News has done wrong this time. This doesn’t stop their target audience from swallowing their “comedic perspective” and going out into the world with faux smug enlightened grins about how stupid everyone else is. I won’t even touch on selection bias.
That alone should be a cause for worry, especially in a rather toxic socio-political environment where people accuse each other of not being informed, rather than the more obvious fact of people being poorly and questionably informed and mislead.
Those who do consider themselves to be properly informed are not in much better shape. Often, they run into problems with data selection concerning statistics – often cherry picked – to form a specific narrative and worldview. This is one reason why no one can tell us how much Obamcare really costs, the financial benefits/disadvantages of raising the minimum wage, what part of Planned Parenthood’s budget goes toward abortions, and what the actual “Rape” stats are.
While these new digital publication challengers such as Buzzfeed and Vice remain supreme in their share of millennial readers, the old guard publication giants like The New York Times and The Wallstreet Journal have recently started to carve into their audience.
While these traditional giants aren’t doing bad with millennials – something that surprises me – they have started to resort to similar questionable journalistic standards the new challengers to lure in those with a limited attention span – my fellow millennials. Even the Washington Post has started to closely resemble celebrity gossip tabloid TMZ with some of the articles they have published and it can’t all be blamed on new owner, Amazon boss Jeff Bezos.
One of Gawker Media’s subsidiary sites, Gizmodo, both defended and ironically examined the growing notice of the questionable lack and confusion in the ethics of modern day journalists in how they attain important information about stories by somewhat nefarious means. In a piece by by Gizomodo’s John Cook ironically titled, “In Defense of Sleazy Journalism”, about one of Rupert Murdoch news publications concerning theNews Of The World scandal a key observation was made,
“Reporting is basically a variant of rudeness. Done right, it amounts to being indiscreet, airing dirty laundry, telling on someone, calling them out, embarrassing them, usually after lying to them to gain their confidence.“
A rather honest observation if you think about how some of the biggest stories of the last 50 years have been broken. It’s also a disturbing one when it comes to the concept of trust between journalists and the public. Any journalist major worth his metal will have undoubtedly had to read, “All The President’s Men” which details the largest “known” American political scandal, “Watergate” which would be the first in the line of “gates”.
“In his book Mightier than the Sword: How the News Media Have Shaped American History, Rodger Streitmatter writes that the Woodward and Bernstein “begged, lied, badgered sources, and, on occasion, broke the law” in order to get the leads and confirmations needed to run their stories”
By today’s standards, what they did is almost child’s play, which should point to a VERY serious and growing problem with journalistic ethics when it comes to getting the information to acquire the “scoop.” Just consider how many “journalists” start digging through someone’s twitter feeds which is technically a public space, but the fact that those tweets weren’t meant to be seen by hundreds of thousands of angry internet protesters doesn’t seem to matter if enough page views will come later.
So where do we actually draw the line as to how journalists should resort to acquiring information in ethical ways? Who sets the standards? No doubt, some of those ways have been questionable and the line is further smudged by those who are willing to go even lower to get what they need. In effect, publications like Gawker are starting to unofficially set that standard. You don’t need me to tell you how that is not good.
With the advent of social media – which I’m starting to think is a curse – the responsibility that journalists have in choosing what stories they will publish and which ones they won’t are incredibly important. Leaked details from journalists have led to outright destruction of the livelihoods of not just public figures, but private people as well. It’s extremely important that we consider the consequences of the disclosure of people’s private lives in light of digital media. Because of the nature of digital media those professing to be journalists should realize the level of tremendous responsibility now on their broad shoulders.
As we shall soon see, even a slight personal detail can destroy someone’s lives once online twitter mobs convince their employers to fire them.
We can only hope that one day (1) employers will realize that twitter mobs are not potential customers nor their target audience (2) will stop paying attention to their ludicrous demands and (3) that PR and controversy generated from them is not worth catering to the mob.
You can’t please the mob, but you can weather the storm which dissipates as fast as our attention spans so often do. Remember, the public has a short memory and a target that varies very VERY quickly.
Rolling Stone’s recent journalistic disaster comes to mind in which will probably be a case study for every media journalism 101 class for decades to come. It is the most recent clear cut example of atrocious journalism ruining the lives of those in an entire frat house and destroying the reputation of UVA. Note, feminists even called for the “rapist” to be revealed a.k.a. doxxed for the general public to hold “accountable.” We all know what that means when it comes to enforcing their narrative.
While the pen may in fact be mightier than the sword, the press should never use it’s power to essentially carry out justice. It should present the facts and inform people and therefore allow readers to make their own conclusions.
Unless covering the personal lives and details of an individual is absolutely necessary to properly inform the public of a pressing and important issue, it should never be coveredby journalists who believe themselves to retain even a slight ethical compass. The key factor here is to never forget in these ethical situations exactly what the overall context may be and who it may effect – something that is often realized in hindsight.
If you aren’t familiar with the “Potter Model” and don’t want to bother learning about it, skip to the next paragraph.
– J.S. Mill’s Utilitarian line of thought and “The Greater Good” can be applied to the above conclusion.
– Mill though is probably trumped by Rawls via the “Veil Of Ignorance”
– Agape principle a.k.a. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is necessary to the above conclusion.
The Consequences Of Coverage
The importance of the choice of story that journalists and publications should publish comes to light in the infamous Gawker expose on an infamous subreddit called “Jailbait”. It featured scantily clad pictures of underage girls – not exactly illegal – but considered by a fair amount of people to be morally wrong and exploitative.
This however may have changed with the amount of sexualization of the culture and porn exposure, but I digress. “Jailbait” was moderated by then anonymous moderator “violentacrez” who presided over the subreddit.
Well, this of course rubbed many people the wrong way. It appears that it generated enough controversy in some of the social justice and feminist corners of the web to get Gawker to devote some time and effort to figuring out who exactly violentacrez was. A Gawker expose by Adrien Chen would reveal “violentacrez’s true identity” to be that of a man named Michael Brutsch.
Before the story was published Chen had contacted Brutsch making him aware of the fact that he knew who he was and that he was going to publish a story about him. Brutsch in turned begged Chen not to as he was certain it would have a substantial backlash against him in his private life. Essentially, Chen knew that this article would most likely damage the both the financial well-being and reputation of Brutsch, who note was NOT a public individual. Brutsch became an acceptable casualty in a type of public shaming designed to make him pay for wrongdoings – specifically in the public eye.
Before we pass judgement on Gawker – which I really enjoy – and Chen as to whether it was wrong or right, we need to realize the complexity of the situation.
Most people would agree that Brutsch’s subreddit was morally reprehensible- though remember we are talking about Gawker here. However was it appropriate in this case for the media to inform the public of a disturbing ethical situation on Reddit at the cost of the individual’s job, livelihood, and the subsequent death threats by revealing his identity to the public? Did the ends justify the means?
Considering the media does have a duty to inform the public of ethical issues, it could be argued that what Gawker did was acceptable. They had to bring light to Brutsch’s activity and questionable “exploitation” of images of girls online, though they probably knew the public backlash which the article would create would put a stop to the subreddit.
This line of action is “acceptable” if you assume a framework that appeals to “The Greater Good” – namely the sacrifice of Brutsch to address a “wrong” that supposedly affected quite a few people. I however can’t stop wondering if Chen would have refrained from publishing the article if the shoe was on the other foot.
The question we should all ask: “Why would Gawker consider this to be newsworthy and why it was covered so thoroughly compared to their other stories?”
Your guess is probably as accurate or as disgusted as mine.
What Chen did – the disclosure of private details of an individual – has today has become known as unmasking or more popularly described as “doxxing”. Note that in recent years, Gawker and its subsidiaries – specifically Jezebel – has published alot of articles about how terrible doxxing is.
A flurry of those came out during the initial roar of #GamerGate and concerned how misogynistic it was that women were supposedly being doxxed, though Gawker and Jezebel had no problem doing it in the past – essentially “Do as I say, not as I do.”
While “doxxing”was at first the bread and butter of angry angst ridden reddit and 4chan users, it has become disturbingly common in “journalistic” circles and subsequent publications under the guise of “investigative reporting” on whichever groups or individuals have been deemed acceptable targets.
The implications of this practice are troubling as Wired’s Danah Boyd pointed out in her article about Gakwer’s expose on Brutsch and this kind of new vigilantism that was being created by the articles like it on social media,
“Yet, how do we as a society weigh the moral costs of shining a spotlight on someone, however “bad” their actions are? What happens when, as a result of social media, vigilantism takes on a new form? How do we guarantee justice and punishment that fits the crime when we can use visibility as a tool for massive public shaming? “
In the context of essentially using journalism and the ensuing visibility as a tool for publish shaming, it must be emphasized that the revelation of the Brutsch’s identity is the primary reason the subreddit was shut down.
Again, assuming a utilitarian “Greater Good” principle on the matter, the disclosure of that particular detail was necessary to achieve Gawker’s goal to inform the public. Appeal to this principle however, will and has set a precedent that is a potential slippery slope.
If the outing of an anonymous online user for even the most moral reasons becomes common media practice, the media is then engaging in a form of “censorship” of anonymous individuals through the threat of possible revelation of their online identities and the consequences that so often follow. Some may argue that there should be consequences to speech, but would they apply that conclusion to themselves?
What shocks me is the kind of inconsistent and often hypocritical approach toward the concept of revealing people who are anonymous online. Liberal feminist publications in particular, will condemn anonymous individuals for criticism and the fact that they don’t face public backlash for voicing said criticisms behind their anonymous cloak- often labeled harassment by said publications. Even though its not harassment, people still remember the all present, “H” word. Note, that it’s not harassment when they do it.
The inconsistency is revealed when these same liberal publications complain about doxxing of individuals and the disclosure of “private details” that can damage those doxxed. This is often labeled harassment, but not when it came to the disclosure of some KKK members who made threats during the Ferguson controversy.
It is curious, because many feminist publications in particular advocate revealing the identities of anonymous critics to make them “accountable” for said criticism. They often make this argument in regards to trolls whose behavior they consider to be borderline harassment. Lindy West, a noted online feminist writer and fat acceptance activist makes the following observation in an article for The Guardian about online “trolling”,
“Sometimes it’s relatively innocuous (like asking contrarian questions just to start an argument) or juvenile (like making fun of my weight or my intelligence), but – particularly when the subject is a young woman – it frequently crosses the line into bona fide, dangerous stalking and harassment.”
When a “troll” – a very subjective concept considering what some consider to be trolling these days – has their identity revealed to the online populace, the reaction often translates to trying to get them fired from their employment and ensuring that a Google search is enough to permanently destroy their reputation. Tauriq Moosa in an article for the liberal NewStatesman makes the point:
“Again, just because you’re responding to racism or sexism doesn’t make your response right. I’ve seen no good come of publicly shaming someone, when public shaming is the sole response. Sure, someone is also shamed after being rightfully convicted, fired, etc, but there ‘justice’ wasn’t merely a retweet.”
I suggest that journalists should approach stories that may involve revelation of anonymous identities with the two following principles in mind:
– Kant’s principle of The Categorical Imperative in regards to allowing online users to stay always anonymous when covered by the press is a more valid presupposition to make in this and similar situations.
– The Golden Rule. How many of us would want similar treatment in the press even if we were on par with the depravity of Brutsch? It may be helpful to put ourselves in his shoes – something that Chen did not seem to do. In fact, it is surprising that Brutsch did not sue Chen considering he is not a public figure from a legal standpoint.
Mainstream Media And Doxxing
Even reputable publications like Newseek have taken the plunge and engaged in this kind of public unmasking. Newsweek did a famous article in revealing the true identity of the creator of Bitcoin who turned out to be a 64-year-old man and train enthusiast named Satoshi Nakamoto who had essentially created the worlds first working and successful “crypto currency.”
The context of this situation is again extremely important here. The implications of revealing his name, as well as personal details including pictures of his house and car are mind-blowing. One issue itself is the Bitcoin currency and some of the elements that use it – namely some who frequent the infamous “Darknet”
While it’s free from any actual kind of financial regulation or government interference, it is used by criminal networks that are notorious on the darknet who engage in transactions from everything from buying drugs to hiring actual assassins. No, I’m not exaggerating about that.
The Newsweek story had potentially opened up Nakamoto as a target for criminals all in the name of publishing a story and it revealed MANY details about Nakamoto that arguably weren’t necessary to the story as an article from Gigaom points out:
“Newsweek included many personal details about Nakamoto, including his work history and details about his extended family, and even his personal health — and they posted a photo of his home, one in which you could clearly see his address and the licence plate on his car.”
With the information and private details of the creator of Bitcoin now flaunted for the world to see, Nakamoto is exposed to the potential criminal elements who could desire to kidnap him to acquire in-depth information and potential means to exploit Bitcoin and its users. Also consider that just one Bitcoin itself ranges in worth of 75 – 300$.
The Edward Snowden leaks in particular present one of the biggest challenges in the last 20 years for the media in choosing what they would and wouldn’t publish. Arguably the media’s responsibility to the public in a democratic society is to consistently cast the probe of investigation on to the government to make sure that transparency is always there.
An important dynamic came into play that forced the hand of the Guardian in that the British government actually planned to force the publication to destroy the hard-drives that contained the leaks. Usually if someone doesn’t want a story to be covered and resorts to destroying evidence, we should all smell a rat. Luckily, the press this time did not have their noses stuffed in the name of “National Security”. Of course, the U.S. Government would and does continue insist that the Snowden disclosure puts national security at great risk.
However to this day there are still certain pieces of information not published by the press for that reason which notably has attained a rather tight balance on public disclosure of the documents in light of what might hurt the public vs. what they need to know.
Even the most ardent supporters of the actions of Edward Snowden – myself included – will acknowledge that his revelations did expose elements of our government that could potentially undermine it. However many in media from all sides of the spectrum deemed the disclosures to not only be newsworthy, but important enough to keep pressing forward with the stories impact.
In this case it is certain I would endorse the appeal to “The Greater Good,” that was obviously adhered to by the press rather then accepting the government’s time held excuse of “national security. Of course, a story of this magnitude also influenced the media’s decision to publish it.
Currently, the Ferguson controversy brings up a new and significantly more and more important factor in the disclosure of private details by the press; the publication of previously revealed private details by lesser known outlets, bloggers, and even hackers by large mainstream publications.
The New York Times, which might arguably be the publication that sets the bar for journalistic standards, was scolded by fellow journalists and publications for publishing the address of the officer Darren Wilson who is a known name in national headlines after having shot Michael Brown. This revelation occurred through the posting of an image of his marriage certificate by the New York Times.
Considering that it was public knowledge that Wilson had received many death threats, it comes as a shock that the New York Times would justify revealing the address. When the New York Times responded to criticism of the revelation by both Howard Kurtz of Fox News and Erik Wemple of The Washington Post in particular, they justified the revelation under the fact that it was already public knowledge.
While this was in fact true, it sets a disturbing precedent for larger and more mainstream publications that arguably lowers the bar as to what is acceptable disclosure of someone’s details when their lives could be in jeopardy. Officer Wilson’s address might have been public knowledge on Reddit, Gawker, and twitter, but the disclosure of that address in the nations most read publication has a much larger and possibly more deadly impact.
Journalism nowadays is undoubtedly incurring substantial questions about what is appropriate and what is not when it comes to the choice of stories as well as the revelation of details in people’s private lives. All of the blame, however, can’t be specifically laid at the feet of mainstream publications and even the click-bait publications such as Gawker, Buzzfeed, Upworthy, and a series of deteriorating blogs who will actually resort to making things up.(Seriously, read that link. It’s shocking.)
As journalistic mediums adapt to new markets and demands of their audience, they are unfortunately forced to cater to a social media influenced audience who is now not only used to the idea of publicizing daily events of their lives but expect it. The idea of what is ethical and what is not in journalism has been massively impacted by the juggernaut that is online media and the dominance of the constantly updating online news feed.
It is therefore not surprising when the majority of readers don’t so much as bat an eyelash at the disclosure of private details of people by the press. These readers often demand more of these kinds of disclosures and a nasty cycle is therefore created and perpetually maintained.
Now even blogs, YouTubers, and twitter feeds are turning into main sources of news and creating new questions of not only who is a public figure, but also how the standards should be applied to these new growing mediums. For instance, should we hold YouTube to certain journalistic standards? Well, one can certainly try.
Where the line is drawn with even determining who a public figure is has become difficult as new social media applications such as twitter personalities, YouTube channel hosts, Vine, and Instagram users have become pseudo celebrities and therefore have sometimes become potential “stories.”
Take into account that celebrities have long been a curious and vain obsession of the American public. Various tabloids cover their every waking action including what might be in their Starbucks shake. Now that the pool of celebrities has been greatly expanded, the journalistic standards and ethics on the disclosure of the details of people’s lives are all that much more important.
Last but not least, the ethics of choosing stories in light of appearing to promote specific cultural and social issues is a subject that need to be carefully considered. In fact, the line nowadays has grown very murky.|
As mentioned before, seemingly everyone can become a journalist nowadays and engage in the disturbing practice that is narrative bias confirmation – or as I call it, preaching to your choir. If you want to publish a certain kind of story, you will latch on to experiments and stories that fit that per-determined narrative – whether it is there or not. Your readers already want to believe the worst about your mutual opponents, so it just yet another slam dunk in the enfolding story. (Interesting debate on “Narrative Journalism” here.)
One of the most recent viral video that became news involved a young white women who had walked 100 hours around the city of New York and was catcalled by various men. In what can only be described as either journalists failing to do basic homework or trying to push a very specific narrative, they failed to disclose that all of the catcalls occurred on just a few specific streets that were all in Harlem.
These objective and truth driven journalists also failed to mention the context of catcalling in African American culture which is not seen as a negative action, but rather an accepted an expected one. The context obviously did not fit their narrative. One also wonders if the same worry would have been extended had all the cat-callers been straight white men.
History holds key lessons – some of them quite bloody – in the repercussions that shook nations, stirred foment, and publicized serial killers. Take for example the numerous papers who stoked the American Civil war and the manipulation from all involved during it.
Or the two newspaper mad-men like giants William R. Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer whose journalism would be coined, “yellow journalism” in regards to the tales they spun and stories that were literally made up. Yes, that Pulitzer who the award is named after.
When Remington told Hearst that the rumors of the atrocities were exaggerated and over-hyped, Heart uttered this infamous phrase, “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” Remington would do just that and two of his false pictures would grab headlines and stoke the fervors of war even more:
“For instance, he drew some pictures of an American woman being brutally searched by Spanish male security forces. This apparently never happened, as only female officials searched American females coming into the country. In addition, Remington’s famous painting of the Rough Riders charging up San Juan Hill was based not on the actual charge, but on a reenactment performed by the Rough Riders.”
The truth didn’t sell newspapers, but false stories would and for the price of just a cent! In fact, Hearst was sure that a war between Spain and America would sell him even more papers – which it would. When the USS Maine exploded and sunk in February 15th of 1897, Hearst wrote a galvanizing piece in which he blamed Spain for the accident and attributed it to treachery. Here are two choice paragraphs from it:
“It was an accident, they say. Perhaps it was, but accident or not, it would never have happened if there had been peace in Cuba, as there would have been if we had done our duty. And it was an accident of a remarkably convenient kind for Spain. Two days ago we had five battleships in the Atlantic. Today we have four. A few more such accidents will leave us at the mercy of a Spanish fleet.”
“The Government has set an investigation on foot, and the Journal has independently undertaken another. Between them the truth will soon be known. If it be found that the Spanish authorities have fought about this calamity, so profitable to themselves, no power from the White House to Wall Street will be able to restrain the American people from exacting a terrible retribution. And Spain’s innocence must be clearly proven. All the circumstances of the case fix the burden of proof upon her.”
Catch that? Spain’s innocence must be clearly proven. So essentially, guilty before proven innocent. This tactic worked; it caused a war. Perhaps some of have taken this lesson to heart with changes to “Preponderance of Evidence” that now rests on those accused of a crime who must prove their innocence instead of the accuser proving their guilt. Yes, I’m referring to the rape hysteria and charges being tossed about like used wrappers on college campuses.
Fun fact: William Hearst is the inspiration for Orson Well’s Citizen Kane. Bad and downright journalism apparently had the ultimate price attached to it.
Lessons sometimes, are not as clearcut as that of Hearst. When the Zodiac Killer began his rampage, it is highly probable that the press publication of the rants and demands of the Zodiac killer enabled him to gain even more attention and jeopardize even more members of the public.
However, what alternative did they have? The police did not want the papers to give him any voice or attention. He knew this and threatened that if they didn’t publish his demands, he would kill more people. Then again, he killed more people anyway. Perhaps in hindsight they made the right decision by publishing his demands, but there was no way to tell at the time. Yet again, a moral quandary to wade through.
Sometimes, the disclosure of the someone’s private life is done with “good” intentions – or just a unwilling sacrifice for a certain cause. The first “outing” of an LFBT individual wasn’t done by detractors, haters, homophobes, or whatever “ist” we can throw out there; it was done deliberately by one of the biggest political heroes of the LGBT movement himself – Harvey Milk.
It starts in 1975 with Oliver Sipple, who was a former marine that would have a direct hand in saving President Ford’s life from an assassin by grabbing her arm just as she would squeeze the trigger. Of course, the press would want to know everything about Sipple and his act of heroism and would dig up the fact that he was actually gay – something he had been hiding.
Because he had become a semi-public figure in his act of saving the president, his private life would be divulged for all to see and him and his family would face tremendous backlash. He began to drink heavily. In fact, he would start to ebb away both mentally and physically to the point that he wished he had never intervened to save Ford’s life.
While plenty of blame can be laid at Milk’s callous hands – something most people don’t even know about as we don’t like to talk about the bad things our “heroes” have done – the fact that the newspapers were willing to publish this controversial of a disclosure about Sipple’s private life should make us wonder what the line is when it comes to the well-being of an individual and how specific disclosure’s can effect their lives.
These same mistakes by self-proclaimed journalists and publications should not go unheeded. In the future anyone who considers themselves to be any sort of “journalist” should strive to avoid the scoop and the “developing” story if it’s going to seriously impact someone’s life.
Sometimes, the truth must be told, but how much of it, why, and who it may effect must carefully be considered. In today’s media climate, this is even more important to take to heart. One tweet. One post. That’s all it takes. Perhaps, there really are some details of people’s lives that the media should leave alone. But then again, the new challengers on the block have no such hindrance.
So be skeptical of every last thing you read – regardless of who it is from, because chances are they have probably been duped as well. Triple-check “sources” and go to multiple publications – specifically ones you disagree with – to get the other side of the story. It’s important to get outside of our own internet bubbles and echo chambers because the truth is often either very uncomfortable, deeply buried, or downright shunned.
Apparently country, metal, and hardcore shows can all be lumped into one large group of live shows that perpetuates a “War On Women. We now all know that the people who go to see Stick To Your Guns also go to see Carrie Underwood. Who would have thought?!?!
I strongly doubt our friend Amy Mccarthy has actually been to a hardcore or metal show, but it didn’t stop her from slandering the scene and equating the “dangers” there to something resembling the Congo. She mentioned posers in her article, and if there is one in the room, its not any of us. If her writing is any indication, she’s never been to the Warped Tour, to SXSW, Mayhem, Riot Fest, Chaos, ect.
This still doesn’t stop her from equating metal/hardcore shows with country and others to the point that she never bothers to really distinguish between them. It’s not incidental, its deliberate so that her article appears to encompass as many genres as possible. All shows are lumped into the “evil” category via guilt by association. Obviously, she has been to a country show, but she dishonestly tries to pretend that hardcore/metal shows present similar “dangers” of which will be covered soon in this piece.
Wow, I didn’t know only women could be terrified at shows, but who cares when the other gender gets hurt, right? (I’m only 5 foot 7!) Also, until Amy Mccarthy told us, I didnt know that girls who attend shows are fragile, scared, helpless, and frightened creatures who can’t think for themselves whatsoever. I’m glad I know this now though. I’ll be sure to tell my wife this.
Before I forget, obvious and continual shame on AltPress for promoting this hit-piece Pulitzer prize of inspirational journalism. Now she talks a big game, but lets look at some of the points she makes about metal and hardcore. She’s one of us – not a poser, groupie, ect – right?
“Most women who frequently attend live shows will tell you that they have been harassed, groped or assaulted as they listen to their favorite bands. A standing-room-only show, when you’re wedged into a massive crowd fueled by beer and testosterone, is particularly scary. There seems to be a spectrum of violence that women experience at live shows, ranging from misogynist verbal harassment to sexual assault.”
Notice her claim about “most women”. Well, if we want to accept her bizarre anecdotal claims, ask girls you know who go to live shows how often they have been harassed, groped, or assaulted. No, having your butt touched when crowd surfing doesn’t count. Neither does it when you are jumping up and down, moshing, that OTEP incident, or trying to get a better spot closer to the front.
“A standing room-only show.”
How many metal/hardcore shows have you been to where it has not been standing room only? Yea, that’s what I thought. Maybe she is referring to other genres, but she doesn’t bother to make that distinction. Accident or assassination? Our reputation lies in tatters. (Only exception I’ve experienced to this was Summerfest in Milwaukee when August Burns Red and The Devil Wears Prada played in which the stands cut down on much of the area available to stand and mosh.)
“Most important, though, the dangerous and unpredictable nature of concert culture means that it is often entirely unsafe to be a woman in a dark, crowded music venue.”
Anyone else get the idea that she hasn’t been to any metal/hardcore shows in a dark, crowded scary horror movie-like music venue? How many stories has ANYONE heard about someone actually being sexually assaulted – real sexual assault that is – or being raped at a show?
I’ve heard of some groping, butt touching, and other shenanigans, but that’s not rape – which is a serious matter.
“Even when the violence doesn’t escalate to the level of rape, unsolicited touching and aggressive come-ons from drunk musicians and fans alike is all too common.”
This isn’t at all subjective. Unsolicited touching. What the hell is that? Incidental contact made when crowdsurfing? Sweaty smelly bodies pressed together because of sold out show or the desire to get into the best spots in the venue or outdoor stage?
Consider when A Day To Remember played The Rave up in Milwaukee and it sold out. It was so damn packed that in no way could you not touch someone. If they were dripping sweat, you were going to be participating in it. But yea, I suppose there were thousands of incidents of unsolicited touching that happened there.
Drunk musicians and fans? That is very specific to certain festivals and shows. Most smaller shows don’t have that many people drinking, and for some its not even available. I.E, how many people actually drink at the Warped Tour? Consider the price of beer and if they are even of age and its pretty damn slim. Perhaps Country Thunder may be an exception.
“Venues can implement a number of procedures to make shows safer for women, like adding barricades to mosh pits and increasing security presence in the crowds, but it’s still difficult to control what happens in the middle of a frenzied show.”
“Adding barricades to moshpits.”
How exactly is that even possible – considering how, when, and where moshpits actually break out at show? They just organically happen. You would think she’s never even see a pit before Or been in one.
. Neither has she considered the fact that putting barricades around a pit would end up hurting people pushed out of the pit… This in particular flabbergasts me. Add “Fun Police” and moshpit killer to Amy Mccarthy’s resume.
Consider what happens when “security” is added to pits. They usually attempt to break them up, fights occur between moshers and security guards, and the show is often then usually stopped. Give it a few weeks, and you fight that yet another venue will no longer hold shows.
“In fact, they should be using their positions to outwardly do everything they can to ensure that these shows are safe for female concertgoers.”
The point of hardcore shows is that they are not safe specifically for anyone – including women. The aggression and danger is part of the reason people go. It’s not a Blake Shelton concert environment, and we shouldn’t pretend that it is. You can’t demand that the shows become made “safe” for a specific group and then get mad when people call them posers, because lets face it then; they wouldn’t actually want the same treatment as the rest of the “group” gets. If you go to a show to see The Acacia Strain and you get near the pit, people aren’t going to stop moshing or suddenly restrain themselves because you have to decided to enter the area – man, woman, or otherkin.
Well, you heard it from her. We need to show special care, treatment, and deference toward women at shows – because they might get hurt. I think Amy has a strong developed sense of female narcissism. Toss out that equality concept. Perhaps she should go to a Terror show and tell them how it needs to be a safer environment. I can’t help thinking, does she actually care about the safety of all concert-goer, or just women?
I’m five foot seven and I have to carefully consider what pits I go into and I have to be very aware of who is moshing to ensure I don’t take a punch to the face. Apparently, my safety doesn’t matter – unless I’m a woman. Then again, if I go to a show, I don’t expect the atmosphere and environment of the show to change just for me. You would think that Amy Mccarthy believes women are these weak creatures to be entirely helpless and completely unable to protect themselves. (Equality right?)
“As for the fans, well, it’s probably unrealistic to ask that they keep their hands to themselves and quietly enjoy the music. Ultimately, it is the artists who have the most responsibility and the greatest ability to ensure that the environment their music cultivates is not inherently aggressive toward women.”
Yes, its VERY unrealistic to ask fans not to mosh and to “keep their hands to themselves.” Any metal/hardcore artists that ensure an environment that is not aggressive isn’t going to be around very long.
Notice though that the aggression is fine, as long as its not toward women. Earlier, she quotes Lorena Cupcakes complaint, “Our motives are cast as disingenuous; we’re called groupies, posers, and hangers-on. Male dominance is established by questioning our right to be there at all.”
Well, this is why your motives are being questioned. You want to be there, but you don’t want to participate equally in the aggressive nature of the shows? You want the shows to be specifically made safe for you, but your not a “hanger-on?”
Amy mentioned earlier in the article that, “Depending on the genre you enjoy, male fans who share your interests might call you a “poser,” or insinuate that you’re not as punk or metal or hip-hop (or as whatever) as you claim to be.” Labeling an environment like a hardcore show as being aggressive toward women, makes it easier to call women “posers” who participate, because instead of being treated the same as any other guy, you show them special treatment.
The irony is that shows are filled with men who literally white-knight for women all around. Plenty are nice of enough to stand in front of them and shield them from the pit, taking those windmills to the face because equality. Or helping them to safety when the pit really starts to get going during a The Acacia Strain set. Girls will tell you tons of stories like this. Oh wait, I forgot. Women are weak, helpless, can’t think for themselves, or even enjoy a show!
Personally, I’m a bit more of an asshole and a true equality feminist. Unless I know a girl, and she gets near the pit, I’m not shielding her body with mine – cause equality. She’s not a poser, she can take – just like me or any other guy – right. On the flip-side, guys usually care if they hurt a girl in the pit. They don’t however if you are a guy – your size doesn’t matter.
“Other times it involves being forcefully shoved across a raging mosh pit by someone three times your size, or being touched inappropriately as you try to crowd-surf. These may seem like harmless little interactions, something that should just be expected in a rowdy crowd.”
For once, know your pits. This applies to literally everyone at the show, regardless of whatever Tumblr gender identity you have that day. I’m a smaller guy, so I have to pick when and where I go in, especially when the breakdown hits. I doubt she has ever experienced one. For two, “women being pushed into moshpits”. If you are standing near to where a pit suddenly breaks out – that could be anywhere, especially at larger shows – everyone gets either pushed into the new pit or pushed back out of it, something she isn’t aware of. I smell a rat Scoob.
Notice how she talked about crowd surfing. It’s pretty damn near impossible not to have your butt touched as you are getting passed toward the stage – or getting your wallet stolen if its in your back pocket.
Surprisingly, Amy actually talks to an “expert” that gets it:
“Metal expert and weekend editor of VICE’s Noisey, Kim Kelly, is particularly used to being banged up at the end of a show. “If I’m at a death metal show or a DIY thrash show in a basement, I know things are gonna get crazy, bottles are gonna fly, and I’m probably going to come home with a few bruises,” she says. “I’ve always been able to hold my own, but women who are smaller or less brash than I am might absolutely feel intimidated by the testosterone-fueled violence. In my experience, if you don’t want to get hurt, you stand in the back or on the side, and keep your guard up.”
I find it humorous that someone – girls specifically – are going to feel intimidated by testosterone-fueled violence. Consider the amount of places left that you can actually let out your aggression and feel the testosterone coursing through your veins is pretty slim. Metal/hardcore shows are about all that’s left.
Hardcore shows are probably the only place where its part of the show. It should be obvious, but feminists types like Amy want to curb our outbursts of toxic masculinity at our last remaining refuges where they aren’t shunned, but are actually embraced – a sense of community if you will.
When we get upset and speak out about the nonsense, outright lies, falsehoods, and the tripe she spews, we are then of course proving exactly her point – that metal/hardcore aren’t safe spaces and places for women and that we are all terrible misogynists. Yea, well fuck her. Maybe eventually, she will name one of these many survivors who has ever been “raped” in this epidemic at the Warped tour. Or Chaos. Or SXSW. Or Mayhem. Or any of the hundreds of others.
“It doesn’t seem like too much to ask that the women who are just as much a part of these respective scenes — we buy just as many records, concert tickets, and band T-shirts as men, and are equally supportive of our favorite acts – not feel physically intimidated when they’re out at shows. In New York’s hardcore scene, bands like the recently reunited Kill Your Idols make it a point to cultivate “positive mental attitude” at their shows and address inequities in their scene, proving that it is possible for these safe spaces to exist without compromising the rowdy vibe that is expected of hardcore punk.”
At hardcore shows…
In New York’s hardcore scene…
Yea, she just said that. Based on everything she has said in this article, she doesn’t want to just kill off the rowdy vibe, she wants to salt the earth after she’s buried the corpse. She wants to eliminate it and replace it with a safe space that doesn’t wreak of sweaty testosterone misogynistic fueled aggression. Mccarthy believes that women are too fragile to be exposed to anything that involves… testosterone.
You would think she would know this, but the entire point of a hardcore show – especially in Boston, LA, and New York is to let yourself go in the pit and at the show. Don’t expect “special” and “safe” treatment. If you want to roll with the guys, expect to be treated like anyone else in the show – especially if you go into the pit.
“Until we address the systemic issues that drive this violence, though, like rape culture and the nonsensical idea that women have to somehow “earn” their place as legitimate music fans, it is likely that even that wouldn’t be enough to make live music a safe and positive experience for women. Still, hearty encouragement from the acts onstage and the venues that host them would be a really helpful start”
What was that about posers? Groupies? Disingenuous?
Oh, that’s what safe-space demanding Amy Mccarthy thinks women are. In fact, if we created safe spaces and destroyed New York’s Hardcore scene by turning those triggering mosh-pits into seats filled with male zombies gazing unmoving and silent at the stage, it still wouldn’t be enough.
Don’t give into people like Amy Mccarthy. If they are unhappy with their scene, they will go after yours, and attempt to kill it if they can’t be as happy as anyone else. This is the worse form of narcissism – the take-no prisoners kind. You know why people hate feminism? It’s because of women like Amy who demand that everything revolves around them and hell with everyone else.
Oh and just in case you actually like Country and think she might be over blowing things, a commenter on Salon called out at least two of the examples which weren’t exactly true – if not outright lies:
While not attempting to minimize or dismiss any of the legitimate complaints of women who have been assaulted or otherwise abused, at least two of the examples provided are flat out false:
1) Tim McGraw was not grabbed “on the leg” — he was grabbed *on the crotch* and rightfully and justifiably responded by hitting the woman who sexually assaulted him. Had the sexes been reversed, would you offer that up as an example of mistreatment? I doubt it.
2) The “rape” at the Keith Urban gig at Great Woods was not a rape. The charges were dropped because it was a consensual act. The claim of the young woman was not that it was not consensual, but that she didn’t really want to have done it — and that’s a distinction worth making. Its the difference between things happening without your consent, and things happening with your consent that you wish you hadn’t agreed to do. Huge difference, with massive implications for the other person involved, and definitely needs to be paid attention do.
Oh, also Amy Mccarthy: Don’t talk shit about metal and hardcore shows, until you’ve been to plenty of them.
It’s October of last year in the evening. I’ve made it to the train station just in time, half-walking and half-jogging. My mood is somewhat relieved and I’m looking forward to listening to some music in the bliss of the ride home.
Hopping on the train at the Lake Forest stop, I grabbed a seat on the upper deck, put the other two down near me, and proceeded to lay down on them as a kind of makeshift bed.
Laying down, I glance up at my phone as I browsed through reddit and the newest stories of the perpetual outraged, headphones playing loud angry music in my ear. Yes, I find Senses Fail to be quite relaxing.
It looks like the guy across is talking to me. His lips are moving.
Yes, he is.
I take out my headphones and he wants to know if I’m okay, as I was coughing while laying down. He mentions that, “I’ve seen people die on this train.”
His tone of voice and his non-verbals are seeped in “hidden” distaste for me. I ignore it, brush it off, and assure him I’m fine as I go back to Reddit.
15 minutes later I notice he is saying something again.
I take out my headphones to hear him.
By the way his mouth is moving and the look on his face, he doesn’t look happy. This time he seemed VERY agitated about the way I was sitting. Apparently he thought I might be taking pictures of him with my phone, which I wasn’t. I thought this odd considering how I was sitting and the direction I was facing.
He is now quite upset by the way I was laying down.
Again, he tells me that I am being rude. How? My semi-open dangling legs were exposing my crotch to the Indian girl sitting several seats down and that was apparently very rude.
It was then that I realized I had been targeted.
He wasn’t going to let this go. He was looking for a verbal confrontation and his cross-hairs had landed directly on me.
I sat up, took the initiative, and attempted to deflect and diffuse the verbal attacks. I am a communications major after all. Finally, perhaps I can see how well some of theories apply to real-world situations.
He’s in a half-rage mode; a strawman here and an angry passive-aggressive accusation there. The anger and frustration in his voice is starting to build. Conclusions and assumptions about me are landing left and right.
I’m taken back for a second. I was startled – almost confused.
What is this tumblr? Okay, maybe that’s an exaggeration.
Apparently I was some punk ass-kid/student from Chicago coming down here to get off at Libertyville station stop and I didn’t give a fuck about the other people on the train. Perhaps it’s my “hipster look” that planted the seeds of wrath. I prefer to think of it instead as well-groomed and well-dressed for my stature.
I pointed out to him that NO ONE has ever objected to the way I’ve laid down before.
In fact, it had NEVER happened before. He was the first damn one. I’m starting get irritated now with him and how this has all started.
He insists its a matter of being respectful. My inner philosopher ignites and I assume that he will have a post-modern framework for his concept on “respect” and as to what constitutes as my previous “rude” behavior. I begin my philosophical adventure.
I proceeded to question him on how he knew what was “Respectful.” He appeals to the way he was raised. Interesting. Apparently us young punks know nothing about respect – I secretly agree with him.
Further in the conversation reveals that he is basing his view of the concept on experience, tradition, and essentially his parents. This actually creates in me some respect for him and it causes me to pause in my planned verbal retaliation.
I started trying to think to myself about why he was giving me such a hard time. It was a serious, “Dude, wtf?” moment of thought. Should I stand up for myself and not put up with this crap? Perhaps I wasn’t giving him a reason to respect me.
We were now at a point where I suspected that other people were going to become involved as his tone of voice kept getting louder.
I wasn’t in the mood for this to escalate and as much as I enjoy uncomfortable situations, this was lacking the humorous and adventurous side to it. Also, I was hoping the conductors weren’t going to get involved, though I was certain they’d side with me.
No, I was going to fight my own battles. That’s what a man does – when he can.
It was here the conversation turned.
I pointed out to him I lived in Fox Lake, I also told him about how I thought his age had nothing to do with whether I respected his opinions or not. Living in Fox Lake meant that I wasn’t some spoiled rich yuppie from Libertyville who thinks that the world is my trash dump.
I ask a few questions meant to flush out what was bugging him – what had caused the initial simmer of suppressed rage inside him. I knew there was more here than meant the eye. No one flies off the handle over something so small…
Conversations like these – maybe not as heated at first as this one was – are something I live for. They break up the routine of my day. I made the most out of this one and I’m glad I did, because I learned something.
This fellow’s name was Jim.
I plied Jim for more about himself and he told me his back-story. He’s a 53 year old micro-biologist who works his ass off to put his two of his three daughters through college. His marriage leaves much to be desired and “support” isn’t something he’s experienced in a while. He’s struggling financially, but fishing with his buddies at least gives him some reprieve. Put blankly, he feels unfulfilled, confused, and somewhat jaded through life – a state of almost mental and emotional exhaustion.
Even though, my situation isn’t even close to his, I felt a kind of kinship for Jim – as man to man. It’s no accident that I feel as I’ve met people just like him before with similar frustrations with life.
I feel a sense of sympathy for him.
During the rest of the ride and our conversation, he would apologize several times to me. Throughout the conversations, he would continue this regarding the initial assumptions he had made about me, but I told him not to worry about it.
“The past is the past,” I told him. For the most part, that is a motto I live by.
Jim you see is a classic example of a guy going on through life who needs a chance to vent every once in a while, but doesn’t. I don’t know if he’s ever really been given the chance, but I suspect he’s had this bottled up in him for a while.
It was the small action of the way I laid that set him off. I had experienced my own WW1 spark in interpersonal conflict.
Jim is a good guy, but he’s been through a lot more than I would have thought. . He tells me stories about how he’s been attacked and beat up in Fox Lake outside of bars. Drinking sometimes has a steeper price than a hangover.
He was starting to see crime, drug deals around the Fox Lake train station and even right outside the Thortons nearby. The realization of the scuminess of my town and that of humanity was getting to him. He emphasized that no one cared about what had happened to him or what was happening around.
That was what got me. No one cared about what he had seen, heard, and experienced so he never bothered to vent about it. No support, he just kept it tightly wrapped and wound up.
What happened to Jim – just one action- that magnifies to a great extent the rest of what he has been feeling and seeing can happen to myself.
I literally told him when we got off the train, “There’s only so much a man can handle before he explodes.” I’ll never forget the look on his face. It was one of gratitude and of shock in that he realized I understood him – despite our difference in age and situations.
In every story and conversation there is a lesson.
All men out there need a time and a chance to vent. This isn’t toxic masculinity; it’s the necessary expression of rage and anger that we are forced to keep a lid on.
This of course doesn’t change the fact that most men keep this rage, frustration, depression, and anger pent up. Some have found ways to manage – the gym, 1st person shooters, sports, ect, but is it enough? I suppose these methods won’t get your a way that won’t get you arrested, hated, and in constant fights with your wife, but there must be more.
We all need friends – real friends – as an outlet and as support to get things off your chest that no one else will understand or be able to hear. Your wife, girlfriend, or effeminate therapist wont’ be able to console you in the same way that other men will. These male friends can provide you with the wisdom that is gained from the experience of life, as well as the understanding of the vast challenges that men face in today’s culture.
They won’t BS you, but they will hear you out, and offer the necessary – if rough – advice that others won’t. Reddit might be one way to do this, but face-to-face with close male friends is the best. This isn’t homosexual, it’s simply men getting close with another and bonding over the challenges and quest that is life.
Get it all off your chest.
We all have pent up rage that builds. It’s a matter of fact of life. The people who explode are some how seen as terrible, immature, ect but the reality of life is that this is just a natural part of humanity.
Let it go.
Don’t be afraid to tell your friends what’s really on your mind. Be yourself and I’m not saying that in a BS “feel good” cultural way. Find and make close male friends who are willing to help you out and offer you solid wise advice.
Before we parted ways at the station, Jim told me he was glad the conversation happened.
I was too.
It was a raw unfiltered and genuine conversation that should happen between men more often.