The Boko Haram Kidnapping - Did boys not matter ?

beks101

Piliger wrote: »

While all very interest, and it is, this doesn't go anywhere close to tackling the heart of the subject. All it does is explain the current state of US news organisations.

What you are essentially saying is that when boys were being killed and burnt to death all through 2012, US news desks were ignoring it because it was too expensive to cover and US news desks didn't think it related to their audiences. The fact is that most US networks already have representatives in Nigeria and other close by countries. And the excuse of not being able to get pictures is a lame one.

That doesn't go anywhere toward explaining why no European coverage, no BBC outrage. The BBC have had a representative in Nigeria for the last three years covering other Nigerian news.

No. I get where you are coming from but this doesn't cut it. The fact is that when boys were being slaughtered in every attack by this Haram group, it just wasn't deemed important, and it wasn't deemed 'sellable'

Once young pretty photogenic girls arrived .. kidnapped and potentially raped and abused ... then the news networks lit up across Europe and the USA.

I introduced a bit of logic and insight to what seemed to me to be a black-and-white idea about agendas. The media doesn't care about men. There's a feminist agenda.

I'll never hold my hands up and say there are no media biases, but to state the above is simply untrue. There are larger considerations in newsrooms than "is this a sexy story" believe it or not, and they influence the decision making on international coverage on a daily - actually, minutely - basis.

SherlockWatson

Its probably a lack of awareness more than anything else I'd imagine!

Liam McPoyle

Piliger wrote: »

Nonsense. Why are we talking about it here ? because the name of the forum is "The Gentlemen's Club" so just like when you post to "the Ladies lounge" about issues that matter to women, we talk about matters that matter to men.

And when the slaughtering of over a hundred, minimum,boys over the course of a couple of years attracts no media coverage .. and then kidnapping of girls sets the world alit - I would suggest to you that that is an appalling sexist attitude by the media, and something that matters to men.

I think the bolded bit has alot to do with it tbh. 200 people been kidnapped at the same time sends alot more shockwaves than people going missing/been killed over the course of a few years.*

Just look at how that Joseph Kony story broke last year I believe, how many people knew about him before yer man and his Facebook video.

I think to imply that its some kind of feminist conspiracy or what ever tin foil hat theory you have is disingenuous and highly disrespectful to all the victims.


*just to state the obvious, Im in no way saying that the fact its happened over the course of a couple of years makes it unimportant, any innocent person thats kidnapped or murdered or what ever is equally important as the next one.

eviltwin

Piliger wrote: »

So you are fine that there was no coverage, no outrage, no interest when it was boys. You are fine that it's only when it's girls that the media wakes up. And you think it's disgusting when we men draw attention to that fact....?

Read my post. I think its disgusting this act is being used to further the 'poor men' chip that certain posters have on their shoulder. Failure to report previous acts probably has more to do with the fact they happened in Africa than any conspiracy against men in the media.

Piliger

eviltwin wrote: »

Read my post. I think its disgusting this act is being used to further the 'poor men' chip that certain posters have on their shoulder. Failure to report previous acts probably has more to do with the fact they happened in Africa than any conspiracy against men in the media.

Well the ladies who like to come and post in TGC certainly all agree - surprise surprise.

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

Well the ladies who like to come and post in TGC certainly all agree - surprise surprise.

There is a core of posters here who go round in circles on anything they can find that they can possibly put a male victimisation spin on, no matter how much of a stretch - which is exactly what they accuse 'the feminists' - that great hive-mind of misandric, man-hating, media-controlling, oppressive female illuminati of.

It's a tragedy what happened to the boys. One boy is a tragedy, over 100 is an outrage of epic proportions. Using kidnapped girls - in one incident, in far greater number - which ramps up the immediate impact, initally ignored by world press and only publicised because of a social media campaign - as a foil to complain about boys being ignored in a world that ignores so many African atrocities, is transparently seeking to make a false equivalence to support a fallacious theory. The lack of press interest is much more likely to be as a result of atrocity fatigue or a casual strain of racism that sees things happening in a place far away, to poor, black people, as being of little interest to the majority white consumers of the Western news media.

The cadre of posters who see everything through the lens of confirmation bias all agree. Surprise, surprise.

Eviltwin is right, it's a new low.

beks101

Piliger wrote: »

Well the ladies who like to come and post in TGC certainly all agree - surprise surprise.

Does nothing but furthers what is an obvious agenda on your part tbh Piliger.

diveout

It's a perfectly valid criticism. If the news has time for Rugby scores, it has time to report the live burning of 50 school boys by radical groups.

It captures the West's imagination because it's male on female violence.

beks101

diveout wrote: »

It's a perfectly valid criticism. If the news has time for Rugby scores, it has time to report the live burning of 50 school boys by radical groups.

It may or may not surprise you, but most news programmes / papers / outlets are comprised of varying facets of news, including also sports, entertainment, arts sections etc. Even hard news and current affairs publications will devote space to these other categories, as the alternative is to report an unending stream of war, death, violence, destruction, homicide, poverty and natural disasters.

These other areas are necessarily 'selective' too. They'll report on rugby instead of maybe lacrosse, or cricket, or local badminton or national tennis championships. For a myriad of reasons, including audience appetite, resources, air time restrictions and the absolute infeasibility of reporting on every terrible or wonderful sporting event that happens all over the world on any particular day.

The idea this thread brings up is that western media deliberately omits these male victims of violence in a sinister fashion, as if it's a ploy to follow some farcical feminist agenda.

Which is just not the case. There are only so many news stories one bulletin / daily newspaper can broadcast or print. There is only so much money in any one newsroom and there are only so many staff on any given day. And the reporting of each and every story presents logistical challenges, some of them insurmountable. And that's just speaking of the stories that crop up on international news organizations' radars. Many, many don't. Many remain tragedies in their local areas because the area is so remote, comms are non-existent and a local culture of violence has desensitized even the natives.

Piliger

beks101 wrote: »

Does nothing but furthers what is an obvious agenda on your part tbh Piliger.

My only agenda is to stop the sexist and misandrous attitude of the media and hate filled feminists. Your agenda is also obvious.

Piliger

beks101 wrote: »

The idea this thread brings up is that western media deliberately omits these male victims of violence in a sinister fashion, as if it's a ploy to follow some farcical feminist agenda.

And yet you have failed to explain why the massacred boys did not produce any similar outrage. Only kidnapped girls.

The sexist nature of the coverage is evident. The same reason we hear every week about women as the sole victims of domestic violence. The same reason we here only about girls being trafficked for sex, and the boys are ignored.

GalwayGuy2

A part of me likes these agendas by the MRA's.

It might make some feminists look closer at their own actions/arguments.

A lot of critiques that are raised against this rather agenda-ee theory are rarely raised when it's an opinion that a poster agrees on.

beks101

Piliger wrote: »

My only agenda is to stop the sexist and misandrous attitude of the media and hate filled feminists.

LOL
OK
Hope that works out for you.

jackofalltrades

Candie wrote: »

The lack of press interest is much more likely to be as a result of atrocity fatigue or a casual strain of racism that sees things happening in a place far away, to poor, black people, as being of little interest to the majority white consumers of the Western news media.

There's only so many atrocities/famines/civil wars that you can put up with on the News, before you turn it off to protect your sanity.

I think news from Africa has reached that point for a lot of people, especially seeing as economic and social progress seems to be going backwards in some countries.

PucaMama

Piliger wrote: »

My only agenda is to stop the sexist and misandrous attitude of the media and hate filled feminists. Your agenda is also obvious.

and you will use the kidnapping of 200+ girls to further your agenda :rolleyes:

Zulu

Feminists? Sigh. Well if there was a chance for a sensible conversation to be had its gone now.

Agends and deep-throating opinions ftw. :rolleyes:

Mike747

eviltwin wrote: »

I would have said it was due to the numbers, 200 is a much greater headline than 50. There were 8 girls kidnapped after the 200 girls were taken and that didn't get much attention. All stories of this nature should get publicity but in a media that only have a finite ability to report on stories you can understand can't you why numbers count. If 200 boys had been murdered we would have heard about it.

Indeed we would hear about it. Briefly on the news round up. And then the story would be forgotten.

the_syco

Piliger wrote: »

It seems that slaughtered buys don't count for much. Not a major media outlet but a very valid article think. And one that men should pay attention to.

Was there a protest by their families over it? 100 mothers that know how to use the media certainly knew how to get the worlds attention.

The other way to look at it is that the girls would sold off as slaves. Thus they are still alive, and need to be rescued. Sadly, it seems because the boys are dead, so is any such story. With American soldiers coming back dead every day, boys getting killed doesn't really sound like a news story that news channels like to report.

But a chance of a good gung-ho American led feel-good family-friendly (the ends, not the means) rescue mission gets people following the news for updates. And thus, girls in captivity sells better than boys dead.


TL:DR dead boys don't help ratings as much as girls about to sold into possible sex slavery.

eviltwin

There are violent acts happening on a global scale every day that we never hear about. Or we hear about it briefly and the next day its onto something else.

Boko Haram have been around for years but it was only after the attacks on Abjua that they became newsworthy because suddenly they were threatening Westerners. If you want to label the media anything you could call them out for being racist ( black Africans aren't important ) or ageist ( children are more newsworthy than adults ). Of course now the Americans are involved too which automatically makes it a better story.

The cynic in me says that no one really gives a toss about these girls and that its just a huge PR exercise, save the girls, the Americans are heroes yada yada.

There is at least a glimmer of hope that if these girls are still alive that they may be found and returned home, a dead person is a dead person. The media love an ongoing story that keep people glued to their sets, all they care about is ratings regardless of the gender of the people involved.

No boys did not matter - sure aren't all girls good and boys bad? The boys are tough and should "man up" to survive whereas the poor gurlies will be all scared and upset.

Isn't that the crap we're force fed from an early age?

Standman

Piliger wrote: »

Well the ladies who like to come and post in TGC certainly all agree - surprise surprise.

Your bias is really coming through here.

Piliger

Standman wrote: »

Your bias is really coming through here.

I would have thought that was obvious from the get go. I am completely biased in favour of balanced media reporting and I am biased against the feminist domination of this kind of hateful media coverage where boys die and they don't give a damn, but when girls get kidnapped al hell breaks lose.
I am biased against this appalling situation where the lives of boys matter for nothing but all we see today are stupid selfies with "save the girls" signs all over the international media.
I am biased against the daily articles in the newspapers condemning men for violence against women in the home hill totally and comprehensively ignoring the violence against men in the home.
I am biased against nasty hateful feminists who use every opportunity of blatant prejudice and sexism against men to further their disgusting misandrous agenda and then try to justify it will their usual sexist excuses.

Oh yes. I am biased alright.

Piliger

the_syco wrote: »

TL:DR dead boys don't help ratings as much as girls about to sold into possible sex slavery.

And why is that ? That is the ghastly question that feminists wriggle and writhe to avoid dealing with. Why is it that feminism has so poisoned the media and culture where men now count for so little ? Why is it that feminism has so poisoned the media and culture where men can be battered and attacked by their partners every day yet the newspapers and media have persuaded so many that domestic violence only happens in the home ? Why is it that feminism has so poisoned the media and culture where many men actually believe they themselves are the source of eve and as a result of decades of daily propaganda they cannot see what has happened. Why is it that feminism has so poisoned the media and culture where men are branded and labeled as the sole abusers and controllers of women and children by the disgusting man up campaign ?

It's about time more men reflected on their position in society and the direction things are taking, and effected on the society into which their sons are being born. A society that labels them from birth as latent abusers, latent rapists, latent controllers.

Standman

Piliger wrote: »

I would have thought that was obvious from the get go. I am completely biased in favour of balanced media reporting and I am biased against the feminist domination of this kind of hateful media coverage where boys die and they don't give a damn, but when girls get kidnapped al hell breaks lose.
I am biased against this appalling situation where the lives of boys matter for nothing but all we see today are stupid selfies with "save the girls" signs all over the international media.
I am biased against the daily articles in the newspapers condemning men for violence against women in the home hill totally and comprehensively ignoring the violence against men in the home.
I am biased against nasty hateful feminists who use every opportunity of blatant prejudice and sexism against men to further their disgusting misandrous agenda and then try to justify it will their usual sexist excuses.

Oh yes. I am biased alright.

I meant your bias towards women in general.

Corkfeen

Piliger wrote: »

Well the ladies who like to come and post in TGC certainly all agree - surprise surprise.

I agree with them and I'm male. You've got such a persecution complex going on. If 243 boys were kidnapped I would view it equally as seriously. The fact that a situation exists where people wish to prevent people from receiving an education because of their gender is a significant issue in itself and an unfortunate issue that exists across the globe.

PucaMama

Piliger wrote: »

And why is that ? That is the ghastly question that feminists wriggle and writhe to avoid dealing with. Why is it that feminism has so poisoned the media and culture where men now count for so little ? Why is it that feminism has so poisoned the media and culture where men can be battered and attacked by their partners every day yet the newspapers and media have persuaded so many that domestic violence only happens in the home ? Why is it that feminism has so poisoned the media and culture where many men actually believe they themselves are the source of eve and as a result of decades of daily propaganda they cannot see what has happened. Why is it that feminism has so poisoned the media and culture where men are branded and labeled as the sole abusers and controllers of women and children by the disgusting man up campaign ?

It's about time more men reflected on their position in society and the direction things are taking, and effected on the society into which their sons are being born. A society that labels them from birth as latent abusers, latent rapists, latent controllers.

you really are taking it too far.

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

I am biased against nasty hateful feminists who use every opportunity of blatant prejudice and sexism against men to further their disgusting misandrous agenda and then try to justify it will their usual sexist excuses.

Piliger wrote: »

It's about time more men reflected on their position in society and the direction things are taking, and effected on the society into which their sons are being born. A society that labels them from birth as latent abusers, latent rapists, latent controllers.

Does any reasonable person consider these measured and proportionate comments? I just asked several of my relatives and friends if they felt labelled latent abusers/rapists/controllers (from birth!) and I was looked at like I was from another planet.

Corkfeen wrote: »

I agree with them and I'm male.

Careful now, I expect you'll be called self-loathing shortly, a silencing tactic I've noted.

GalwayGuy2

Does any reasonable person consider these measured and proportionate comments? I just asked several of my relatives and friends if they felt labelled latent abusers/rapists/controllers (from birth!) and I was looked at like I was from another planet.

Tbh, they sound quite similar to what you would read in the daily sexism thread in that other forum.

Sauve

Mod

As per the charter, please stop with the criticism of other forum(s) on boards. This is not the place to air dirty laundry, there are much more appropriate places and methods for doing that.
Now let's get back on topic please.

Piliger

Standman wrote: »

I meant your bias towards women in general.

How on earth would you know anything about me ? And what evidence do you have to make that kind of accusation ?