This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

P.Z. Myers: New York Times Supports Rape Culture!

21 posts in this topic

Posted

The New York Times supports rape culture!

Who sez?

P.Z. Myers, that’s who!

NYT: Women Cause Rape by Being Too Scarce

The Times article to which Myers linked has helped reinforce the Times‘ reputation as a media bastion of rape culture, according to the Great Man himself.

So The New York Times has a reputation a bastion of rape culture! Who knew? :confused:

I think the only thing that has been reinforced here, is P.Z. Myers’ well-deserved reputation as a demagogic buffoon. This is the same hack who several years ago accused the Times of supporting creationism.

Anyone who takes seriously anything that P.Z. says is as mixed up as anyone who takes seriously what Catholic priests say.

If there is any confusion here about what journalists do, I will clarify it in a later post. If anyone cares to do so, I invite him or her to go to P.Z.'s blog and link this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh, wait, correction. It's NOT P.Z. who wrote that. It's some guy named Chris Clarke. I guess P.Z. has taken on a co-blowhard in blogging!

Regardless, I've no doubt it has the Great Man's seal of approval.

I challenge either of them to come to this forum and support this odious claim that has been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And look at the comments! Except for the very first comment, which states the obvious -- that the article did no such thing as support "rape culture" -- the fan boys are out in force, just like ... whoa! parishoners at a church!

P.Z. has his own church, lol.

Utterly disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Look, an actual fucking intelligent comment at the Pharyngula sink hole!

You don’t see it as victim blaming and glaring rape culture that this asshole explains the cause of rapes to be the fault of women for not being available to be used by men?

I don’t think the reporter is saying that. Nowhere in the article is it stated or implied that the women are at fault for the crime rate. I read this prior to coming to pharyngula and my pre-pharyngula read was that the article was implying the influx of men was causing the crime rise.

Bold by me! Thanks! How smart do you have to be to figure out the bold statement?

I guess P.Z. Myers and Chris Clarke aren't very smart. Or they're shamless liars, maybe.

Edited by davidm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Or they are sensationalist bloggers whose priorities lie within traffic and eyeballs rather than rarefied ideals of objectivity and justice.

Therefore there is no reason to castigate them for failing to uphold priorities they do not practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here is the article in which, according to Chris Clarke at Pharyngula, the New York Times says that “women cause rape by being too scarce.” Also, according to Clarke, the article has “helped reinforce the Times’ reputation as a media bastion of rape culture.”

An Oil Town Where Men are Many, and Women Are Hounded

The first point to note is that the headline already belies Clarke’s contention. How does writing about women who feel hounded in a mining town support rape culture? (It would also be helpful to define “rape culture” a little more precisely, but never mind.) If anything, of course, writing stories about women who feel hounded, threatened or intimidated by men undermines rape culture, by shining a spotlight under a dark rock and forcing the bugs to run out – one of the jobs of a journalist.

The second point to note is that the story isn’t about rape at all. The women depicted in this story have not been raped – they are being harassed, made to feel uncomfortable, and in some cases threatened. There is one example of a woman who was physically accosted but her attackers were driven off.

Why, then, does Clarke feel that this article, which is sympathetic to the women it depicts, supports rape culture? How does the substance of this article support the outrageous blog headline: That the Times is claiming that “women cause rape by being too scarce”?

It doesn’t, of course – Clarke’s claims are idiotic – but what his blog post does show is that he, like P.Z. Myers, doesn’t understand what journalists do. Both he and Myers seem to think that when a reporter reports on an event, it means he or she somehow endorses or supports that event; hence P.Z.’s bizarre confusion, several years ago, when a Times reporter reported on creationist boat tours in the Grand Canyon. The Times was reporting on sociological phenomenon, and in so doing was accused, by Myers, of supporting creationism. Not only is this a breathtaking non-sequitur, it was belied by the very article that Myers attacked, because the reporter in question was careful to note that creationism had NO support among geologists or other scientists.

Clarke has a similar misconception. He seems to think that when a reporter writes down what somebody says, it means he endorses the comments of the person he is interviewing.

That is how we end up with this howler from Chris:

It turns out, according to [reporter John] Eligon, that scarcity economics applies to that commodity Amanda Marcotte refers to as “vaginal access” [content warning applies]:

Here, men talk of a “Williston 10” — a woman who would be considered mediocre in any other city is considered a perfect 10 out here.

“I’ve noticed my standards dropping,” said Ian Hernandez, 24, who moved to Williston from Chicago a couple of months ago. “I just went home two weeks ago. I saw the girls I had planned to see. That, hopefully, should hold me off until I go back next time in two months or so.”

Er, no, Chris. Scarcity economics applies to “vaginal access” according to Ian Hernandez, and NOT according to the reporter. See the difference? Ian Hernandez said this, and NOT the reporter. The reporter just, you know, wrote down what Hernandez said.

You may ask, why did the reporter write this down and include it in his story? Well, that’s his job. If there are people out there who really do think that scarcity economics apply to vaginal access, don’t you want to know about that? If there are people out there who think, as the NRA does, that every school in America ought to have armed guards, do you think that when reporters write down this fact, that they agree with the NRA? Or – what? That they should not report on what the NRA says?

The reporter wrote down and published what Hernandez and other men said because it’s a story about women feeling hounded out there in North Dakota – a sympathetic treatment of their situation; the exact opposite of supporting rape culture. To show what is happening, the reporter was obligated to find, you know, some men, and uh, interview them, and write down what they said. Otherwise he wouldn’t be doing a very good job at reporting, now would he?

Now, granted, there could be a number of things to criticize about this (or any) news article. But one should remember that journalists have space constraints on what can go into print or even on the Web. Not every news article (or indeed any of them) can be a treatise or a doctoral dissertation dissecting every aspect of its subject down to the atomic level.

There’s more to say on this, including deconstructing some breathtakingly inane responses in the thread to Clarke’s blog post. I’ll also need to expose how entirely wrong he is in his criticism of two other Times stories that he mentions. But that’s enough for now.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here is the most recent comment on Clarke's blog post at Pharyngula:

It is a heinously misogynistic and dehumanising example of rape culture in action.

This is referring to the article, of course.

The Pharyngula mob is up in arms, the free thinkers all thinking alike as usual, and the pitchforks are out! The very first response to Chris's twaddle got it exactly right, of course, but my bet is that the writer of that post has long since been hounded out of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here is a blog post by Amanda Marcotte, who was invoked by Clarke in support of his lame and obviously false contention. She seems to think the Times article is just fine and got quite a bit out of it, which after all was the intent of the piece. The reporter did a fine job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is comment 190 at the Pharyngula thread:

Oh fuck off, you doucheweasel. Obviously, you didn’t bother to read the comments or chose to dismiss them. Go somewhere else to defend rape culture apologia in the media.

Rape culture apologia in the media. This is a lie, as I have already demonstrated. The story was quite the opposite -- sympathetic to the women it portrayed, and the problems that they face in that particular milieu.

Hey, P.Z. Myers and Chris Clarke, are you proud of this? Really? Proud of spreading irrationality and hatred, proud of lying about a news article and defaming the reporter in question? Proud of the fact that the people who post at your shitty blog are a howling mob of vulgar, vituperative, irrational trolls who engage in the worst sort of groupthink, hate-mongering and intellectual dishonesty?

Proud? Are you?

Edited by davidm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is the article that Chris Clarke characterizes as a "drunk-shaming apologetic for a couple of alleged rapist NYC cops."

What is it actually?

It's a reporter doing his job: factually describing a woman's testimony at the trial of the cops. The reporter didn't say that the woman was drunk -- she did -- on the witness stand, under oath. The reporter merely described her testimony and quoted from it. That's a reporter's job.

What would you have had the reporter do, Chris? NOT report what the woman said? Make up what she said? Or ... what? :confused:

Oh, and Chris? Describing the cops as alleged rapists misses the mark. They were acquitted of rape. They were found guilty of misconduct and fired from the police force, but they were acquitted of rape. Whether the jury found rightly or wrongly I can't say, but neither can you. Describing the cops in question as "alleged rapists" when they have been found innocent of rape is defamatory.

You know what, Chris? You're as loony as a 9/11 troofer.

Edited by davidm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To say you stab these reporters on a daily basis, you're sure getting passionate about defending them. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like to keep 'em around and working and then, when they least expect it ... :stab:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There are times I agree with Myers, and times I disagree with him, but the people leaving the comments can get unnecessarily nasty and uncharitable at times.

Sometimes the blogging is righteous anger, and other times it's Myers throwing a piece of bloody meat to the wolves, who will ravenously tear it apart and devour it first chance they get, most of them never bothering to check to see if it's what they're told it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Several days ago, I registered at P.Z. Myers' Pharyngula blog, but still have not received a confirmatory e-mail to finish the process of registration. I wonder why that is.

Hey, P.Z. Myers and Chris Clarke, come here and support your claim that the NY Times defended rape culture, rather than what it really did: expose it.

Chris Clarke? Not only are you as loony as a 9/11 troofer and an Obama birfer. You are as as dumb as a box of rocks. :wave:

Why won't you let me post at your blog, P.Z.? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is the blog responsible for a decline in sales of the NYT?

If so, why not just arrange for Clarke and Myers to be prosecuted for libel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No, I'm just irritated that they are able to get away with this obvious nonsense without brooking any dissent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, I think people can be grouped into three categories as regards that piece:

1) People who don't give a shit.

2) People who read it and are intelligent enough to realise that the NYT is not defending rape culture.

3) People who, either through not reading it or not understanding it, have to rely on taking Myers's word for it that the NYT is defending and/or promoting rape culture.

The first category doesn't matter, and the last category is full of people who are either lazy or a bit dim, and such people would probably struggle to get through the first page of the NYT, or any respectable publication, so they don't matter either. :yup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

People have gotten used to the lazy "reporting" they see on tv news, where shocked looks and an overly dramatic reading of a handful of sound-bite sentences suffices to "cover" a story. Long live the NY Times, a small island in a sea of pretty much total crap.

Edited by AllBlue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hmm, when reading Elon Musk, he sure paints a different story. I don't know, the articles about the car from the reporter change slightly in tone and content (their is a followup article). The "giving a drive to his brother" was not mentioned in the article, Musk mentioned that one. Is he now lying? Hmm I says, hmmm!

-Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But now I’m wondering why — why would somebody cheat on his evaluation of a car?

But he didn't, you buffoon. See your own link at the end of your post!

Personal bias? Or — uh-oh, conspiracy theory time — were there financial interests behind doing a bad review?

:rofl:

Provide your evidence for this claim, PeeZee. I dare to show the evidence you utterly lack.

OTOH, the head of Tesla -- yeah, he's real unbiased!

*snicker*

Edited by davidm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0