A Voice for Men has a little Google Challenge for its readers, and I’m going to invite you to take part in it as well. In the midst of yet another post trying to gin up outrage over Facebook’s banning of violent rape memes and other such repugnant shit, new AVFM contributor and “former feminist” Jason Gregory sets forth this challenge, which he originally posted on his blog several weeks ago:
As we walk the grounds of moral turpitude for a moment, try typing into a search engine the phrase “violence against men.” You will get scores of pages linking to articles and information regarding violence against women. That’s right. Searching for violence against men leads to information about violence against women. Try it.
I did. We’ll get to the results in a second, but let’s just let Mr. Gregory explain what he sees as the enormous significance of his little experiment:
Even though the overwhelming amount of violence in this world is violence against men, feminists have monopolized the narrative of violence as violence against women. The normalization of violence against men permeates society. We don’t even notice it. However, violence against women receives special status and notice. So much so, that search engines don’t even link to violence against men.
That would be quite a damning charge, except for one little thing: it’s not true.
When I typed “violence against men” into Google– both in quotes and without — I got page after page of links to articles about and other resources related to, well, violence against men, most of them dealing specifically with domestic violence.
There were a few links referring to violence against women mixed into the results, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the results were in fact directly relevant to the topic of violence against men. As you might expect.
I did this while logged into Google, and while logged out. Similar if not identical results. I tried the same thing with Bing, with similar results.
I know that search engine results are personalized — I’m not sure if this is true for those who, say, sign out of Google first, as I did — but it looks like everyone else who’s tried the experiment has come to a similar conclusion, including various commenters in the Men’s Rights subreddit, and even a couple of commenters on AVFM.
On AVFM, one of the Googlers suggested gingerly that
The result I got was a bit different from yours though. The top results seem to be pages actually about domestic violence perpetrated against men. …
I know the point you’re trying to make. Just want to make sure your statement is actually accurate, and not an exaggeration.
In a comment responding to this, Mr. Gregory seemed to attribute his error to a combination of 1) the passage of time and 2) feminists.
So we’re expected to believe that several weeks ago, when Mr. Gregory tried the same query, there were literally no results about violence against men — that does seem to be what he was claiming when he wrote that “search engines don’t even link to violence against men.” We’re supposed to think that somehow Google wouldn’t even link to, say, the Wikipedia entry on Domestic violence against men — which was the very first link when I Googled the phrase.
And that then, somehow, over the past few weeks — presto chango! — all these dozens or hundreds of links to sites about violence against women magically transformed into links to sites about violence against men?
Somehow I suspect the real culprit here is what you might call MRA Bombast Syndrome, a disease that runs rampant at AVFM, where gross exaggerations seem to become “facts” in the minds of writers and readers both — like the way in which a small group of feminists John Hembling once had an argument with became a mob of twenty to thirty brandishing knives.
Perhaps a handful of “violence against women” links in the search results metastasized in Mr. Gregory’s mind into all the results. It’s hard to know, because he provides no evidence — say, a screenshot — to back his claims up, and no one else has been able to replicate his alleged results. (None of the commenters on his blog bothered to try his challenge when he first posted it several weeks ago.)
Even if Mr. Gregory’s unbelievable claims were true, that doesn’t let him or AVFM off the hook. I’m not sure what sort of citizen journalism AVFM practices, but it is generally considered a journalistic “best practice” for writers and editors to check if things in articles are true before they are published. If there is a delay in publishing something, they are expected to check if these things are still true.
In addition to “founder and publisher” Paul Elam, AVFM has both an “editor in chief” and a “managing editor” listed on its masthead, along with five other people listed as editors of some sort. Apparently none of the editors charged with seeing Mr. Gregory’s article through to publication thought to take a few seconds to take his little Google challenge before presenting it to the world.
I have yet to see evidence that even a single person on AVFM’s “staff” has any understanding whatsoever as to how journalism — or, really, anything — is supposed to work.
Did the experiment, with no quote-marks (which should have the higher error rate, theoretically). First page (which, let’s face it, is the one that actually matters for about 99.9% of all searches) has ONE article about violence against women. Everything else was either pages talking about domestic violence against men from an academic/sociology angle, or a link to actual resources for abused men. None of them were even for things like gang violence or war, which I would’ve figured to get tossed into the mix.
So, yeah, AVfM full of shit, water wet, sky blue, sun rises in the East.
I want a Mr. Wrong t-shirt.
I see it as a good sign that the commenters actually tried it instead of just taking everything at face value like they usually do. Is it me or the commenter who pointed it out is super scared to get banned? Could be just a coincidence but they sound a lot more careful than they did a month ago.
Oh and when I googled it, the only ‘violence against women’ result for me was an avfm link…
I figure with my google history and my browsing history I ought to have gotten mostly ‘MRAs use violence against men as an excuse not to deal with violence against women.’
Didn’t get a single one. Got two links that were about violence against owmen. Mostly on-point resources for abused men.
But the dude is projecting hard, isn’t it?
Reblogged this on FEMBORG.
He should have known that people would fact check him on his lie. But even if it were true, that still wouldn’t make the violent Facebook content okay. How does that logic work? It’s good for Facebook to show jokes about rape and domestic violence against women, as long as Google minimizes the problem about domestic violence against men? Then the two bad things balance each other out, making things fair? That’s the MRA logic, don’t make things better for anyone, just make sure things are equally bad for everyone.
I tried it and got lots of what looks like good resources addressing violence against men. So a success.
Hey David, have you heard about Vox Day and the Science Fiction Writers of America fiasco? I’m still stuck on this guy receiving 10% of the vote for president, but he apparently had some choice words for the people who objected to the idea (link goes to a rundown with screenshots).
Whoops, forgot the best part: the link I posted goes to a call to have him booted from the SFWA, which should provide a great deal of drama on his end (and lulz for us)
It’s so funny that his response is:
1. It’s good that the search results are more accurate.
2. This is probably because of the feminists. (why?)
3. Feminists are bad.
But… huh?
AN AvfMer is wrong about something? Stop the presses. No, really dudes, stop them and check your shit.
They really don’t need any feminist help with looking like morons.
I think this way it’s more accurate:
1. It’s good that the search results are more accurate.
2. This is probably because of the feminists. (why?)
3. ???
4. Profit… um…Feminists are bad.
Not that it makes more sense. 🙂
@dsfrogs Feminists are wrong is a premise for them. To suggest otherwise means feminists could be right and they can’t have any of that going on.
Still, how would the facebook changes have much of anything to do with unrelated google searches?
Wait, I think it works like this.
1. Feminists control google and made search results minimize violence against men.
2. Investigate journalists at AVfM expose this evil scheme.
3. Feminists cover their tracks and make the search results more accurate.
See, the fact that people got different results than Jason claimed proved that not only was he right, but also that feminists have done a cover up. The lack of evidence is proof. If you prove him wrong, you actually make him right!
@opium4themasses
Duh, the feminazis that rule Facebook have also taken over Google.
*Puts on MRA conspiracy theory hat*
Okay, here’s the deal. Feminists control both Google and Facebook, because they are popular websites. They control the information that reaches the masses this way. So why would feminists change the google results now? It’s to distract the sheeple from their misdeeds at facebook of course! As long as the brave men at AVfM are doing google searches, they won’t be able to protect their FREEZE SPEECH at facebook, don’t you see?
Remember this?
There’s your connection.
Just an interesting tidbit in case anyone is interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGHim9L5Fns
You know, Facebook is a popular site. Still, it’s not the whole freaking Internet, and I can’t imagine that taking violent rape jokes off it somehow flooded Google with that many new search results for violence against men.
Speaking of HYSTERICAL WOMEN, me, Sneak, and the Gigermeister have been watching a Let’s Play of the American McGee’s Alice games. You play a knife-wielding girl who (in game two) can go into Hysterical Mode if her health gets too low, allowing her to commit even more powerful acts of gruesome violence on those that oppose her!
MISANDRY!
I wonder how many of the more reasonable people left AVfM after this. This google thing seems to expose the lie that MRAs use to claim that no one cares about the issue of DV against men.
Mr. Wrong!!!! Sticking to the classics:
THAT’S WHO THAT WAS?!! I heard about this hateful guy who got 10% of the vote but I didn’t realize it was flippin’ Vox Day.
They are indeed a powerful activist force. :rolleyes:
Oh, thanks SO much for the Vox Day bit. I just finished depressing myself reading the comments to Scalzi’s Appology and announcement on the SFWA. So many frozen peaches, so little time. Or patience.
Admittedly, a group of sci-fi writers is the perfect place for a guy who writes about the government banning sexbots.