![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
someone on the internet is wrong
Mar. 9th, 2011 08:20 amFrom yesterday:
Age Columnist: [article on International Women's Day]
Some Dude: This paper runs 100 articles about the woes of women for every one male.
Me, several others: o rly? Looking at the headlines in this paper just now, we have four articles about the woes of Charlie Sheen, Brendan Fevola, Ricky Nixon, and [some cricketer]. Against two articles about women. One of which is only there because it's IWD.
Second Dude: Yeah, but those are about specific men. I've been reading for five years and I've never seen an article about general men's issues, like men's health for example, or male homelessness.
Rey: Oh look, if you pull up coverage about "homelessness", you'll find it's almost always talking about men. It doesn't get labelled as "male homelessness" because 'male' is the default.
Me: Oh look, this website has a search box. You can type in "men's health" and find dozens of articles from the last five years about these issues.
Second Dude: But none of them are making a fuss about how awful it is that men's health is so much worse than women's in these issues.
Rey: Oh look, you're shifting the goalposts.
Me: ...except for this article, and this article, and this article.
Second Dude: But those were run elsewhere in this paper. I'm talking about in this specific section.
SITE ADMIN: This comments section is now closed.
...and while I may have been on the side of truth there, I'm still uncomfortably aware that the end result is that the comments section for an article about IWD ended up being almost entirely dominated by a discussion about men's issues. I understand this is fairly standard.
Age Columnist: [article on International Women's Day]
Some Dude: This paper runs 100 articles about the woes of women for every one male.
Me, several others: o rly? Looking at the headlines in this paper just now, we have four articles about the woes of Charlie Sheen, Brendan Fevola, Ricky Nixon, and [some cricketer]. Against two articles about women. One of which is only there because it's IWD.
Second Dude: Yeah, but those are about specific men. I've been reading for five years and I've never seen an article about general men's issues, like men's health for example, or male homelessness.
Rey: Oh look, if you pull up coverage about "homelessness", you'll find it's almost always talking about men. It doesn't get labelled as "male homelessness" because 'male' is the default.
Me: Oh look, this website has a search box. You can type in "men's health" and find dozens of articles from the last five years about these issues.
Second Dude: But none of them are making a fuss about how awful it is that men's health is so much worse than women's in these issues.
Rey: Oh look, you're shifting the goalposts.
Me: ...except for this article, and this article, and this article.
Second Dude: But those were run elsewhere in this paper. I'm talking about in this specific section.
SITE ADMIN: This comments section is now closed.
...and while I may have been on the side of truth there, I'm still uncomfortably aware that the end result is that the comments section for an article about IWD ended up being almost entirely dominated by a discussion about men's issues. I understand this is fairly standard.
