BBC World TV's usual anti-male bias

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Peter Zohrab

unread,
Dec 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/30/95
to zohr...@actrix.gen.nz

Recently, in the middle of the BBC World TV programme "World Debate",
which was fairly interesting, the female (Feminist) presenter (and the
programme as a whole) showed the bias against men that those of us who have a
raised consciousness about it perceive routinely often in the mass media:

When she turned from an item on the war in Bosnia to a review of political
personalities in the international news in 1995, she made gender an issue:
she talked about the "men" involved "-- and it is mainly men" who led
countries in 1995 (or something to that effect), she said.

Now that is of course true. But why was she allowed to say it ? She had just
been orchestrating a review of the war in Bosnia in 1995, but she did *not*
say that she was sorry about all the men " -- and it is mainly men" who died in
that (as in every other) conflict. That is of course also true.

She also referred to the O.J. Simpson trial in America as involving the
issues of race and wealth in relation to the justice system. That is
true, but the trial also involved the issue of gender -- since
accusations of domestic violence (male-on-female, it is hardly necessary
to add, since men just don't complain when their wives do these things to
them) featured prominently. Also, men are oppressed by the (in)justice
system even more disproportionately than blacks are.

Similarly, she referred to the Million Man March as being a race issue.
But it wasn't a "Million Blacks March" -- it was a Million *Man* March.
It was black *men* who were fed up with female
domination-through-institutionalised-whinging who marched, and the Media
ignored that aspect entirely.

Another example of sexist anti-male bias in that item about Bosnia: We were
shown a large group of men who had been isolated from the women and children
by their enemies (who had just captured their town/village) -- never to be
seen again. There must have been about fifty men involved. It was quite
obvious that they had been killed.

Next we were told that the most horrible thing that had happened in Bosnia was
that a mortar had exploded in Sarajevo and killed seventeen people -- less
than half as many as the men who had been killed in the other incident.

Now why was that "the most horrible" incident, in the eyes of the BBC ?

1. Because there must have been some women killed in Sarajevo, and women are
the high-status gender in western countries. The other group involved mere
men.

2. Because western reporters tend to be based in Sarajevo, and show a
consistent anti-Serbian, pro-Government bias as a result.

The contrast between western attitudes to Chechnya, on the one hand, and
Bosnia, on the other, is huge: In Chechnya, western TV sympathy is obviously
with the Chechnian separatists. The Russian constitution does not allow for
Chechnya breaking away, but that is regarded as a mere technicality.

In the former Jugoslavia, western states rushed to recognise the breakaway
states of Croatia and Slovenia, but the United Nations imposed a settlement on
Bosnia which did not allow the Serbian minority to break away. This, as far
as I can see through the fog of television anti-Serbian propaganda, is the
real reason for the war in Bosnia.

Only after an awful lot of men -- and it is mainly men -- have died, has the
United Nations been replaced by the US/NATO, which has finally granted the
Serbians in Bosnia what the West has rushed to give to Croatia and Slovenia,
and which it probably would like the Chechnians to have, as well.

I don't know if the mass media are capable of objectivity (it is not easy to
achieve) -- but what is certain is that BBC World TV does *not* achieve it.

Peter Zohrab


Paul Morris

unread,
Dec 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/31/95
to
John Lynch <jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951231074739.24415B-100000@atlantis>, Peter
> Zohrab <zohr...@actrix.gen.nz> writes

> >
> >Recently, in the middle of the BBC World TV programme "World Debate",
> >which was fairly interesting, the female (Feminist) presenter (and the
> >programme as a whole) showed the bias against men that those of us who have a
> >raised consciousness about it perceive routinely often in the mass media:
> >
> >When she turned from an item on the war in Bosnia to a review of political
> >personalities in the international news in 1995, she made gender an issue:
> >she talked about the "men" involved "-- and it is mainly men" who led
> >countries in 1995 (or something to that effect), she said.
>
> You should try listening to "Women's Hour" on BBC Rdaio 4. The
> presenter's intellectual dishonesty, allied to her anti-male bias, is
> breathtaking
>
> --
> John Lynch

I think its about time the BBC license fee was removed and the whole
rotten mess made to stand on its own two feet. Whilst we are at it,
lets get rid of S4C.

Regards

--
********************************
Paul Morris - drone - taxpayer
Sometime Hobie Cat Sailor
pmo...@dircon.co.uk
********************************

John Lynch

unread,
Dec 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/31/95
to
In article <4c6ksj$g...@tdc.dircon.co.uk>, Paul Morris
<pmo...@tdc.dircon.co.uk> writes

>John Lynch <jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> You should try listening to "Women's Hour" on BBC Rdaio 4. The
>> presenter's intellectual dishonesty, allied to her anti-male bias, is
>> breathtaking
>>
>
>I think its about time the BBC license fee was removed and the whole
>rotten mess made to stand on its own two feet. Whilst we are at it,
>lets get rid of S4C.

Well, I do think getting rid of the license fee is a rather large step
to base on one old bag's penis envy

--
John Lynch

John Lynch

unread,
Dec 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM12/31/95
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951231074739.24415B-100000@atlantis>, Peter
Zohrab <zohr...@actrix.gen.nz> writes
>
>Recently, in the middle of the BBC World TV programme "World Debate",
>which was fairly interesting, the female (Feminist) presenter (and the
>programme as a whole) showed the bias against men that those of us who have a
>raised consciousness about it perceive routinely often in the mass media:
>
>When she turned from an item on the war in Bosnia to a review of political
>personalities in the international news in 1995, she made gender an issue:
>she talked about the "men" involved "-- and it is mainly men" who led
>countries in 1995 (or something to that effect), she said.

You should try listening to "Women's Hour" on BBC Rdaio 4. The


presenter's intellectual dishonesty, allied to her anti-male bias, is
breathtaking

--
John Lynch

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <E5ETXFAy...@ldta.demon.co.uk>,
John Lynch <jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>You think she gets it about right. I think she gets it abysmally wrong.
>You have a problem with differences of opinion?

None at all. Yours is, of course, wrong.

Peter

Christine Boulby

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951231074739.24415B-100000@atlantis>
zohr...@actrix.gen.nz "Peter Zohrab" writes:

> Recently, in the middle of the BBC World TV programme "World Debate",
> which was fairly interesting, the female (Feminist) presenter (and the
> programme as a whole) showed the bias against men that those of us who have a
> raised consciousness about it perceive routinely often in the mass media:

I did not see this programme. However, unless she said she was a
feminist, how did you know that? Did she tell you, or was it conjecture
on your part?

May we know her name?



> When she turned from an item on the war in Bosnia to a review of political
> personalities in the international news in 1995, she made gender an issue:
> she talked about the "men" involved "-- and it is mainly men" who led
> countries in 1995 (or something to that effect), she said.

> Now that is of course true. But why was she allowed to say it ?

Why should she not be allowed to make such an observation if true?

> She had just been orchestrating a review of the war in Bosnia in 1995,

> but she did *not* say that she was sorry about all the men " -- and it is

> mainly men" who died in that (as in every other) conflict.
> That is of course also true.

This is where I get completely lost in your argument. Do you mean she said
she *was* sorry about all the women who died, or that she failed to express
sorrow for loss of life generally?

(snip various other examples from the programme and detail about the
Bosia/Croatia/Solvenia war generally).



> I don't know if the mass media are capable of objectivity (it is not easy to
> achieve) -- but what is certain is that BBC World TV does *not* achieve it.

I personally get entirely fed up with objectivity on tv. There's no such
thing anyway, its just a myth. So if we have one woman presenter who
has a woman's eye view of international events, I *will* watch it if I know
its on. Too bad I missed it!

Sorry if my opinion doesn't dovetail with yours...
--
Chris Boulby
Ch...@coniston.demon.co.uk...living in a gardener's world.

Peter Zohrab

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
(This is a repost, as I was unable to find the original post when I
looked for it on the relevant newsgroups).

Recently, in the middle of the BBC World TV programme "World Debate",
which was fairly interesting, the female (Feminist) presenter (and the
programme as a whole) showed the bias against men that those of us who have a
raised consciousness about it perceive routinely often in the mass media:

When she turned from an item on the war in Bosnia to a review of political


personalities in the international news in 1995, she made gender an issue:
she talked about the "men" involved "-- and it is mainly men" who led
countries in 1995 (or something to that effect), she said.

Now that is of course true. But why was she allowed to say it ? She had just


been orchestrating a review of the war in Bosnia in 1995, but she did *not*
say that she was sorry about all the men " -- and it is mainly men" who died in
that (as in every other) conflict. That is of course also true.

She also referred to the O.J. Simpson trial in America as involving the

I don't know if the mass media are capable of objectivity (it is not easy to


achieve) -- but what is certain is that BBC World TV does *not* achieve it.

Peter Zohrab

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
>>When she turned from an item on the war in Bosnia to a review of political
>>personalities in the international news in 1995, she made gender an issue:
>>she talked about the "men" involved "-- and it is mainly men" who led
>>countries in 1995 (or something to that effect), she said.

Sounds as though she was telling the truth there. You have a problem with
that?

As for it being mainly men who were getting killed, well, it was almost
exclusively men who were doing the killing too, but they were deliberately
killing plenty of unarmed women and children on the way.

>You should try listening to "Women's Hour" on BBC Rdaio 4. The
>presenter's intellectual dishonesty, allied to her anti-male bias, is
>breathtaking

I think she gets it just about right. You have a problem with truth too?

Peter

John Lynch

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <AD0D84D3...@cara.demon.co.uk>, Peter Ceresole
<pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes

>>You should try listening to "Women's Hour" on BBC Rdaio 4. The
>>presenter's intellectual dishonesty, allied to her anti-male bias, is
>>breathtaking
>
>I think she gets it just about right. You have a problem with truth too?
>

You think she gets it about right. I think she gets it abysmally wrong.
You have a problem with differences of opinion?

--
John Lynch

J B Youles

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
John Lynch <jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>You should try listening to "Women's Hour" on BBC Rdaio 4. The
>presenter's intellectual dishonesty, allied to her anti-male bias, is
>breathtaking
>

I heard a similarly outrageous programme just before Christmas
concerning career opportunities for women - I emailed them to refute
the points made but have yet to receive a reply.


--
John Youles
------------------------------------------------------------
"If the weather we are having is a result of the greenhouse
effect, then someone must have taken out all the glass."
------------------------------------------------------------

Walter Gray

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <E5ETXFAy...@ldta.demon.co.uk>, John Lynch <jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <AD0D84D3...@cara.demon.co.uk>, Peter Ceresole
><pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>You should try listening to "Women's Hour" on BBC Rdaio 4. The
>>>presenter's intellectual dishonesty, allied to her anti-male bias, is
>>>breathtaking
>>
>>I think she gets it just about right. You have a problem with truth too?
>>
>
>You think she gets it about right. I think she gets it abysmally wrong.
>You have a problem with differences of opinion?
>

Doesn't Ceresole work for the BBC? Or am I confusing him with
someone else. It sounds a very BBC-ish sort of name.

Walter
------


Steven Malcolm Anderson

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
In <820513...@coniston.demon.co.uk> Christine Boulby
<Ch...@coniston.demon.co.uk> writes:


> I personally get entirely fed up with objectivity on tv. There's no
>such thing anyway, its just a myth.

It's a lie. The mass media are very biased in favor of preserving
patronarchist stereotypes.

So if we have one woman presenter >who has a woman's eye view of
international events, I *will* watch it >if I know its on. Too bad I
missed it!
> Sorry if my opinion doesn't dovetail with yours...

The _key_ word here should be "_a_ woman's eye view of international
events". Repeat: _a_ woman's view. As an individualist feminist, I must
stress this: that there is _never_ "the" woman's view of _anything_ --
always _a_ woman's view. To speak of "the" female perspective (or "the"
male perspective) on anything only perpetuates patronarchist
stereotypes. And I'm against that!

>--
> Chris Boulby
> Ch...@coniston.demon.co.uk...living in a gardener's world.

--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia

John Lynch

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
In article <4cbmht$v...@trog.dra.hmg.gb>, Walter Gray
<wag...@taz.dra.hmg.gb> writes

>
>Doesn't Ceresole work for the BBC? Or am I confusing him with
>someone else. It sounds a very BBC-ish sort of name.
>

I have to admit that I assumed that -- don't know for certain, though

--
John Lynch

Christine Boulby

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
In article <4ccqr9$s...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>

sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven "Steven Malcolm Anderson " writes:

> In <820513...@coniston.demon.co.uk> Christine Boulby
> <Ch...@coniston.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> > I personally get entirely fed up with objectivity on tv. There's no
> >such thing anyway, its just a myth.
>
> It's a lie. The mass media are very biased in favor of preserving
> patronarchist stereotypes.

Surely then you agree with me? Bias is very similar to subjectivity?



> So if we have one woman presenter >who has a woman's eye view of

> international events, I *will* watch it...


>
> The _key_ word here should be "_a_ woman's eye view of international
> events". Repeat: _a_ woman's view.

> As an individualist feminist, I must
> stress this: that there is _never_ "the" woman's view of _anything_ --
> always _a_ woman's view. To speak of "the" female perspective (or "the"
> male perspective) on anything only perpetuates patronarchist
> stereotypes. And I'm against that!

Sorry??? I really don't understand the point you are making.
Can you please explain what you are getting at here?
> >--
> > Chris Boulby
> > Ch...@coniston.demon.co.uk...becoming very confused....


Per

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951231074739.24415B-100000@atlantis> Peter
Zohrab wrote:
>Another example of sexist anti-male bias in that item about Bosnia:
> We were shown a large group of men who had been isolated from the
>women and children
>by their enemies (who had just captured their town/village) --
>never to be seen again. There must have been about fifty men
>involved. It was quite obvious that they had been killed.
>
>Next we were told that the most horrible thing that had happened in
>Bosnia was that a mortar had exploded in Sarajevo and killed
>seventeen people -- less than half as many as the men who had been
>killed in the other incident.
>
>Now why was that "the most horrible" incident, in the eyes of the
>BBC ?
>
>1. Because there must have been some women killed in Sarajevo, and
>women are
>the high-status gender in western countries. The other group
>involved mere men.
>
I think you're on to something there.
Have you ever noticed that the word "rape" is sometimes used
to describe the wholesale destruction of a city, as in "the Rape of
Nanking"? In order to convey the horror of many people (men, women
and children) being killed, they have to use a term that relates to
the violation of a woman. It's as if "the slaughter of Nanking" is
not strong enough. You have to use the term "rape" to make it truly
horrible.
It's interesting that when "rape" is used this way, it is
"lowering" the severity of the destruction: wholesale slaughter
becomes compared to sexual assault. But the Chinese who were gunned
down by the Japanese at Nanking were not "raped:" they were dead and
gone forever.


Lindsay Jackel

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
Peter, Sorry to see you've believed all the feminist lies, and call what
is false truth and vice versa. The bias of government media in England
from Peter Zohrab's report sounds as bad as that in Australia. The ABC
here is relentlessly pursuing an agenda of like reporting and replacing
men with women simply for the sake of doing the "right thing" rather than
for any real objective reason. I object to the pushing of their
"religion" (idealogy/worldview) down my throat and am puzzled by the
likes of you who have yet to suffer at the "inquistion". Lindsay


Lindsay Jackel <lin...@cuckoo.apana.org.au>
Locked Bag 5661 Melbourne 8100 Australia

Where is the ambiguity? Over there in a box!


On Mon, 1 Jan 1996, Peter Ceresole wrote:

> In article <E5ETXFAy...@ldta.demon.co.uk>,


> John Lynch <jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >You think she gets it about right. I think she gets it abysmally wrong.
> >You have a problem with differences of opinion?
>

Lindsay Jackel

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to

On Mon, 1 Jan 1996, Christine Boulby wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951231074739.24415B-100000@atlantis>
> zohr...@actrix.gen.nz "Peter Zohrab" writes:
>

> > Recently, in the middle of the BBC World TV programme "World Debate",
> > which was fairly interesting, the female (Feminist) presenter (and the
> > programme as a whole) showed the bias against men that those of us who have a
> > raised consciousness about it perceive routinely often in the mass media:

Lots of feminist carping deleted!

> > I don't know if the mass media are capable of objectivity (it is not easy to
> > achieve) -- but what is certain is that BBC World TV does *not* achieve it.
>

> I personally get entirely fed up with objectivity on tv. There's no such

> thing anyway, its just a myth. So if we have one woman presenter who
> has a woman's eye view of international events, I *will* watch it if I know


> its on. Too bad I missed it!
>

> Chris Boulby
> Ch...@coniston.demon.co.uk...living in a gardener's world.

I'm not suprised at all Christine that objectivity is not you cup of tea!

Thank you for this insight into how feminists think.

Lindsay

Mark Green

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
> As for it being mainly men who were getting killed, well, it was almost
> exclusively men who were doing the killing too, but they were deliberately
> killing plenty of unarmed women and children on the way.

Indiscriminate killing like this is evil in 99% of cases, but "Unarmed
women and children" who use their own status as a weapon to block supply
lines are, IMHO, no longer innocent.

Mg
--

Mark Green

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
> >
> I think you're on to something there.
> Have you ever noticed that the word "rape" is sometimes used
> to describe the wholesale destruction of a city, as in "the Rape of
> Nanking"? In order to convey the horror of many people (men, women
> and children) being killed, they have to use a term that relates to
> the violation of a woman. It's as if "the slaughter of Nanking" is
^^^^^^^

Second paragraph's valid, but "rape" is just as valid for a man as for a
woman, and you demonstrate that you yourself suffer from what you are arguing
against.

Mg
--

Robert Hartman

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <820757...@antelope.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Green <Ma...@antelope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:> >
:> I think you're on to something there.

Well, I believe it was called "the rape of Nanking" because there was
widespread rape as well as destruction perpetrated by the occupying forces.

-r

Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to

This is nit-picking. The overwhelming majority of them were simply killed
because they were the wrong tribe. And it's well established that many of
them were raped first. Others were "just" raped. I'm making the point,
within this thread, that to claim some special virtue for men because more
were getting killed is pretty silly.

Peter

Jeff Edwards

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
Peter Ceresole (pe...@cara.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >>When she turned from an item on the war in Bosnia to a review of political

: >>personalities in the international news in 1995, she made gender an issue:
: >>she talked about the "men" involved "-- and it is mainly men" who led
: >>countries in 1995 (or something to that effect), she said.

: Sounds as though she was telling the truth there. You have a problem with
: that?

Not the whole truth! Women elected these male leaders. Have a problem with
that.

: As for it being mainly men who were getting killed, well, it was almost


: exclusively men who were doing the killing too, but they were deliberately
: killing plenty of unarmed women and children on the way.

War is hell. War kills people (no preference of race, the unarmed the
better) and breaks things, have a problem with that.

: >You should try listening to "Women's Hour" on BBC Rdaio 4. The


: >presenter's intellectual dishonesty, allied to her anti-male bias, is
: >breathtaking

: I think she gets it just about right. You have a problem with truth too?

Right about intellectual dishonesty and anti-male bias!

: Peter

--
Jeff Edwards
jedw...@PEAK.ORG


Alastair Rae

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
Mark Green (Ma...@antelope.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > As for it being mainly men who were getting killed, well, it was almost
> > exclusively men who were doing the killing too, but they were deliberately
> > killing plenty of unarmed women and children on the way.

> Indiscriminate killing like this is evil in 99% of cases, but "Unarmed

> women and children" who use their own status as a weapon to block supply
> lines are, IMHO, no longer innocent.

There is such a concept as reasonable force. Lethal force is an
unreasonable response to non-violent obstruction.

--
ar...@uk.mdis.com (Alastair Rae)
<A HREF="http://zeus.uk.mdis.com:8000/~ar/">Home page</A>
The opinions expressed here are probably not those of my employers

Walter Gray

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to


He claims to be independent, but he supports the party line. Looks
like the beeb is organising a claque using "deniable" personnel.

Walter
------


Christine Boulby

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.96010...@cuckoo.apana.org.au>

lin...@cuckoo.apana.org.au "Lindsay Jackel" writes:
> I'm not suprised at all Christine that objectivity is not you cup of tea!

I didn't say its `not my cup of tea', I said there's no such thing
and re-iterated by saying its a myth. Please don't misquote me.

> Thank you for this insight into how feminists think.

You know nothing of the presenter any more than I do, and therefore you
are in no position to say whether she is a feminist or not. If your
ambiguous post meant me, you know less about me, and as such have no right
to label me this way.

--

Gerry Harbison

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
psma...@gnn.com (Per) wrote:
> Have you ever noticed that the word "rape" is sometimes used
>to describe the wholesale destruction of a city, as in "the Rape of
>Nanking"? In order to convey the horror of many people (men, women
>and children) being killed, they have to use a term that relates to
>the violation of a woman. It's as if "the slaughter of Nanking" is
>not strong enough. You have to use the term "rape" to make it truly
>horrible.

Well, it's a nice theory, but it doesn't work.

The root of the word 'rape' is the Latin 'rapio', which means to seize,
snatch, or tear away. It was later applied to the plundering of a city.
The sexual meaning of the word derives from the idea that the victim's
virtue was seized in the act of rape. But the 'Rape of Nanking' is
closer to the root of the word than, say, the 'Rape of Lucrece'.


Gerry Harbison mailto:ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu
http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/harbison_group/harbison.html
The foundation of morality is to have done, once and for all, with
lying.
(T.H. Huxley, Science and Morals)

Per

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to

In article <4chm11$k...@news.informix.com> Robert Hartman wrote:
>
>In article <820757...@antelope.demon.co.uk>,
>Mark Green <Ma...@antelope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:> >
>:> I think you're on to something there.
>:> Have you ever noticed that the word "rape" is sometimes
>:>used
>:> to describe the wholesale destruction of a city, as in "the Rape
>:>of Nanking"? In order to convey the horror of many people (men,
>:>women and children) being killed, they have to use a term that
>:>relates to
>:> the violation of a woman. It's as if "the slaughter of Nanking"
is
>: ^^^^^^^
>:
>: Second paragraph's valid, but "rape" is just as valid for a man
>:as for a woman, and you demonstrate that you yourself suffer from
>:what you are arguing against.
>:
>:Mg
>:--
>
Not really. I was refering to the *usage* of the term "rape" to
describe such events. I was not endorsing it. "Flame first, read
later" is not a good policy.

>
>Well, I believe it was called "the rape of Nanking" because there
>was widespread rape as well as destruction perpetrated by the
>occupying forces.
>
>-r
>
Then it is all the more interesting that when rape and mass murder
occur, the event gets described in terms of the (relatively) milder
crime.


timewasting_non-confrontational_interloper

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
Christine Boulby <Ch...@coniston.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

Children! Children! Such bad language and naughty antagonisitic
attitudes! Such un-gracious flaming!

Are you Americans?


Jon Livesey

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
In article <4cul41$n...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
John E. Miller <j...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>
> All this drivel about the BBC is pathetic. As if American TV
> comes close to being intelligent.

Well, sort of pathetic, but also an interesting glimpse into the
minds of some Americans. After I'd been here a while I realised
that I was starting to hear quite strong opinions about the rest
of the world from Americans who phrased those opinions in ways
that hinted that they didn't actually know any of the facts; they
merely held the opinion.

And I've become convinced that this is a genuine facet of
American culture; the notion that you are perfectly entitled to
hold and express a strong opinion without feeling any obligation
to investigate the facts behind it. So you will quite often
hear Americans express strong opinions about the National Health
system who've never been to the UK, let alone be sick there,
strong opinions about the BBC from Americans who've never seen a
British TV program and so on.

As we know, there are people who will come on s.c.b and argue
up is down and black if white is the facts don't conform to the
picture of the UK that their GI grandfather passed down to them.

It's a kind of machismo of the intellect, I think.

jon.

John E. Miller

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to Timewasting
All this drivel about the BBC is pathetic. As if American TV comes close to
being intelligent.

-- The sad thing is that really most American TV is so inane that it has
an anti-homo sapien sapien bias.....

It is idiot-proven


Peter Ceresole

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
In article <4cut5t$d...@infohub.engr.sgi.com>,
liv...@pirate.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) wrote:

>And I've become convinced that this is a genuine facet of
>American culture; the notion that you are perfectly entitled to
>hold and express a strong opinion without feeling any obligation
>to investigate the facts behind it.

I think that it's common in Britain too, but not allowed on TV quite as
much as it is over there. Maybe...

The point about Europeans in general is also that they tend to have their
opinions shoved back at them because they come into contact with foreigners
rather more than Americans do. But listening to any conversation in a pub
inclines me to think that you've described us all.

I confess that when I'm in the States I find the TV so unwatchable (40
channels and nothing worth seeing) that I take a Sony FM radio, a set of
phones and I tune to the local jazz station. Some American culture is
superb...

Did anybody here ever listen under the bedsheets to "The Voice of America
Jazz Hour" (Aaah! Willis Conover!) or to "Pour Ceux Qui Aiment le Jazz"
(Aaaaa! Europe 1! The sig tune! Gloria Wood!)

Crushed by nostalgia.

Peter

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages