[004]
NubianSatyress
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Age of shitlords doesn't actually
to:
Age of shitlords doesn\'t actually \"cite\" anything, though. It makes \'\'claims\'\' that protests against the film increased its sales/viewership/popularity or whatever, but no actual figures which directly show causation.
As for the blog, even if his claim is true, it\'s irrelevant. Jaye not liking his review doesn\'t mean it doesn\'t have massive problems.
For example:
[[quoteblock]]\"One feminist reader is giving a speech about how evil Paul Elam is by misquoting an article written by Elam, even as the text of the article is on the screen. Neither Jaye nor Elam address the fact that the speech deliberately contradicts the content of the article. The text is only seen on the screen for a moment, so unless the viewer is a speed reader the impression left is that Elam actually does espouse violence against women.
Early headlines from A Voice For Men are, indeed, incendiary and at times offensive. Jaye, herself, admits that she was put off by this, but the audience never learns why there was such a discrepancy between what these men write and how they speak. We never see Jaye have an “a ha!” moment, or see any motivation on her part to move beyond the initial impression of MRAs as psychotic. Whatever moment of deciding to give them the benefit of the doubt happens off screen, and off-VO.
Jaye has done her homework on the statistics of men’s victims, but when her feminist interviewees effectively dismiss them with a wave of the hand, Jaye doesn’t even defend her own findings.
Some of her feminist interviewees are truly vile. When one sociologist is questioned about the rights of fathers with custody as a result of a divorce, he snidely remarks that they should have been more attentive to wanting to spend time with their children before the divorce, instead of now wanting to spend time with them. Yet Jaye never comments about these sentiments, even during her “video diaries.”\"[[/quoteblock]]
[[quoteblock]]\"For example, when Binx chastises MRAs for not focusing on paternity rights and alimony, and tells them to start their own movement to rectify this (which she then mocks for doing so), she turns around and says that they should be embracing feminism because it’s “Patriarchy” that put them there in the first place.\"[[/quoteblock]]
----
The author of the blog may try and pretend that they have a \"neutral\" view of the film, but really the blog is just an attempt to posit itself as a \"moderate\" viewpoint while also parroting several MRA positions, while both misrepresenting and insulting feminist viewpoints. (Note \"patriarchy\" in scare-quotes, for example.)
EDIT:
\"I\'d also suggest that merely the MRA, men\'s rights [other], and feminists believing the Streisand Effect is in play counts, especially looking at the \"proof\" level that is being used for many other examples of the trope.\"
We can say that MRAs \'\'claim\'\' the Effect is occurring, but that isn\'t how you currently wrote the example. My point is that, as it\'s currently written, it takes sources which are obviously pro-MRA at face value.
As for the blog, even if his claim is true, it\'s irrelevant. Jaye not liking his review doesn\'t mean it doesn\'t have massive problems.
For example:
[[quoteblock]]\"One feminist reader is giving a speech about how evil Paul Elam is by misquoting an article written by Elam, even as the text of the article is on the screen. Neither Jaye nor Elam address the fact that the speech deliberately contradicts the content of the article. The text is only seen on the screen for a moment, so unless the viewer is a speed reader the impression left is that Elam actually does espouse violence against women.
Early headlines from A Voice For Men are, indeed, incendiary and at times offensive. Jaye, herself, admits that she was put off by this, but the audience never learns why there was such a discrepancy between what these men write and how they speak. We never see Jaye have an “a ha!” moment, or see any motivation on her part to move beyond the initial impression of MRAs as psychotic. Whatever moment of deciding to give them the benefit of the doubt happens off screen, and off-VO.
Jaye has done her homework on the statistics of men’s victims, but when her feminist interviewees effectively dismiss them with a wave of the hand, Jaye doesn’t even defend her own findings.
Some of her feminist interviewees are truly vile. When one sociologist is questioned about the rights of fathers with custody as a result of a divorce, he snidely remarks that they should have been more attentive to wanting to spend time with their children before the divorce, instead of now wanting to spend time with them. Yet Jaye never comments about these sentiments, even during her “video diaries.”\"[[/quoteblock]]
[[quoteblock]]\"For example, when Binx chastises MRAs for not focusing on paternity rights and alimony, and tells them to start their own movement to rectify this (which she then mocks for doing so), she turns around and says that they should be embracing feminism because it’s “Patriarchy” that put them there in the first place.\"[[/quoteblock]]
----
The author of the blog may try and pretend that they have a \"neutral\" view of the film, but really the blog is just an attempt to posit itself as a \"moderate\" viewpoint while also parroting several MRA positions, while both misrepresenting and insulting feminist viewpoints. (Note \"patriarchy\" in scare-quotes, for example.)
EDIT:
\"I\'d also suggest that merely the MRA, men\'s rights [other], and feminists believing the Streisand Effect is in play counts, especially looking at the \"proof\" level that is being used for many other examples of the trope.\"
We can say that MRAs \'\'claim\'\' the Effect is occurring, but that isn\'t how you currently wrote the example. My point is that, as it\'s currently written, it takes sources which are obviously pro-MRA at face value.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Age of shitlords doesn't actually
to:
Age of shitlords doesn\'t actually \"cite\" anything, though. It makes \'\'claims\'\' that protests against the film increased its sales/viewership/popularity or whatever, but no actual figures which directly show causation.
As for the blog, even if his claim is true, it\'s irrelevant. Jaye not liking his review doesn\'t mean it doesn\'t have massive problems.
For example:
[[quoteblock]]\"One feminist reader is giving a speech about how evil Paul Elam is by misquoting an article written by Elam, even as the text of the article is on the screen. Neither Jaye nor Elam address the fact that the speech deliberately contradicts the content of the article. The text is only seen on the screen for a moment, so unless the viewer is a speed reader the impression left is that Elam actually does espouse violence against women.
Early headlines from A Voice For Men are, indeed, incendiary and at times offensive. Jaye, herself, admits that she was put off by this, but the audience never learns why there was such a discrepancy between what these men write and how they speak. We never see Jaye have an “a ha!” moment, or see any motivation on her part to move beyond the initial impression of MRAs as psychotic. Whatever moment of deciding to give them the benefit of the doubt happens off screen, and off-VO.
Jaye has done her homework on the statistics of men’s victims, but when her feminist interviewees effectively dismiss them with a wave of the hand, Jaye doesn’t even defend her own findings.
Some of her feminist interviewees are truly vile. When one sociologist is questioned about the rights of fathers with custody as a result of a divorce, he snidely remarks that they should have been more attentive to wanting to spend time with their children before the divorce, instead of now wanting to spend time with them. Yet Jaye never comments about these sentiments, even during her “video diaries.”\"[[/quoteblock]]
[[quoteblock]]\"For example, when Binx chastises MRAs for not focusing on paternity rights and alimony, and tells them to start their own movement to rectify this (which she then mocks for doing so), she turns around and says that they should be embracing feminism because it’s “Patriarchy” that put them there in the first place.\"[[/quoteblock]]
----
The author of the blog may try and pretend that they have a \"neutral\" view of the article, but really the blog is just an attempt to posit itself as a \"moderate\" viewpoint while also parroting several MRA positions, while both misrepresenting and insulting feminist viewpoints. (Note \"patriarchy\" in scare-quotes, for example.)
EDIT:
\"I\'d also suggest that merely the MRA, men\'s rights [other], and feminists believing the Streisand Effect is in play counts, especially looking at the \"proof\" level that is being used for many other examples of the trope.\"
We can say that MRAs \'\'claim\'\' the Effect is occurring, but that isn\'t how you currently wrote the example. My point is that, as it\'s currently written, it takes sources which are obviously pro-MRA at face value.
As for the blog, even if his claim is true, it\'s irrelevant. Jaye not liking his review doesn\'t mean it doesn\'t have massive problems.
For example:
[[quoteblock]]\"One feminist reader is giving a speech about how evil Paul Elam is by misquoting an article written by Elam, even as the text of the article is on the screen. Neither Jaye nor Elam address the fact that the speech deliberately contradicts the content of the article. The text is only seen on the screen for a moment, so unless the viewer is a speed reader the impression left is that Elam actually does espouse violence against women.
Early headlines from A Voice For Men are, indeed, incendiary and at times offensive. Jaye, herself, admits that she was put off by this, but the audience never learns why there was such a discrepancy between what these men write and how they speak. We never see Jaye have an “a ha!” moment, or see any motivation on her part to move beyond the initial impression of MRAs as psychotic. Whatever moment of deciding to give them the benefit of the doubt happens off screen, and off-VO.
Jaye has done her homework on the statistics of men’s victims, but when her feminist interviewees effectively dismiss them with a wave of the hand, Jaye doesn’t even defend her own findings.
Some of her feminist interviewees are truly vile. When one sociologist is questioned about the rights of fathers with custody as a result of a divorce, he snidely remarks that they should have been more attentive to wanting to spend time with their children before the divorce, instead of now wanting to spend time with them. Yet Jaye never comments about these sentiments, even during her “video diaries.”\"[[/quoteblock]]
[[quoteblock]]\"For example, when Binx chastises MRAs for not focusing on paternity rights and alimony, and tells them to start their own movement to rectify this (which she then mocks for doing so), she turns around and says that they should be embracing feminism because it’s “Patriarchy” that put them there in the first place.\"[[/quoteblock]]
----
The author of the blog may try and pretend that they have a \"neutral\" view of the article, but really the blog is just an attempt to posit itself as a \"moderate\" viewpoint while also parroting several MRA positions, while both misrepresenting and insulting feminist viewpoints. (Note \"patriarchy\" in scare-quotes, for example.)
EDIT:
\"I\'d also suggest that merely the MRA, men\'s rights [other], and feminists believing the Streisand Effect is in play counts, especially looking at the \"proof\" level that is being used for many other examples of the trope.\"
We can say that MRAs \'\'claim\'\' the Effect is occurring, but that isn\'t how you currently wrote the example. My point is that, as it\'s currently written, it takes sources which are obviously pro-MRA at face value.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Age of shitlords doesn't actually
to:
Age of shitlords doesn\'t actually \"cite\" anything, though. It makes \'\'claims\'\' that protests against the film increased its sales/viewership/popularity or whatever, but no actual figures which directly show causation.
As for the blog, even if his claim is true, it\'s irrelevant. Jaye not liking his review doesn\'t mean it doesn\'t have massive problems.
For example:
[[quoteblock]]\"One feminist reader is giving a speech about how evil Paul Elam is by misquoting an article written by Elam, even as the text of the article is on the screen. Neither Jaye nor Elam address the fact that the speech deliberately contradicts the content of the article. The text is only seen on the screen for a moment, so unless the viewer is a speed reader the impression left is that Elam actually does espouse violence against women.
Early headlines from A Voice For Men are, indeed, incendiary and at times offensive. Jaye, herself, admits that she was put off by this, but the audience never learns why there was such a discrepancy between what these men write and how they speak. We never see Jaye have an “a ha!” moment, or see any motivation on her part to move beyond the initial impression of MRAs as psychotic. Whatever moment of deciding to give them the benefit of the doubt happens off screen, and off-VO.
Jaye has done her homework on the statistics of men’s victims, but when her feminist interviewees effectively dismiss them with a wave of the hand, Jaye doesn’t even defend her own findings.
Some of her feminist interviewees are truly vile. When one sociologist is questioned about the rights of fathers with custody as a result of a divorce, he snidely remarks that they should have been more attentive to wanting to spend time with their children before the divorce, instead of now wanting to spend time with them. Yet Jaye never comments about these sentiments, even during her “video diaries.”\"[[/quoteblock]]
[[quoteblock]]\"For example, when Binx chastises MRAs for not focusing on paternity rights and alimony, and tells them to start their own movement to rectify this (which she then mocks for doing so), she turns around and says that they should be embracing feminism because it’s “Patriarchy” that put them there in the first place.\"[[/quoteblock]]
----
The author of the blog may try and pretend that they have a \"neutral\" view of the article, but really the blog is just an attempt to posit itself as a \"moderate\" viewpoint while also parroting several MRA positions, while both misrepresenting and insulting feminist viewpoints. (Note \"patriarchy\" in scare-quotes, for example.)
As for the blog, even if his claim is true, it\'s irrelevant. Jaye not liking his review doesn\'t mean it doesn\'t have massive problems.
For example:
[[quoteblock]]\"One feminist reader is giving a speech about how evil Paul Elam is by misquoting an article written by Elam, even as the text of the article is on the screen. Neither Jaye nor Elam address the fact that the speech deliberately contradicts the content of the article. The text is only seen on the screen for a moment, so unless the viewer is a speed reader the impression left is that Elam actually does espouse violence against women.
Early headlines from A Voice For Men are, indeed, incendiary and at times offensive. Jaye, herself, admits that she was put off by this, but the audience never learns why there was such a discrepancy between what these men write and how they speak. We never see Jaye have an “a ha!” moment, or see any motivation on her part to move beyond the initial impression of MRAs as psychotic. Whatever moment of deciding to give them the benefit of the doubt happens off screen, and off-VO.
Jaye has done her homework on the statistics of men’s victims, but when her feminist interviewees effectively dismiss them with a wave of the hand, Jaye doesn’t even defend her own findings.
Some of her feminist interviewees are truly vile. When one sociologist is questioned about the rights of fathers with custody as a result of a divorce, he snidely remarks that they should have been more attentive to wanting to spend time with their children before the divorce, instead of now wanting to spend time with them. Yet Jaye never comments about these sentiments, even during her “video diaries.”\"[[/quoteblock]]
[[quoteblock]]\"For example, when Binx chastises MRAs for not focusing on paternity rights and alimony, and tells them to start their own movement to rectify this (which she then mocks for doing so), she turns around and says that they should be embracing feminism because it’s “Patriarchy” that put them there in the first place.\"[[/quoteblock]]
----
The author of the blog may try and pretend that they have a \"neutral\" view of the article, but really the blog is just an attempt to posit itself as a \"moderate\" viewpoint while also parroting several MRA positions, while both misrepresenting and insulting feminist viewpoints. (Note \"patriarchy\" in scare-quotes, for example.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Age of shitlords doesn't actually
to:
Age of shitlords doesn\'t actually \"cite\" anything, though. It makes \'\'claims\'\' that protests against the film increased its sales/viewership/popularity or whatever, but no actual figures which directly show causation.
As for the blog, even if his claim is true, it\'s irrelevant. Jaye not liking his review doesn\'t mean it doesn\'t have massive problems.
For example:
[quoteblock]\"One feminist reader is giving a speech about how evil Paul Elam is by misquoting an article written by Elam, even as the text of the article is on the screen. Neither Jaye nor Elam address the fact that the speech deliberately contradicts the content of the article. The text is only seen on the screen for a moment, so unless the viewer is a speed reader the impression left is that Elam actually does espouse violence against women.
Early headlines from A Voice For Men are, indeed, incendiary and at times offensive. Jaye, herself, admits that she was put off by this, but the audience never learns why there was such a discrepancy between what these men write and how they speak. We never see Jaye have an “a ha!” moment, or see any motivation on her part to move beyond the initial impression of MRAs as psychotic. Whatever moment of deciding to give them the benefit of the doubt happens off screen, and off-VO.
Jaye has done her homework on the statistics of men’s victims, but when her feminist interviewees effectively dismiss them with a wave of the hand, Jaye doesn’t even defend her own findings.
Some of her feminist interviewees are truly vile. When one sociologist is questioned about the rights of fathers with custody as a result of a divorce, he snidely remarks that they should have been more attentive to wanting to spend time with their children before the divorce, instead of now wanting to spend time with them. Yet Jaye never comments about these sentiments, even during her “video diaries.”\"[[/quoteblock]]
[[quoteblock]]\"For example, when Binx chastises MRAs for not focusing on paternity rights and alimony, and tells them to start their own movement to rectify this (which she then mocks for doing so), she turns around and says that they should be embracing feminism because it’s “Patriarchy” that put them there in the first place.\"[[/quoteblock]]
----
The author of the blog may try and pretend that they have a \"neutral\" view of the article, but really the blog is just an attempt to posit itself as a \"moderate\" viewpoint while also parroting several MRA positions, while both misrepresenting and insulting feminist viewpoints. (Note \"patriarchy\" in scare-quotes, for example.)
As for the blog, even if his claim is true, it\'s irrelevant. Jaye not liking his review doesn\'t mean it doesn\'t have massive problems.
For example:
[quoteblock]\"One feminist reader is giving a speech about how evil Paul Elam is by misquoting an article written by Elam, even as the text of the article is on the screen. Neither Jaye nor Elam address the fact that the speech deliberately contradicts the content of the article. The text is only seen on the screen for a moment, so unless the viewer is a speed reader the impression left is that Elam actually does espouse violence against women.
Early headlines from A Voice For Men are, indeed, incendiary and at times offensive. Jaye, herself, admits that she was put off by this, but the audience never learns why there was such a discrepancy between what these men write and how they speak. We never see Jaye have an “a ha!” moment, or see any motivation on her part to move beyond the initial impression of MRAs as psychotic. Whatever moment of deciding to give them the benefit of the doubt happens off screen, and off-VO.
Jaye has done her homework on the statistics of men’s victims, but when her feminist interviewees effectively dismiss them with a wave of the hand, Jaye doesn’t even defend her own findings.
Some of her feminist interviewees are truly vile. When one sociologist is questioned about the rights of fathers with custody as a result of a divorce, he snidely remarks that they should have been more attentive to wanting to spend time with their children before the divorce, instead of now wanting to spend time with them. Yet Jaye never comments about these sentiments, even during her “video diaries.”\"[[/quoteblock]]
[[quoteblock]]\"For example, when Binx chastises MRAs for not focusing on paternity rights and alimony, and tells them to start their own movement to rectify this (which she then mocks for doing so), she turns around and says that they should be embracing feminism because it’s “Patriarchy” that put them there in the first place.\"[[/quoteblock]]
----
The author of the blog may try and pretend that they have a \"neutral\" view of the article, but really the blog is just an attempt to posit itself as a \"moderate\" viewpoint while also parroting several MRA positions, while both misrepresenting and insulting feminist viewpoints. (Note \"patriarchy\" in scare-quotes, for example.)
