Have you noticed how much the media hates menkind, or are you so used to the negative publicity about men delivered on a daily basis to your newspaper and TV that you fail to notice it anymore? Perhaps you are sufficiently young and so acclimatised to it that you have never noticed it, and simply thought this was responsible unbiased reporting reflecting the way of the world.
Every day the media fills our newspaper and TV screens with stories and imagery that portrays men as violent, selfish, ignorant, nasty creatures intent on harming women who are innocent victims of men's nastiness.
The unwritten rule is that every woman is a saint or a victim that wouldn't hurt a fly, whilst men are Neanderthal monsters. The story-line goes something like this: only men break the law; if a woman breaks the law it is because a man forced her to do it. If women are forced to suffer the same hardships as men in the name of equality (e.g. raising State Pension age to 65), then this isn't equality, it is unfair discrimination (strange considering women live longer than men on average; perhaps on that basis their State pension age should be higher than a man's!). Domestic abuse is only ever carried out by men to women, not the other way round. And when adverts are shown on the TV, it is acceptable to show a man being humiliated, made to look stupid, or even hit by a woman, but you'll never see an advert where it's the other way round (don't believe me? Start watching the adverts with an open mind, and take note).
The photo accompanying this post is the perfect example. This was a photo selected by the Press and Journal on Sat 05 Oct 2019 to headline a reader's letter opposing the smacking ban just introduced into law in Scotland. The reader's letter uses Biblical text to support his view that smacking is a parent's right and for the good of the child. The letter talks about a father disciplining his SON.
Yet the P&J chose to use a photograph of a male threatening to strike a young girl, not a boy.
Now there were 4 possible ways a parent smacking a child could have been displayed:
- mother smacking son
- father smacking son
- mother smacking daughter
- father smacking daughter
But the P&J chose the latter. Why? Because this fits in with the media narrative that men beat women, and never the other way round. The media would not post a photo of a woman hitting anyone because it does not fit the narrative.
Look closely at the picture. Does it really reflect a story about a child being smacked?
To my eye, this photograph with the dominant male, looming large over the small girl that is cowering on the ground in fear of being beat, would be more appropriate for a story about domestic abuse or violence. The man is made to look as if he is about to "lay into her", holding her arm so she cannot get away.
The purpose of this photograph wasn't to give an image of a child being smacked. The purpose was to continue to deliver the media narrative it has been peddling for years - namely that men beat women.
Shame on you Press and Journal for such ignorant bias.
