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.
You know, back when I had money, I considered joining SFWA time and again. I’m now glad I didn’t.
I’m not a member of SFWA, but I’m pretty sad that you have good reason to be glad not to have joined them, LBT (because there are so many dicks in the SFWA. This is why we can’t have nice things).
RE: Falconer
It’s okay; that’s why I do homeathons and hang out with other people. (Though alas, homeathon isn’t going as well as I hoped. But oh well, it’s still forty dollars I didn’t have last month!)
And the vast majority of it is committed by other MEN, just like the majority of violence against women. See a commonality there?
Hiya, I read often but comment rarely, and am jumping in off-topic to let people know of this news incident: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/man-arrested-after-queen-elizabeth-ii-portrait-defaced-with-spray-paint-1.1323919
I’m wondering how it’s being spun on the MRA boards (I don’t want to give them traffic if there’s any way around it).
Hi Kate! I haven’t seen that discussed on MRA boards. I haven’t found it anywhere on Reddit yet. It might be too new.
I think if the guy was trying to make the case that he should be allowed increased time with/custody of his kids, well, he’s not exactly making himself look like trustworthy parent material here.
Does this clown ever mention, with all his “violence against men is normalised” stuff, who’s perpetrating the overwhelming majority of that violence?
… Men.
But of course these morons will want women to fix the problem for them.
Hi, Kate, welcome!
Some gobshite defaced that lovely portrait? (Done, incidentally by an Aussie MAN.) I hope it can be restored.
Yeah, like cloudiah said, he’s making himself look like really responsible parental material there. Plus, what sort of idiot thinks he’s going to get sympathy by defacing the Queen’s portrait, especially one done for the Diamond Jubilee?
I’d love to be a judge and throw his claims out on the grounds of gross fuckwittery.
WTF is “nonviolent direct action?”
Wiki sez:
Then there’s a long section about, basically, ALF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action#Nonviolent_direct_action
But pointing this fact out is “MISANDRY” and victim blaming, Kitteh. Feminists pointing out the effects of how many of our society’s ideas about masculinity are toxic and hurt EVERYONE, including men, and wanting men to stop using physical and sexual violence as a means of proving their “manhood” and killing each other means feminists don’t want to let men be MEN!
As mra’s, it’s vitally important to only complain about the causes of men’s suffering, and blame women/feminism for it. As an mra, you must absolutely not seek to understand the actual causes of men’s problems. Start with the assumption that all men’s problems are due to women/feminism. Then look for any evidence you can find, however flimsy or demonstrably false, that supports that core assumption, and ignore everything that contradicts it. This is how Redpill Alpha Logic works, and understanding the interplay of complex sociological phenomena is for manginas!
When I googled it, Google seemed to expect that I was going to google “violence against women act”. The charitable assumption is that this dipshit hit enter too soon and didn’t realize that, yeah, fucking duh, you’d get a lot of returns for violence against women when you aren’t watching what you type.
The other (likely more realistic) assumption is that he is full of shit.
D’oh!!! That line should say “effects”, not causes.
Misandry! Everyone knows men commit most of the violence done to men because of the evil wimminz and their evil ladybits magically forcing men to be violent!
Also, hypergamous bitchez only want to date violent “alpha males” so you can’t blame a “normal” “nice guy” for throwing in the towel on niceness and turning into an asshole. /sarcasm
RE: Falconer
Howard Bannister pretty much covered it, but direct action was a tactic often used by the old labor movement. Because the government and managers wouldn’t work with them (and would often violently attack them), they took things into their own hands with tactics like the general strike, filling the jails, boycotting, and so on. My favorite anecdote is how a bunch of Wobblies went on strike, were arrested, filled the jail, and then jumping up and down in unison until they found the resonating frequency and BROKE THE JAIL.
It can be a pretty powerful tool, but it requires a lot of solidarity and organization, something the MRM doesn’t have.
After thinking about it a bit I’ve decided this is the most likely explanation.
Ooh, I gotta look into that Vox Day thing. I knew vaguely that he was complaining about something s/ regard to the SFWA, but I hadn’t realized it had become a big thing.
There’s a whole list of Methods of Non-Violent Protest and Persuasion here. My favorite is # 30: Rude gestures.
I should know by now to google something before I ask what it is. Thanks, guys!
LBT, I’m kinda side-eyeing that BROKE THE JAIL thing. Not impossible, just … did anyone get hurt when the ceiling collapsed?
I googled it. First thing that comes up are “Scholarly articles for violence against men”
Second is this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men
Third is this link (so much for the mainstream not acknowledging male DV victims LYKE EVER) http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/domestic-violence-against-men/MY00557
the second page has an AVFM article linked!
What a fucking liar. There were a couple of links to info about violence against women, yes, but the majority was about violence against men.
Dishonest yet transparently stupid: the perfect combination for an MRA.
Obviously the google suggestion box is misandrist.
Mr Wrong would be advised to take lessons from seasoned professional bullshitters (creationists, alternative medicine practitioners, faith healers, etc.) who know better than to make sweeping claims that can be debunked by just putting a search term into Google. You need to hide your claims away from empirical testing much more effectively!
This story gets weirder … and AVFM completely destroys its last remaining molecule of credibility. Check out my new post.
http://wp.me/p17cYK-2m8