I was recently pointed by a friend to this Google Chrome extension:

http://www.daniellesucher.com/2011/11/j ... extension/



A very simple, but fascinating idea. I've been running it since this morning, and I'm starting to see quite how different it is to read things from the other perspective. Try reading pretty much any comment piece about Merkel/Sarkozy and you'll see exactly what I mean.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

Questions to which the answer is yes. And it's not just the web.

It's an interesting idea. One of the key ideas of radical identity politics is that dominant groups are blinded by their privilege, while minorities have an intimate understanding of the people and the system that oppress them. This sounds like a novel way to show how that works.

Reminds me of that bloke who went round changing all references to "Muslims" on Mail stories and comments pages to "Jews". That made for pretty disturbing reading as well...

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Reading the DM with this is particularly effective. I've just spent my lunch break reading about men who are all essentially either ditzy, tarty and vein or utterly stern, joyless creatures. Any time some confrontation is involved, the subject is spoken about like a child who's had a tantrum (or is probably on their period, eh?). It really is fascinating, I've always considered myself very balanced on gender equality, but the extent of the problem really is a disturbing wake-up call.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

Well, yes, but there's really no need for Ezinra to worry her pretty little head about it........

**battens down hatches **

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

This sounds like an interesting experiment, however when it comes down to it if words still have feminine connotations, ditzy is one you use, slut is another. Language itself is not gender neutral, or rather is not used in a neutral manner. So even if the pronouns are changed will it change the preconceptions behind the words?

_________________
Blog...http://itsjustahobby.wordpress.com/

Soon, if we are not prudent, millions of people will be watching each other starve to death through expensive television sets. Nye Bevan

May tomorrow's stools be stone-hard and spiky, Abernathy.

If you can stomach a teensy bit of social science jargon, Timbo, I recommend Rosalind Gill's book Gender and the media, especially the chapters on advertising and talk shows.

If it's any consolation, when I first got acquainted with Mail Online, I was astonished at its narrow and ridiculous representation of women. It's interesting to see a similar reaction from a different perspective.


Changing the context exposes the loaded nature of some seemingly unremarkable words. I was doing the experiment with bluebellnutter's list of headlines about Tulisa, and when I changed 'Tulisa' to 'Terence' I was overwhelmed by the hyperfemininity of the language. The stories become absurdly comic when applied to Terence. So then I changed 'cute' and 'floral playsuit' and 'pretty dresses' to their hypermasculine equivalents, and the headlines started to read like third-rate gay male erotica.

You notice academics and other writers often using 'she' instead of 'he' when conducting thought experiments. Or mixing the two.

_________________
http://redsparrows.tumblr.com

I'm sure that I've read somewhere that the Mail's readership is predominantly female and, if that's correct, I find it baffling when regarding the overwhelmingly sexist attitudes it exhibits day after day.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

I can't remember what thread it was on, but someone here came up with a figure of 53% female readership for the Mail. No other national is even close to 50%.

Yes, it's sad that women are drawn to self-flagellating crap about diets and bikini bodies and how motherhood is the best thing evah. C'est la vie, I'm afraid. In their defence, they may have grown up reading Jackie, Cosmopolitan, Heat and Woman's Own, where they'll have learned how to hate themselves as women. But we'd all like the general public to be a bit less gullible with regards to the media they consume, wouldn't we, or we wouldn't hang out on this forum?

It also goes to show that the industry, and indeed the whole notion of 'news', is still steeped in patriarchy. I can't for the life of me explain why, for example, on the Today programme there are special slots-of-importance set aside for sports and business news, each with its own separate presenter. I mean, if John Humphries and the other chaps (and the token woman) can interview politicians and artists and inventors and charity workers all in the same programme, surely they can stretch to asking a footballer if he's happy to have won a game or sad to have lost it.

Well I'm going to stick my neck right out and ask why sport is routinely included in News programmes anyway. I've never understood it, it's a form of entertainment yet other forms of entertainment don't make the News unless something exceptional (and therefore newsworthy) has occurred.

**retires to bunker anticipating flaming**

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Try watching Sky news over the weekend. When it goes to the sports (like every 15 minutes) it's Blond City, California. You have never seen so many tight under-chins, straining tops, blond to the point where even Adolf might have got a stiffy. Trouble is, most of the sports that are shown on TV are predominantly played by males and to be honest when a female is wheeled on (and virtually always with tight under-chins, straining tops, blond to the point where even Adolf might have got a stiffy) they know bog-all about the sport.

Yep, those are the NRS data and all they confirm is that stupidity does not respect gender. The sample is as solid at a rock, by the way. Certainly at that macro level.

_________________
Brigate di Transizione

I think...and again this is opinion, I have nothing to back it up, that women read the mail because it means they do not have to reconsider their choices, or the agenda they support. For anyone,male or female, accepting they may have been decieved or deluded, and even worse perpetuated that deception is a step of true courage.

Far easier to read something that tells you everyone judges on looks and bank balance and that poor sex and relationships are simply your lot in life.

_________________
Blog...http://itsjustahobby.wordpress.com/

Soon, if we are not prudent, millions of people will be watching each other starve to death through expensive television sets. Nye Bevan

Bah, tits or gtfo...






*** RUNS ***

_________________
"The first casualty on your Facebook wall is always facts..."

#rightwingpoliticalcorrectness - for when some "Tell it like it is" bullshitter plays the political correctness card, often without irony!