Media Sexism Now Faces A Global Response

[ismnotwasm]

The UN has backed a global alliance to help female journalists fight back against discrimination. Julie Posetti presented NM's Women in the Media project as a case study to its founding meeting

I was excited to speak at UNESCO’s first Global Forum on Media and Gender in Bangkok this week. Excited because after decades of international research confirming the marginalisation and abuse of women in the media, the event, which gathered journalists, activists and academics form around the globe, promised action.

I was privileged to hear the stories of extraordinary women journalists reporting from the frontline of conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Africa. Women who risked everything to report on state corruption in eastern Europe and organised crime in Mexico. Women who said they returned to work determined to continue telling these stories in the public interest, even after being attacked, tortured and burying all of their friends.

There was the woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo who asked participants how she should respond to this advice issued by her editors: “It is better to be a bad living journalist than a good dead one.”

The point of this advice was to discourage women journalists from becoming victims of gendered violence. We know that rape is used as a weapon of war. Rape and the threat of murder are also used as weapons designed to silence women journalists in many parts of the world.

https://newmatilda.com/2013/12/06/media-sexism-now-faces-global-response

[mercuryblues]

1. A very nteresting article

I read the second comment (SMH) By speaking freely which read:

Women that engage in self-objectification will be measured according to their "fuckability".
Men with a "plunging neckline" are viewed as some sort of wannabe fox on heat... What's good for the goose... or good for the fox, is good for the vixen,

No offence girls, but as the goose approach that menstrual cycle, the sensible, educated and reliable mind often goes flying out the window, and straight for that bad boy gander.
http://jezebel.com/5910351/your-jerky-ovaries-are-tricking-you-into-picking-bad-boys

And you accuse men of being the shallow ones, at least our hormones don't make us so "prejudiced" ... we take you all equally.

Which sent me off topic.

The Jezabel link is to an article mocking the study that was done. So I looked up the study.

It consisted of 33 women median age 18 years old. They described the good looking man as....socially dominant, adventurous, and charismatic. The profile also described him as a skier who has won several awards and as someone who loves the outdoors. Nope did not describe him as a cad.

the regular guy was described as....stable, a good provider,and dependable. The profile also described him as a successful
accountant who works hard and has won several promotions.

I don't know about you all, but at 18 I was not interested in settling down. And as Jezabel points out, just because a man is sexy it does not negate him from being a good partner or Dad. But again, the study defined the sexy man one way to the participants and used another definition for the sexy man behind closed doors.

So "speaking freely" is nothing more than an ass willing to glob onto anything to perpetuate the women are dumb because they have ovaries meme.

The actual study:

http://business.utsa.edu/faculty/kdurante/files/OvulationPaternalInvestment.pdf