The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The inconsistency of modern western morality > Comments

The inconsistency of modern western morality : Comments

By Wendy Francis, published 1/7/2013

We condemn those who commit gender abuse, but laud it's messengers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
A very good article, Wendy Francis.

People are not born with moral values. Throughout the ages, young people have been instructed by storytellers, holy men, religious leaders, family, role models, and wise old people, on the standards of behaviour which the young would need to become valued members of society.

Today's mass media is not just a means of entertainment, it is now so influential, that it is displacing the traditional institutions that have long defined and transmitted the culture of a people which is a guide to the young of what constitutes acceptable behaviour.

Children today are living in a paradoxical world where what constitutes acceptable behaviour is subject to double standards. Parents, teachers, religious leaders and community leaders strive to instil in the young, virtues such as respect for others, respect for authority, personnel responsibility, self control, and moral boundaries. And then along comes the entertainment media which not only blurs the edges, it openly denigrates them as "uncool", and it encourages anti social behaviour.

Either our society disapproves of violence towards women, drug taking behaviour, violence as a first resort in solving personnel problems, and criminal behaviour, or we approve of it.

If we disapprove of it, why do we tolerate the entertainment media's constant endorsement of these concepts? If we as a society can understand that cigarette advertising will encourage significant numbers of children to smoke, and if approve of our legislators banning cigarette advertising, how is it that we can not see that allowing the entertainment media to constantly glamourise drug taking behaviour and violence, amounts to exactly the same thing?

Rap music in particular is noted for its promotion of anti social values, and the target audience for the product is exactly the sort of emotionally immature, violent, socially inept, and not real bright young males that are the biggest problem to society. They are also the ones who have the most difficulty in attracting a female.

Allowing the entertainment media to instruct these young men in attitudes conducive to violence towards females is not a very bright thing for any society to do.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 1 July 2013 8:57:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What sort of society is it wherewe do not allow advertisements showing a person smoking a cigarette and yet it is permissible to portray explicit sexual advertising to children that objectifies women, sending messages that contribute to eating disorders, depression and self-harm?"

Well said.

Similarly, I cannot believe that people are hauled over the coals for possessing marijuana (Joel Madden from The Voice), as if this were the most heinous of crimes, yet society condones individuals viewing the most vile pornography on the grounds that we can’t tell people what they can and can’t do in their own home.
Posted by Sonia, Monday, 1 July 2013 9:12:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
interestingly, when this hit the press a couple of weeks ago and the petition was first started, I tweeted the petition. Within five minutes I was attacked by a female "fan" of the thing performing at the hotel. Her view-"you are a racist". I wonder what her response would have been had she been the victim of another male "fan" of this thing acting out after the concert?
Posted by Daemon, Monday, 1 July 2013 9:59:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article exhibits a confusion between the right of free speech and protection of people from sexual or other kinds of assault. Quite simply, in a free society one can say almost anything one wants to, but one cannot do almost anything one wants to.

In the article: "... Eatons Hill hotel hosted US Hip Hop entertainer, Tyler the Creator, whose lyrics include,“Rape a pregnant * and tell my friends I had a threesome. You got a * death wish? I'm a genie, it'll get done”."

The words above are objectionable and loathsome, but that by itself is no reason to ban them. Other people may find my words objecting to banning speech objectionable and loathsome. When the 'Index Purgatorius', the list of books banned by the Catholic church was operative, most of the works listed were what the church found objectionable as it questioned doctrine. Actual pornography is ephemeral.

In the article: "There was wide-spread, justifiable shock and outrage recently at the alleged assault by Nigella Lawson's husband, Charles Saatchi, as we viewed in many forms of media, from many angles,photos of him mistreating her and grabbing her a restaurant."

The behaviour described above is criminal. It should not be allowed and should be prosecuted where it occurs.

If you want a free society you have to allow people to say what some find objectionable as long as it doesn't present a clear and present danger.

I live near the performance venue and stayed away. I think that was all that was necessary.
Posted by david f, Monday, 1 July 2013 11:19:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why oh why does everyone think they have a right to control society and tell everyone how to think.

Why do 99% of people think their attitudes and assumptions are 100% correct and accurately reflect the "values of our society"?

Why are we all such good people, so much better drivers then average, so much more attractive and more intelligent then average etc

Why are our personal morals always so correct and the morals of "those people over there" so corrupted.

To protect our mental health apparently - http://www.livescience.com/26914-why-we-are-all-above-average.html

I wish people would concentrate more on protecting their mental health in private.
Posted by speedy, Monday, 1 July 2013 11:43:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have the impression that incitement to violence has long been considered a criminal offence. I don't understand why that law doesn't apply in this instance. Can someone please enlighten me.
Posted by Winton Bates, Monday, 1 July 2013 12:12:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Winston Bates,

Incitement is a criminal offense. A generic advocacy of violence is not. Inciting a lynch mob to go after a particular person within reach of the mob is incitement. In order for advocacy of violence to be incitement it must present a clear and present danger. The obnoxious and loathsome words of the musician did not present a clear and present danger to any identifiable person so is not incitement.

Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court used the example of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre where there was no fire as speech which presents a clear and present danger.
Posted by david f, Monday, 1 July 2013 2:39:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f
well said.

This stuff is intended to shock (and it succeeds). It is not intended to be taken literally. When Tyler shouted “who is going to go out of here tonight and rape and kill someone?" I’m guessing no-one actually went out and did it. Even the most avid fans are not going to act these vile fantasies out
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 1 July 2013 2:44:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the loathsome Tyler's foul entreaties have no effect, eh? And violent videos and video games that allow the players to kill on a screen don't contribute to murder, do they?

And training men to be killers in the army has no effect on their behaviour, does it? And UFC cage fighting teaches people to be pacifists, doesn't it?

And pornography doesn't channel human minds into sordid rituals, does it? And dirty books and bizarre films like the Silence of the Lambs are so harmless they could be shown in Sunday School, couldn't they?

There are some really stupid people in this world, aren't there?

They deny cause and effect exists.
Posted by David G, Monday, 1 July 2013 3:21:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David G,

Cause and effect does exist. However, I am not willing to give you or anyone else the power to decide what I should and should not say.

Who would you trust to decide what you are permitted to say?
Posted by david f, Monday, 1 July 2013 3:42:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To DavidF

I disagree with your post.

The concept that art, literature and filmatic creativity should not suffer the heavy hand of censorship is a noble one. By giving creative people the freedom to explore social issues, our society can evolve by critically examining it's long accepted values, as changing times alters the basic premises upon which current values and attitudes are built.

But this worthy idea is being exploited by greedy entrepreneurs who are marketing a "youth culture" that does not make the slightest pretence to artistic merit. "Youth culture" has become a marketing tool where young people are having an anti social culture invented for them by an industry which is only concerned with it's quarterly balance sheets.

Children, adolescents and young teenagers are being encouraged to take illegal drugs, engage in violent criminal behaviour, treat women abominably, and engage in youth gang behaviour, by highly paid media executives. Well heeled artists with personnel jets, mansions and share portfolio's, and their polished promoters and marketing managers, are no longer pushing the values of accepted taste. They are busily digging away at the foundations of family values upon which your civilisation is built.

It is creditable that you did not visit the venue in which the rap star now visiting Australia did his act. But avoiding personal performances is hardly the answer to the fact that his violence promoting message is accessible even to children. This anti social message is being transmitted by the airwaves to radio, TV sets, and Ipods that are now everywhere, even on toys.

The entertainment media is now creating songs and video clips extolling to our children the virtues of taking drugs, raping their mothers, and bashing their girlfriends. And the movies are glorifying the lifestyles of car thieves, violent criminals, bank robbers, hired murderers, bikie gangs, and vigilantes. We have it in the power of the Australian constitution to insist upon higher standards.

However much the entertainment industry will scream if we do this, the fact is that they are making obscene amounts of money and they will comply if we demand it.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 1 July 2013 4:05:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lego,

I do not trust you to decide what I should and should not say. Do you propose setting up some authority to decide what is proper expression? I would not ban any expression simply because I find it loathsome. I do not believe I should have the right to decide what others say even though they may make obscene amounts of money saying it.

In addition to the vile lyrics of Tyler the Creator, rock music, all Australian team sports, the Olympics, the Anzac spirit which glorifies a military debacle, country music and many other things in Australian society are not to my liking. However, I like living here in general and need pay no attention to any of the foregoing things which I find obnoxious or silly. Just as I don't go see Tyler I don't go to the other things I mentioned. However, I don't think I have a right to stop those things or to prevent others from viewing or participating.
Posted by david f, Monday, 1 July 2013 4:25:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cause and effect does exist. So does the slippery slope logical fallacy. Listening to violent lyrics does not make a person violent. Training someone for war probably does.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201202/watching-violence-in-the-media-does-not-cause-crime

Do you think sex, drugs and violence first appeared in art and literature in the 21st century? Check out Coleridge, Shakespeare, the Bible, Robert Louis Stevenson, Aldous Huxley, Grimm's Fairy Tales, Aesop … Many parents nowadays don’t read traditional fairy tales to their children because they are too violent.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 1 July 2013 4:33:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David F

Statutory authorities limiting freedom of speech, and freedom of expression, already exist in Australia. No society on planet Earth has any absolute freedom of speech, or freedom of expression. So, it is not about whether we should have censorship or not, but where we draw the line.

The classification of media into age group suitability is a fact of life, and an example of positive censorship which takes it for granted that inappropriate media can damage children. Libel laws, laws against hate speech, and laws against child pornography are "authorities which decide which is proper expression", and I am sure that you agree with them. So too, laws preventing the media from giving criminal or terrorist instruction also "decide which is the proper expression."

If you disagree that the media should have any constraints placed upon it, would you agree to the tobacco and alcohol industries putting advertisements into children's magazines and television programs?

If you object to violent criminal behaviour, why do you oppose preventing the media from glamourising violent criminal behaviour? If you object to violence towards women, why do you oppose preventing the media from glorifying and thereby legitimising violence towards women? If you object to youth gang violence and graffiti, why do you oppose preventing the media from glorifying youth gang violence and graffiti? If you object to illegal drugs, why do you oppose preventing the media from glamourising the ingestion of illegal drugs? If you object to your mother being raped, why do you oppose preventing the media from "creating" pop songs extolling the virtues of raping mothers?

If you came home from work one night and found a man in your house who was trying to sell your kids products, while at the same time telling them to take drugs, use violence, call women "hoes", and rape their mother, you would grab the bastard and throw him right out of the house.

But you come home, the TV is on, the radio is on, the kids are listening, and you don't think twice about it.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 1 July 2013 5:32:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO

“If you object to violent criminal behaviour, why do you oppose preventing the media from glamourising violent criminal behaviour? “

… There goes Robin Hood, Ned Kelly, and Dirty Harry.

If you object to violence towards women, why do you oppose preventing the media from glorifying and thereby legitimising violence towards women?

… The Wizard of Oz (“ding dong, the witch is dead”)

If you object to youth gang violence and graffiti, why do you oppose preventing the media from glorifying youth gang violence and graffiti?

... West Side Story, The Warriors, Boyz in the Hood

If you object to illegal drugs, why do you oppose preventing the media from glamourising the ingestion of illegal drugs?

… the Big Chill, Trainspotting, Airplane, American Beauty, Lost in Translation

I really don't want you deciding what I can watch, read or hear.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 1 July 2013 6:44:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A far bigger problem contributing to family violence is that the male role in our society has become so devalued that it has created a group of men who feel they are simply not wanted, either in the home or at the workplace. They are constantly told they are violent, whatever they might do is characterised that way while female behaviour that is identical is ignored and the women portrayed as victims.

Is it so hard to see where this sort of constant conditioning is likely to lead?

The fact is that, as Eva Cox points out, the rise of the femocrats under Hawke has seen a deliberate attempt to split families and to reduce men to economic dependency on the state. The people who informed the policies to achieve this are psychologists and sociologists. The messages are carefully tailored to produce just the outcome that has occurred. In the warped world that such people inhabit, there is a need for victims to stand beside and the best way to ensure a supply of victims is to goad men into making them.

There is nothing respectable about the parasites who infest the feminist industry or the political, media and academic players who enable their existence.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 1 July 2013 7:06:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do agree with part of the message. Overall I'm with the anti-censorship approach but I wonder how far that goes where there does seem to be encouragement of hurting others. I've not listened to the "artist" described in the article but if the lyrics are as described is their a spillover to audience attitudes? On the other hand a lot of the evidence around the viewing of porn and violent film suggests a drop in assaults, seemingly with people getting it out of their system.

I'm not sure the evidence is all that clear either way yet on what the outcomes are.

I've been considering much of the commentary around "The Biff" in professional football. A topic much on the radio after the first state of origin match.

The general opinion seems to be that a bit of biff on the field is a good thing or at worst a minor infraction when passions are high. The official response is a bit tougher, take a 10 minute time out then get back into the workplace, maybe later miss a game or two.

This in a profession with a relatively small highly paid workforce where seemingly weekly one of them is in the news for an offence in public involving violence. The sport also seems to enjoy a level of taxpayer support with as I understand it state government involvement in the construction of stadiums and at least some federal money towards the ARL headquarters http://www.rugbyleague.com.au/commission/rugbyleaguecentral.php

In my workplace it does not matter how emotional I may be feeling punching someone would cost me my job and quite possibly have someone considering if I should be spending time in jail.

If they want to add boxing to the rules of the game fair enough, no one has to play but while it's not part of the rules I'm bothered by the message that it's sort of Ok to punch someone if you are emotional enough. That looks like assault to me.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 1 July 2013 7:35:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rhian.

The community already decides on what you can watch, read or hear, according to the social impact of the media. Soon, the government will probably ban fast food advertisements on children's TV, in order to help control childhood obesity.

But as well as childhood obesity, the fastest growing crime statistic in the western world is juvenile homicide, much of it gang related. The graffiti plague on Sydney trains caused primarily by adolescent gangs, was not invented in Australia. It was culturally transmitted from the USA by the media in movies. There are even books being sold in Dymocks extolling the glamour of being a "tagger" and the virtues of indulging in criminal behaviour. And then we wonder why there is so much grafitti?

If your kids are running off the rails and engaging in behaviour that no other generation has done before, you had better figure out what is causing it. TV was once hailed as "the greatest educational tool ever invented". It is. But we had better watch what values it is educating our children with.

I would love to critique all of the movies that you mentioned, but space prevents me. But "Robin Hood" is an English folk tale where the hero fights for the King (Richard) against a usurper (John), thereby validating his behaviour as a non criminal. Dirty Harry was an excellent moral movie which (among other things) investigated the justification of using torture in a ticking time bomb situation.

Finally, you were wrong when you said that singing rap songs in a concert would not cause young men to go out and attack women. It has already happened. On June 16, 2000, in New York, after a Puerto Rican festival involving a concert of misogynist rap music, gangs of men from the concert roamed the park attacking women and tearing off their clothes. 56 young women were assaulted. Here is the YouTube link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGPCIc4F26E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYKjQohCuJ8

As a woman, I hope that you squirm when you watch it. The clear connection between misogynist culture and violence towards women, is obvious to all.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 1 July 2013 7:59:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So busy pondering the other aspects I forgot that old favourite

"sending messages that contribute to eating disorders, depression and self-harm?

Why is it that female writers worried about the objectification of women and contributions to eating disorders, depression and self-harm seem to be mainly bothered by material predominately targeting men rather than material very specifically aimed at women which is much more relentless in is message of body shape and personal trauma?

Stand in the checkout queue at woollies for a while and browse the covers of the womens mags on display and you will see what would seem to be far more harmful messages for women than any billboard promoting a strip club.

BTW those magazine covers are on display to children as well.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 1 July 2013 8:01:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll tell you what's inconsistent, so called "progressives" who call for censorship.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 1 July 2013 8:20:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is similar to the saying: ‘If you help the poor, you’re a saint. If you question why there is poverty, you’re a communist.’

If you condemn an individual man’s violence against an individual woman, you’re a mature citizen. If you question why so many women are victims of male violence, you’re a troublemaker – or worse, a feminist.

Winton,

If the American rapper in question had directed the same violence-inciting words against the government or against property or against any other valued entity in our ‘free’ society, like the police, the military, the media or Israel, it would have sparked an arrest and/or an international diplomatic incident.

But as the target was the female half of the human race, it’s simply a free speech issue.
Posted by Killarney, Monday, 1 July 2013 8:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian

'When Tyler shouted “who is going to go out of here tonight and rape and kill someone?" I’m guessing no-one actually went out and did it.'

Oh really? And I suppose if he'd said 'who is going to go out of here tonight and attack and kill a taxi-driver?' you're guessing no one would actually go out and do it. Taxi-drivers would have absolutely nothing to fear from a crowd of tens of thousands of drunken, spaced-out, hyped-up-on-violence youth being let loose after the concert.

And I suppose if he'd asked who is going to go out of there that night and destroy an Anzac memorial or a synagogue or a police station, the authorities would have just shrugged and said: 'Oh well, we value freedom of speech in this free country'.

When it comes to the long-term struggle for female equality, I'd put my faith in men as a group before I'd ever put my faith in women like you.
Posted by Killarney, Monday, 1 July 2013 8:44:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney, the fact is that 60% of partner violence is mutual and more than half the rest is initiated by women.

The pretence that men are instigators of violence is not going to work any more. It's been shown for what it is - a pack of lies designed to break down family units and push women into the workforce in order to drive an increase in women at the top of corporate and government structures. It has been a deliberate policy to create the conditions for violence in order to provide a justification for more draconian regulation and hence more opportunities for a small subset of 'progressive" women to fill the top positions, from where they can influence policy to create still more victims.

The sort of thing that is being discussed in this article is a response to that by men who are expressing their sense of powerlessness, as is a great deal of DV, I suspect.

You're just a dupe of forces far beyond your understanding, I'm afraid.

I feel very sorry for the women of Australia and the rest of the Anglophone world. They've been sold down the river by unscrupulous people like Anne Summers and the rest of the femocrats feathering their own nest. A change is coming as the money runs out
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 1 July 2013 8:48:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

If I disdain to walk down darkened streets by myself or resort to locking windows and doors if I'm alone at night - it's not because I fear being attacked by women.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 1 July 2013 9:03:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot if you walk alone at night it's not because you're worried about being attacked by men, it's because you're worried about being attacked.

That's simple plain common sense and applies to me as much as you. In fact, on the evidence it applies to me more than you.

Whether the motive for the attack is sexual or financial or simply plain aggressive bastardry doesn't make the slightest difference to the good sense of not putting yourself in danger.

As it happens, in my adult life I've been attacked by a man three times, but I've been assaulted by women on several occasions. I've had one bloke, egged on by his girlfriend, try to take a swing which I dodged and defused the situation by offering to buy him a drink which he accepted to her disgust, another try a king hit from behind, which didn't end well for him. I've had my hair pulled, my shirt ripped, drinks poured on me, a high heel ground into my foot, all by women. The affect of alcohol on "young ladies" can be horrendous. the only time I actually felt threatened by a man was at a train station late at night when a couple of young islanders demanded my wallet and were most displeased to find it was empty. The train arrived just in time, but I lost the wallet.

I still wouldn't walk down a dark laneway alone.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 1 July 2013 9:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti,

If I was to walk down a darkened laneway - and I was attacked.....what are the odds it would be a woman?

And what are the odds it would be a man?

Notwithstanding, domestic issues are less cut and dried than random attack.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 1 July 2013 9:46:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, if you were walking down a dark alley and were attacked, it would be most unlikely, but I suspect that the gender of your assailant would be less cut and dried than you think. if it was a sexual attack, then certainly a man, but if it was a financial one, either gender might do it, possibly even skewed toward women. Even desperate men are not keen on attacking women for money, although it does happen. Women in the same position have no such scruples.

On the other hand, if I was to walk down a dark alley and got attacked, it would be much more likely than it would be for you and it would almost certainly be a man, although there is a fair chance he would have a woman nearby.

It is almost certain that he would be in some way suffering social disadvantage, whether substance abuse or poverty or both. They would be the reason for the attack, not his gender.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You seem to be trying to imply that masculinity is inherently more violent, rather than the obvious fact that very few people of either gender accost people in dark alleys.

You're focussing on the wrong characteristic, like worrying about the make of the car that just hit you instead of why it left the road.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 1 July 2013 10:08:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be fair, Anti. I also depend on men to keep me safe in this world.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 1 July 2013 11:10:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic

'Killarney, the fact is that 60% of partner violence is mutual and more than half the rest is initiated by women.'

That is NOT a fact. Never has been; never will be. Stop wasting everyone's time pretending it is.

And seeing you're so nifty with numbers, why don't you find out the number of men who raped women in the aftermath of our friendly rapper's instruction from hell, and then count up the number of women who raped men. Then express the difference as a percentage.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 5:47:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney it may not be a fact in your world but out where both genders experience of partner violence is counted it is a well researched and documented fact.

The time of only asking women about their experience of partner violence, of assuming that women are less prone to human failings than men, of free run to the gendered lies and deception that has propped up the DV industry for far to long is hopefully coming to an end.

The sooner its finished the sooner we might be able to get serious about tackling real causes of abuse of both adults and children.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 6:34:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After the release of the violent cartoon series Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, teachers all over planet Earth were horrified to observe little children in playgrounds karate kicking each other. When ordered to stop, teachers reported that the children were unaware that they were doing anything wrong. The "Turtles" had taught them that kicking each other was normal, fun behaviour.

Emergency room personnel in the USA coined the term "Evel Kneival Syndrome" to describe the phenomena of emergency rooms being swamped by the smashed, broken bodies of children and adolescents, who had been seriously injured imitating the on screen stunts performed by motorcycle stuntman Evel Kneival.

Emergency rooms were also seeing seriously burned faces of children and adolescents who were imitating the fire eating stunts of the pop group KISS. Worried about lawsuits, TV shows depicting dangerous stunts came with the warning "don't try this at home."

In 1979, a movie about violent youth gangs "The Warriors" was screened in the US. Theatre managers noted that entire youth gangs in full gang regalia trooped into the movies. When the movie was over, they trooped right out again where they often started shooting, bashing, and knifing at each other. Dozens were injured and three young men were killed.

In California, two adolescents were convicted of murdering a disabled man by kicking, beating, stabbing, and finally choking him to death. Before he died, one of the youths poured a container of salt on the man's severe wounds. When asked by detectives why he had done that, he replied "I dunno. I just saw it on TV".

Similar phenomena has been observed for many other movies, including Jackass, Point Break, Heat, Gone in 60 seconds, and Dead Presidents. Connections can easily be discerned where criminals and immature youths have used storylines as scripts for their own behaviour.

Children, adolescents and emotionally immature young adults are extremely impressionable and are great imitators of on screen heroes, but have difficulty understanding what is socially acceptable behaviour. Especially where a culture is tolerated which promotes anti social behaviour as the admirable behaviour of the fashionable and cool.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 9:03:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are risks in whatever decision you make in regard to free speech and censorship. If a great degree of free speech is allowed there is the risk of extreme behaviour if that behaviour is suggested. Lego stated "Connections can easily be discerned where criminals and immature youths have used storylines as scripts for their own behaviour." This is quite true.

However, there are also risks in censorship. The criminal societies of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were quite orderly. The ordinary citizen of those societies could walk the streets in safety as antisocial behaviour among the citizenry was not tolerated. Expression of the views of the citizenry was severely limited. Criticism of the government was not allowed. One problem with restriction of speech by government is that it results in speech criticising government as antisocial and therefore not allowed.

In those societies violence and speech were the monopoly of the state. Considerable violence went on out of sight in the concentration camps, but independent violence not sanctioned by the state or expression not sanctioned by the state was severely proscribed.

Australia is not going to have the degree of free speech allowed in the US. One example is the defamation laws which exist in Australia. They are incompatible with the US Constitution. Australia is also not going to have the degree of control that exited in the totalitarian societies.

However, my preference is for a greater degree of free speech as opposed to a greater degree of censorship. I think the US has it almost right. Greater disorder and loathsome expression appears to be an inevitable companion of greater freedom. I don't think Tyler should have been banned or restricted.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 11:56:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your analysis is in error, David F

To start with, the topic under discussion is whether we should continue to allow our entertainment media to write songs which endorse contempt of women, as well as violent criminal behaviour, and drug abuse. It is about freedom of expression, not freedom of speech.

Equating any discussion on where we should redraw the line (which already exists on freedom of expression) with censorship in Nazi Germany, is a gross exaggeration. Even today, the democratically elected Federal Republic of Germany has very strict censorship of violent movies, because the German government accepts the advice of it's own behavioural scientists, that a causal link exists between violent media and serious violent criminal behaviour.

In addition, it is the USA which is now leading the world on research into the media inspired promotion of criminal attitudes, and its causal effect on crime rates.

The American Medical Association issued a statement in 1996 which read, "The link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science, over and over again." The American Psychological Association also issued a statement at the same time which read "The scientific debate is over. There is absolutely no doubt that the increased level of TV viewing is correlating to increasing acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behaviour." In 1982, the US Surgeon General released a report which positively proved a link between violent entertainment and sociopathic behaviour.

The real problem that you have with media restrictions, DavidF, is that you have been culturally conditioned (like Pavlov's dog) by the media to think that "smart" people oppose restrictions on the media and "dumb" people support it. If only the tobacco companies had possessed the power of the media to condition people like yourself that "smart" people accepted that smoking did not cause cancer, and "dumb" people said it did, there would still be no restrictions on cigarette advertising today.

Unless you have the courage to examine this issue objectively, you yourself will have become the ignorant social conservative that you now so loudly denigrate.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 4:22:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO as already stated I tend to the anti-censorship side of the debate but recognise that the active promotion of some views can promote genuine harm

The real sticking point is who gets to decide what it's Ok to denigrate/ridicule/attack and what its not Ok to attack and where are the boundaries.

For instance would playing of the movie The First Wives Club be allowed? Does it cross a boundary or would that promotion of male denigration and revenge be Ok? I don't recall off hand any movies that took a similar approach to financially mistreating women but if someone can think of any please feel free to add them to the question. I'm not trying to take a specifically gendered approach to the question.

Clearly the example of promotion of rape is in a different category but I doubt that the censorship lobby will happily stick at the extreme end.

R0ber
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 6:10:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lego,

I had hoped we could continue this discussion without calling names or attacking each other.

You wrote: "Unless you have the courage to examine this issue objectively, you yourself will have become the ignorant social conservative that you now so loudly denigrate."

I feel no need to justify myself by attacking you so will end my part of the discussion.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 6:40:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi RObert.

Australia already has the Office of Film and Literature Classification to oversee the entertainment media. Unfortunately, until recently, the board was packed out with David F clones who refuse admit that any movie, video clip, song, or computer game could have any negative social consequences.

It is rather funny when we have a brahmin caste of people like David F who think that they are intellectually and morally superior to everyone else, who can not see the self evident danger of having rap stars singing misogynistic songs to the very sorts of low intelligence and crime prone young men, who have real resentments towards females. The very ones spuriously accusing Tony Abbott of misogyny suddenly acquire acute myopia when confronted by rap artists openly endorsing the idea of "smacking my bitch up."

Do we as a society approve of violence by men towards women?

If the answer is no, then why do we tolerate an entertainment media which promotes, endorses and thereby legitimises the act of committing violence towards women? Especially media directed at the very sort of demographic groups most likely to already harbour such attitudes and who are the primary perpetrators of violence towards women?

Rap music is very popular among young Muslim men who already have culturally conditioned misogynistic attitudes. This "music" simply reinforces those attitudes. Aboriginal women in the NT are 140 times more prone to domestic violence than white women. Surprise, surprise. Young aboriginal males are very enamoured of rap music.

The solution is simple. First, put immigration restrictions on any visiting artist who sings songs endorsing violence towards women. Secondly, ban the importation of any new media endorsing or promoting violence towards women. I know that there are a million ways around that second solution now, but that is not the point.

We are allowing media companies to effortlessly make obscene amounts of money by providing our most problematic male demographic groups with role model heroes who are openly endorsing the idea that contempt for women, and violence towards women, is socially acceptable among their particular peer group.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 3 July 2013 6:09:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“At times I feel like I am caught in some sort of weird ‘Alice in Wonderland’ scenario.”
Hear, Hear.
We now have a choice between 2 self-confessed staunch Christian leaders, both of whom are “rich” by any normal or average standard, despite both following a God who told them it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven.
George W. Bush was another staunch Christian, taught by his God to “turn the other cheek” and “forgive those who trespass against him”.
Explain that to an Afghani or Iraqi.
The Christian, Jewish and Muslim holy books include the exhortation from their God: “Thou shalt not kill.”
Murder is illegal, -unless a Prime Minister or President -who you probably didn't even vote for- hands you a specific set of clothing and says it's okay.
We have a common perception that drug pushers are worse than drug users. More people day on the roads each year than from drugs, yet it is legal to sell cars capable of 2 or 3 times the legal limit, and the car manufacturers have exactly the same defence as the drug lords: “we don't force anyone to use/abuse our products”.
We don't admire greed and selfishness in our children, family or friends, yet we worship the those who are most successfully greedy and selfish (some people actually get paid millions for chasing balls around, while nurses battle for a pay rise; and the court jesters are richer than kings).
We grow more than enough food for everyone, yet half the world goes hungry while the other half throws food away.
And we have posters on this thread blind to the symmetry of their own arguments:
It is rather funny when we have a brahmin caste of people like Lego who think that they are intellectually and morally superior to everyone else, who can not see the self evident danger of forcibly imposing their moral imperatives on others, because they cannot separate actions from words.
Let the one who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Posted by Grim, Friday, 5 July 2013 8:20:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You got me all wrong, Gill, I am a former Housing Commission kid who crawled up into the working class while a lot of my teenage friends thought that I was crazy. Why work, when you can get on the dole and surf every day?

What I got fed up of, was so many people who were not only born with a silver spoon in their mouths, they got the whole damned silver service. And these privileged elites seem to have developed this attitude that it is fashionable to always sneer at their own people, and to always oppose their own people's interests.

Plato once said that "the highest morality, is the defence of ones own people." THAT is a philosophy I absolutely agree with, because I saw with my own eyes as a kid, that the Australian government was more interested in helping foreigners than their own poor (deserving) people. My philosophy, is, in Australia, Australians come first. If you don't agree with that, then I do not regard you as an Australian, no matter where you were born.

Now, you seem to be whining about the yanks doing over the Afghans at the moment. If the Afghans allow terrorists to use their territory to launch attacks on the USA, which killed 3000 Americans, what do you think that they are going to do? Sit around and cry? Or go after the bastards who done it? As for Iraq, I agree with you that the yanks should not have invaded the place. I don't care how many poison gas bombs Saddam Hussein drops on his own people.

The Asians have adopted our western ways and are giving us some real competition. But the Arabs? We got enough competition now, so we want them to stay Muslim and keep buggering everything up. Just as long as they stay in their own countries and don't invade mine, by jumping on the nearest fishing boat and arriving with the expectation that Australians are going to keep them, while they wait for Allah to solve all their problems for them.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 5 July 2013 9:40:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy