John Stossel - Proof That Sensationalists And Morons Still Dominate The Media

[Geiseric]

Today in one of my psych classes I was subjected to one of the most moronic and biased examples of journalism I have EVER come across in my life. John Stossel, using a false two sided arguments tries to convince the world that sexism is not only natural, it should be practiced, and those crazy feminists are idiots. If you haven't see it, please do, so you may see why sexism still exists in a big way today. Your local or university library will have it. He starts out by stating facts about the leaps forward equality has taken, and some common facts known by sociologists, and often stated by them. This is when his bias becomes visible in a ridiculous fashion. Whenever he speaks to someone who disagrees with his take that women are in fact lesser creatures, he takes on a condescending tone, ridiculing them, painting them as archaic. Typical stuff, but he is so open about it it is disgusting. He interviews several feminists ( a grand total of 3) and opens and closes them with statements to the contrary by his interviewees that are on his side - which, by the way, outnumber the feminists by about a 5 to 1 ratio. Convenient. He latches on quickly to the strength argument, which has some truth to it, but goes on to blame women demanding jobs for a loss in quality of service. He states men are simply better thinkers. Hear that, all you women? Men are more intelligent than you. Now wash those damn dishes, and make me some dinner. Ugh.

I have always disliked him, he argues whatever side he wishes, and paints the other side to be idiots, and typically takes the most sensational stand he can, and then seems to congratulate himself for it, as if this somehow makes him a better person, and no one realizes his real reason - sensationalism sells. Thats it. It isn't brilliant reporting, it isn't unique, it isn't brave. It gets no one anywhere fast. I agree with some of the standpoints he takes, but he cheapens the standpoint by using juvenile tactics and cheap tricks. Mr. John Stossel - You, sir, are the perfect example of the transition of tabloids to the visual media.

While looking around to see if I could find a copy of the video online, I came across this story - conservative, but they see same issues I saw.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1134

[ghostofdavid]

Boys and girls are different. If you have children, you'll find out fast. Give two sets of differing gendered kids a pile of sticks and watch what unfurls. A girl will pick up a stick and scream if she finds a bug. A boy will eat the bug, use the stick to hit someone, then turn the stick into a gun and start "shooting" people.

It isn't bad or wrong that genders are different... it does not change the fact that all are equal.

Amazon sells a book called "The Dangerous Book for Boys." I imagine if you gave that to a large cross section of boys, they would love it. In turn, give it to a group of girls and they would hate it. The same would apply for the female version of the book when applied to boys and girls.

I would have to say that some modern feminists are pretty crazy. Rather than fight for the idea of egalitarian ideologies, some are interested in female domination and male suppression. People can become so enveloped in an idea that it is the only lense at which they can view things and suddenly everything is the white oppressive male's fault. We live in an age of double standards. Ever taken a sexual harassment class? How about "diversity" training? Each time, it is always a white middle age male bumbling his way through life insulting the fairer sex for the harassment training and ridiculing minorities in the diversity training. If I made a video reflecting the opposite... of a woman sexually harassing a man or any other culture insulting a white man, the whole idea would seem awkward and almost laughable.

What is the direct quote where he insists that man are better thinkers? I don't know how one could particularly prove that. It would be interesting to see the ratio of women to men.

Racial and gender quotas are a pretty unintelligent specifications for the workforce, if that is what the author is hinting at. Real diversity isn't hiring one minority for every ten white guys... it is in hiring different perspectives. It goes back to the same old boring firefighter story... would you rather have the best person suited for the job when firefighters need to come to your house to save your life/family/property or a group of racially and gendered diverse firefighters who were hired because of their ethnic backgrounds? I know which one I'd pick... the one based on skill sets and not on genetics.

You mention that the journalism is biased... all journalism is biased. Unless we are speaking in terms of hard mathematics, all forms of thought are biased. I'd rather discuss any number of topics with someone who admits to being biased up front before I would ever want to discuss something with someone who refused to admit it. The one who admits biased is much likely going to be honest with himself and therefore you.

Much of sociology is more about theories and thoughts than facts, isn't it? I don't think of hardcore facts when thinking of either sociology or psychology. That doesn't make them bad or helpful or inaccurate... what is an example of sociological fact vs theory?

By the way, I love your passion for the topic of discussion (and really any post you provide) because it is so LACKING for most people.

[Geiseric]

While there are obvious physical differences, I am unconvinced that the preferences toward certain things they show and tendencies towards different reactions are biological. People so easily overlook the power of socialization. In his story, he goes on about how the one of the girls is showing a preference for dolls, despite her mother trying to give her balance... but as he says this he is showing video footage of her playing with dolls... with other children. We must not forget the power of the media, either. My little brother's first word was McDonalds. HE did not spend excessive amounts of time in front of the tv (not, at least, by conventional standards) but in the time he did, all he saw was how good it was there, how good the food was, and that he would get a toy. So he demanded Mcdonalds. At the same time, sex roles are shoved down our throats via the outside world every day. It doesn't matter if you choose to bring up your kids in a non-biased manner, you cannot escape the power of socialization.

Also, my main problem with him was not that he was arguing for more biological differences, it was the combination of the demeaning nature of his argument, stating that mean were better at chess, math, and design. His under the table argument style doesn't help, especially when it is so clear. Yes, everyone has a bias. But there is such a thing as showing both sides. He shows both sides, but uses clever editing and snide comments to make every interviewee from that side look like an idiot. He has had comments about this before, its not a new thing. The overall fell of the video was revolting, a return to a time before the rights movement, or at least a call to do so. The goal was not equality or scientific knowledge, the goal was to put women back in their place.

I would agree with you that some feminists are radical. They would have things change so far that men are the underlings. This is inherent in all movements, however. Some people are simply more inclined to be fanatical about their beliefs. It doesn't change the validity of the movement. Women are held to a standard that is ridiculous in nature. The sexual revolution was bullshit, it helped no one. Now women are not only expected to put out for their boyfriends, they are also expected to be somehow chaste publicly, a non sexual entity to the world, but a sex toy to whom-ever they may be currently dating. They are still outside of the workforce, still payed less, still expected to care for the children, and do everything else that men are expected to do.
Its insane. Edited December 8, 2007 by Geiseric

[Scalliwag]

I just want to hear someone here (so that I can rip them a new arsehole) explain why their has never been a non-white or a female president? GW cannot speak a coherant sentence so if you voted for him then I would hope the realization has occured that if you were that stupid that you should avoid arguments outside of non-idiot spectrums.

I may seem a little harsh but it was not that many years ago that a lot of idiots here in Texas were trying to convince me that GW actually had some sort of reason. Since then they have shut up and I want to bust their dumbasses up and have them explain. You don't just step back after being a part of ruining the country and pretend your boneheaded ass never made any remarks.
WHERE are the 90% of the idiots that supported Bush? Grow some gawd damn balls and eat your fugged up cooking. Hiding like scared POS's and pretending you don't even see this thread after shoving your conservatist BS down our throats and not accepting responsibility for YOUR failures is bullshit.

[Bulldog_916]

Even white America is ready for an ethnic president. Whether it be black, mexican, female, whatever. But so far, those candidates that have made it to round 2 have been white men. No one was gonna vote for the "Reverend" Al Sharpton. White people want a black president that doesnt seem like he's black. Barrack Obama isnt black, so he's perfect. Hillary Clinton is a white woman and an elitist flip flopper. She isnt gonna get the nod. All the Republicans are white christian men. We as a nation finally know where we would get voting in another one of those. Seems to me Obama has the presidency. But America is always going to have a racist undertone, no matter how quiet and respectful it is. No matter how equal the wages are. There is always going to be a part of America as an entity that isnt ready for change. Thats why I almost fear that a Republican is going to win, regardless of how fucked up this last one has been.

[Geiseric]

I'm sorry, but am I the only one confused on how we turned from John Stussel being a asstard, and feminism.... to Bush and ethnicity in regards to presidency?