• 152 Carlton Street Unit 201,Toronto, ON, M4Y2J9
  • 647-479-9611, 1-844-900-CCMF (2263)
  • info@equalitycanada.com
Français
Donate Today

: Posts on “Misandry in the Media and Pop Culture”

Man Nearly Mauled by Bull has Audience (and Possibly Man) in Stitches

A friend sent me a link to the following video on youtube entitled “How a Real Man Takes Off His Underwear”. The video was uploaded by a lady, along with the remark “This is hilarious!”

After referencing the video, this friend said:

This was just sent to me as a joke and I found it very unfunny. Thought you might be able to use it on your website, Justin. Why is anybody laughing at this? How horrible…

A second friend who was copied on this exchange then contributed the following:

Seems fine to me. A guy acts stupid, and gets embarrassed due to his stupid actions. He didn’t seemed injured, so I don’t see the big deal. I would actually feel worse for the bull than the guy. That bull is probably very confused and scared and is clearly not there on its own free will.

I can see both their points. Certainly this archaic and brutal “sport” is in fact torture for these animals. But I can’t help thinking that if a male had posted a video about the identical incident happening to a woman, with the tag line “This is hilarious!” and featuring an audience full of laughing spectators in stitches, that that might have been construed as society legitimizing violence against women, especially with International Women’s Day right around the corner. And remember that men are far more likely to actually get hurt or killed in these sorts of incidents, sometimes due to their own stupidity and sometimes simply because men are far more likely to put themselves into dangerous situations out of necessity in their employment.

Or am I overthinking this, as some suggested to my post regarding offensive cartoons and t-shirts? I would appreciate your thoughts.

The Myth of Male Power Part 2 with Dr. Warren Farrell – Pendulum Effect Episode 3 Available

The Myth of Male Power, Part 2, with Dr. Warren Farrell

On today’s show we continue a three part interview with Dr. Warren Farrell, men’s movement leader. We’ll focus on fathers rights, the boy crisis, violence against men and women and discrimination in the legal system. First question on the agenda: do children really need their father

Dr. Warren Farrell is roundly regarded as a leading figure in the men’s movement, or better, the gender transition movement. His unique background and expertise give him a perfect vantage point from which to address men’s issues. Dr. Farrell has taught gender issues and psychology at several institutes, including Brooklyn College, Georgetown University, American University and the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Diego.

As a young graduate, Dr. Farrell was a major player in the feminist movement, especially in creating men’s groups across the US, then becoming the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Director of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Farrell was featured in media including the New York Times, the Today Show and the Phil Donahue Show, leading to his authorship of the pro-feminist book The Liberated Man.

As we discuss, in the late 80s, Farrell became increasingly convinced that feminism was rather one sided and that men’s issues were being neglected, leading to deep research on a variety of topics long taken for granted, and the publication of his landmark The Myth of Male Power, which touched on a diverse cross section of issues.

Farrell would go on to research each area in great depth, leading to the publication of 5 more books, including “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say”, a couples communication book to address the rise in divorces, “Father and Child Reunion”, to address the issue of fatherless homes and present the optimal shared parenting solution, “Why Men Earn More” to address the pay gap, and “Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men” which, among other things, called for men’s studies in academia.

You can get the latest show by:

* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.

Download: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.

Links of Interest

Learn about Dr. Warren Farrell and order his books

The Myth of Male Power, with Dr. Warren Farrell – Pendulum Effect Episode 2 Available

The Myth of Male Power, Part 1, with Dr. Warren Farrell

On today’s show I begin a three part interview with Dr. Warren Farrell mens’ movement leader. Before that, our regular news commentator and pundit Mark defends Denis Prager’s take on the politics of sex in marriage.

My conversation with Dr. Warren Farrell ended up being so engrossing that in order to cover all the topics we wished to explore we decided to go long. The discussion will be released in three parts, on today’s episode 2, episode 3 on January 30 and as one of two interview segments on episode 4. I hope you enjoy them all.

Dr. Warren Farrell is roundly regarded as a leading figure in the men’s movement, or better, the gender transition movement. His unique background and expertise give him a perfect vantage point from which to address men’s issues. Dr. Farrell has taught gender issues and psychology at several institutes, including Brooklyn College, Georgetown University, American University and the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Diego.

As a young graduate, Dr. Farrell was a major player in the feminist movement, especially in creating men’s groups across the US, then becoming the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Director of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Farrell was featured in media including the New York Times, the Today Show and the Phil Donahue Show, leading to his authorship of the pro-feminist book The Liberated Man.

As we discuss, in the late 80s, Farrell became increasingly convinced that feminism was rather one sided and that men’s issues were being neglected, leading to deep research on a variety of topics long taken for granted, and the publication of his landmark The Myth of Male Power, which touched on a diverse cross section of issues.

Farrell would go on to research each area in great depth, leading to the publication of 5 more books, including “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say”, a couples communication book to address the rise in divorces, “Father and Child Reunion”, to address the issue of fatherless homes and present the optimal shared parenting solution, “Why Men Earn More” to address the pay gap, and “Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men” which, among other things, called for men’s studies in academia.

However, I think at this early stage in the production of the Pendulum Effect, since many of our listeners, perhaps being in a similar position to Dr. Farrell prior to his conversion, shall we say, to a more balanced perspective on gender, might appreciate a sort of broad primer to get a feel for the nature of the issues. I’ve therefore asked Dr. Farrell on the show today to speak on his groundbreaking book The Myth of Male Power.

You can get the latest show by:

* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.

Download: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.

Links of Interest

Learn about Dr. Warren Farrell and order his books

The Hypocrisy of Victim Politics & the Society that Enables It

Following up on my well-commented post from December 27th on legitimizing domestic violence against men through mockery in what I jokingly referred to as the “high-culture” venues of comics, t-shirts, commercials, and greeting cards, I wanted to enlarge upon this by bringing examples of sexism and other forms of discrimination in mockery and in media.

To get started, since many readers of this blog came as a result of direct invitations from me, I happen to know many of you are atheists. So consider the following, taken from an old issue of the Readers’ Digest that I happened to come upon in a barber shop.

(At least the experience wasn’t as personally offensive as an earlier barber shop experience in which laughter met my request for a men’s hair style book, followed by my girlfriend who had finished before me being asked if she would rather wait to pay, the obvious presumption being that she would then not be the one paying. Please note that such “trivialities” are the sorts of complaints routinely heard by our “Human Rights Commissions”. But that experience is the topic of an earlier post on this blog).

Feb 2008 issue of Readers' Digest

Does this not offend or upset you? Do you not wish to write in an angry letter to the publishers, perhaps even threatening to retract your non-existent subscription to their publication? Do note that while the comics I referred to previously mocked violence these go nowhere near that far.

I want to make it quite clear that what I am not asking for is the censorship or banning of images, cartoons or words that offend me. What I am pointing out is how we can all feel deeply hurt by words and images and how unfairly inconsistent society responds to the complaints by certain favoured groups.

Consider the Women’s Media Center, allied with organizations receiving significant government funding like the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and the National Council of Women Organizations. It exists to increase women’s stories and voices and act as a watchdog monitoring misogyny and sexism in the media through its project Sexism Watch. The organization was founded by renowned feminists like Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda and involves leading journalists, academics and foundation leaders. Clearly, it means business, stating:

Every day when women turn on the news, open the paper, or log on to the Internet, they see a world that, as shaped by the media, is missing something. What’s missing are the women: women reporters, women’s voices, and women stories.

With all that expertise and money, what is Sexism Watch up to? It’s making videos like this, which I saw poted on the blog Feministing recently:

The video includes clips from Harball’s Chris Matthews commenting in a complimentary manner on Hillary Clinton’s dress and appearance and saying things like “cosmetics tonight are very important.” What the video doesn’t include is how – in an example no less sexist – Clinton secured female votes during one emotional speech where she broke out in sobs. She also played the gender card herself when it was required, such as when she said

if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen…and I’m very comfortable in the kitchen

As CNN’s Glenn Beck shot back on his show, if someone had said to her

if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen…but I assume you’re comfortable in the kitchen

this would have been unacceptable. In fact, it would likely have become part of the Women’s Media Center clip scene. But it’s as a result of comments like these that women were always her base of support. It’s called hypocrisy. If you voted for Clinton cause she’s female you voted against Obama cause he’s male, and that’s called sexist.

On the flip side, there were few complaints about journalists frequently harping on Obama’s good looks, like the following (just watch the last minute as longer exposure to the View can be harmful to your intelligence):


or mockery about McCain as an “old man” like the following where MSNBC actually called in Michael Ian Black of comedy Central to make the most of this golden joke opportunity in a piece called “Old Man McCain is Out of Touch”.

Now granted McCain’s internet stupidity is important for voters to know, but this went way too far, especially when McCain was compared to “grandpa simpson” and when Black said things like

we’ll start [teaching him] with what he knows…the telegraph…

and

…you have to double click on the web browser…there’s not a lot of 72 year old men out there who can double click on anything..

Notice first the ageism and recall how McCain would later in the campaign shrug it off in self-deprecating good humour. Hilarious, yes, but had I the time and money of the Women’s Media Center I could turn all these clips easily found on youtube into a fairly impressive clip sequence of political misandry to rival their own.

Finally, it isn’t just women’s traditional roles that are mocked in political coverage. How about the way in which until quite recently male candidates who had not served in the military were routinely mocked as unmanly and unfit for being Commander-in-Chief. I suppose with female candidates who never know the burden of registering for the draft (a legal duty of every male US citizen when they turn 18) this has become less of an issue, although the fact that women can obtain the highest office in the US without such a burden yet male legal conscription remains should give us pause.

In any case, mocking women’s fashion seems somewhat trivial compared to mocking men who refuse to sacrifice their lives and thereby bullying other men into doing so.

Fascinating Study About Flawed but Male Stereotype-Confirming Studies

A work colleague sent out a link on a traveler’s listserv (let me know if you see any possible relevance) to the following article, accompanied by the note:

Fascinating study about men.
A study finds raging male hormones pumping up the bull-bear cycle.

A fascinating study indeed, but does it tell us more about men, or about the ease with which a single poorly conducted bit of research can so easily lead to the implementation of discriminatory anti-male policies. The New York Times article opened with:

If a research paper published earlier this year is correct, traders have become prisoners of their endocrine systems — testosterone, the elixir of male aggressiveness, during a bull market; cortisol, a steroid that helps the body deal with stress, when the bears take over.

One investment strategist intuitively grasped the situation when he recently told The New York Times:

“Normally markets are driven by fear and greed. Now it’s fear and fear.” In other words, instead of a rhythm of testosterone alternating with cortisol, it’s been cortisol and more cortisol for weeks. Actually there was a step in between — greed and greed, the bubble period. That’s when traders were making a lot of money, which made them pump out extra testosterone, grow overconfident and overcompetitive, and take on more and more risks that eventually went bust.

This seemed a fairly sweeping conclusion to explain such a complicated phenomenon, so I figured the study must be built on a firm analysis of years of data across various markets. But the study itself told a slightly different story.

The study did not take place over any long term period of bubble or bust. It took place in London, and back in April before the major economic disaster was apparent to people’s endocrine system, and the study was conducted over only a period of 8 days based on surveys of 17 people!

In fact, the researchers themselves acknowledged their research

had the further drawback of being conducted during what turned out to be a period of low volatility. Realized volatility on the Bund contract during the 2 weeks of the study was 3.45%, whereas the average for the previous 5 years was 4.75% [with a maximum of 11.76% reached in the late autumn of 2001, after September 11, 2001 (9/11), and a minimum of 1.73% reached earlier that same year]. Such low volatility makes it difficult to assess the potential size of the hormonal effects stemming from the markets.

8 days during low volatility can be extrapolated to long-term trends in periods of high volatility?

There’s also a certain tautology here, if I understand the endocrine system. Fear leads to anxiety which leads to cortisol production which tends to result in the slowing of the market through less risk taking. Greed leads to competitiveness which leads to testosterone production which leads to market build up through risky behaviour. So what market activity can’t be explained by either one or a combination of these neural chemicals? Maybe periods of relative stability, like the ones that take place most of the time where small fluctuations fail to lead to large ones as might be expected.

The study was methodologically a mess. It focused exclusively on male traders with absolutely no control group. No comparison to days with very little market fluctuation to act as a baseline. No thought to conduct a similar study on women, say by comparing large numbers of male and female investors rather then just the mostly male traders.

What about confusing correlation with causation. At least one person got it.

The New York Times articles reports Jonathan D. Cohen, director of the neuroscience program at Princeton.

“This is intriguing, but correlation is not causation,” he said. “That’s the first thing we learn in science.”

Too bad it wasn’t the first thing the researchers learned. Although it may have dawned on them when they were forced to conclude:

Cortisol was likely responding to uncertainty rather than the other way around, because the calendar of economic releases and the relative importance of the economic statistics that create the uncertainty are independent of hormones.

So they aren’t sure that it’s cortisol leading to irrational behaviour and hence uncertain markets, or rather an evolutionarily developed way of coping with intrinsic uncertainty (always of greater concern for hunters then gatherers).

Yet from one paltry study, without comparison with the effects of female hormones (yes they have them too) Dr. Coates concluded:

It’s possible that bubbles are a male phenomenon

and gave a bit of hiring advice, based on the fact that he suspected that women were less likely to produce excess cortisol:

[get] more women and older men on trading floors.

But before we tell highly educated and every bit as qualified individuals that they will be discriminated against with a new round of affirmative action simply because of their gender, perhaps a few more studies should be conducted focusing on more then 17 people for longer then 8 days. After all,Research into how this may happen is in its infancy,” admitted the same researcher that would impose such instant conclusions on the job prospects of male traders.

Maybe for example we should start by looking into whether there aren’t some advantages to all this chemistry. After all, the researches found

our results suggest that high morning testosterone predicts greater profitability for the rest of that day…we found a significant relationship between testosterone and financial return.

Indeed, several studies bemoan the fact that since men’s risk taking nets them a higher lifetime return on investment women are disadvantaged when it comes to retiring (as an aside, note how testosterone – whether bringing damage or assistance to men’s financial decision making – is always interpreted with concern for its effects on anyone other then men like society, women, etc. No concern is given in either research paper or editorial on the possible health effects, for example, to men). The researchers found

Cortisol can experience changes of these magnitudes in situations other than distressing ones like losing money; it can rise in expectation of challenge and sustained effort, and it does so to promote anticipatory arousal and focused attention (6). An HPA reaction of this sort can occur when people are faced with situations of novelty and uncertainty (5). Traders face varying levels of novelty and uncertainty every day, so this feature of their jobs may help explain the high variance of their cortisol levels.

So it seems like these chemicals evolved due to selection pressure in competitive situations. This is a good thing. The researches go on

“If exposure is acute, glucocorticoids can be euphorogenic, increasing motivation and promoting focused attention. They can also aid the consolidation and retrieval of important memories”.

When it comes to testosterone, the researchers reported

When traders in our study experienced acutely raised testosterone, for example, they made higher profits, perhaps because testosterone has been found, in both animal and human studies, to increase search persistence (20), appetite for risk (21), and fearlessness in the face of novelty (22, 23), qualities that would augment the performance of any trader who had a positive expected return.”

So testosterone and cortisol have good, useful effects too! Who would have guessed testosterone are responsible for more then just poisoning.

But try to find that side of the story in the article. Maybe there was no room for it.

No, but there was room to include a report of an entirely irrelevant but male-bashing article from The Financial Times: “Icelandic Women to Clean Up Male Mess” where the country appointed two women to run banks nationalized after they were apparently bankrupted by men. Does 2 women and a handful of men merit a title that seems to imply all Icelandic women were cleaning a mess related directly to intrinsic maleness.

But I digress yet again. What I’m getting at is that much of this suggests that in the long run a male-only group of traders will do better for overall economic growth (not focusing on temporary boom and bust periods), so maybe we ought to keep women out of these and all high risk jobs!

I’m of course not suggesting anything like that, but I am wondering what we’d think if someone did make the case publicly that female biology might account for certain job rate discrepancies and inabilities (without necessarily even implying any concordant anti-women policy changes as was done against men here).

Oh right, he’d probably be forced to resign. At least that’s what happened to Harvard University President Lawrence Summers who dared to suggest that there were three reasons women were underrepresented in certain professions rather then just the acceptable one, namely systematic discrimination by elitist men.

Courtesy of wikipedia:

He [Summers] gave the three main hypotheses in the following order: that more men than women were willing to make the commitment in terms of time and flexibility demanded by high-powered jobs, that there were differences in the innate abilities of men and women (more specifically, men’s higher variance in innate abilities or preferences relevant to science and engineering), and that the discrepancy was due to discrimination or socialization. He also stated his view that the order given reflected the relative importance of each of the three factors.[15] An attendee made Summers’ remarks public, and an intense response followed in the national news media and on Harvard’s campus.

Summers never said discrimination didn’t exist, but simply added two well founded biological explanations as possible additional considerations, and was eventually forced to resign for it.

Unfortunately, no journalist worth his salt will ever publish an article highlighting the flaws in this “fascinating study about men” or reporting on the articles sure to be coming out shortly demolishing this bit of poorly conducted pseudoscience. Which means the notion of moving discriminatory affirmative action into this new market will likely go unchallenged.

  • 1
  • 2