Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UK Exam Results Day - Spot The Pattern In Our Media.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UK Exam Results Day - Spot The Pattern In Our Media.

    Today is GCSE and A-level exam results day for students in the UK. These are the biggest most important exam results in a student’s life in this country. Results from these exams determine what your future career will be and whether or not you are accepted into university. This is a very important day in the UK. Its front page stuff and all newspapers report on it.

    I’ve taken headline pictures from articles about this event from 5 of the most widely read newspapers in this country. Can you spot the pattern in the pictures?

    The Mirror

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-come-10909543

    The Times

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/g...to-c-7wrlhfljt

    The Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...tudents-grades

    The Telegraph

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...many-students/

    The Metro
    http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/03/when-a...-2017-6825986/

    This pattern repeats itself every year in this country. Whenever newspapers and television media outlets come to report on this huge event all the headline pictures and all the focus is on girls and women celebrating their results. No pictures or mention of boys or men - Intentional marginalisation of males.

    ..........


    Boys are officially considered a disadvantaged group in education in the UK

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ged-group.html

    Whilst girls are considered an advantaged group within education and the gap is getting wider and wider:

    https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-...ver-150-higher
    https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809709961890635780

    Two words summarise this whole issue 'institutionalised discrimination' against men on every level from the government to the media.
    Last edited by Equity; 08-09-2017, 06:43 AM.

  • #2
    Once again Equity. You need to be published on the main site and more widely. If you ever want to create your own blog site or such like but don't have website technical skills (yet) in your repertoire, I'd be happy to help.

    The education system, just like the family court system have been massive hidden ways for hugely systemic discrimination against males. The true story of sexism plays out there, and these are the biggest examples of horrendous systemic & government led sexism in our society.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Originally posted by menrppl2
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Please understand that the following are musings not criticisms.

      I've always thought that attractive women are the best tool to sell stuff to men while at the same time, they're also the best tool to sell stuff to women. I know these are from the UK, but I can't help noticing that not a single image contains a person with an american average BMI or above. Both men and women seem to prefer looking at pretty women and girls as opposed to men and boys. I wonder if there's some of that going on with the optics.

      Have you heard or read women going on about how they need more "role models" in whatever field to make women "comfortable" going into that field? I wonder how much of that has to do with status. Can a woman intuitively measure the amount of status she'll receive from achievement in a field without observing the status another female achieves in that same field?

      I would assume that boys and girls want to "succeed" in the classroom in equal numbers. I wonder if there's something in there where the boys simply need to succeed (internal validation) but the girls need to be seen succeeding (external validation). So the news outlets run with the girls over the boys, because the boys don't generate ad revenue....they don't need the external validation. Where-as the girls are telling everyone that their picture is in the paper to get the attention boost....resulting in the benefit if more clicks for the website, more purchased papers..etc. (Obviously these are generalizations)

      There's little doubt in my mind that at least in the US, the education systems is being manipulated to result in the appearance of female success. Sometimes at the expense of male success. Girls are definitely receiving more encouragement and resources to transition them into post-secondary education.
      "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
      "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

      Comment


      • #4
        @Mifune

        This is a bit off topic for the OP of this thread, but no wholly, so I'd like to offer opinion that I don't think debates your points but expands a little.

        Originally posted by Mifune View Post
        I've always thought that attractive women are the best tool to sell stuff to men while at the same time, they're also the best tool to sell stuff to women. I know these are from the UK, but I can't help noticing that not a single image contains a person with an american average BMI or above. Both men and women seem to prefer looking at pretty women and girls as opposed to men and boys. I wonder if there's some of that going on with the optics.
        That's a pretty non-contested opening statement. I think there are a number of studies, which I don't have but they are searchable, which state some unsurprising things: men and women prefer to look at attractive people. Whether they are male or female, and there are universals of attractiveness, healthy skin, body proportions that indicate healthy virility / fertility, facial and body symmetry (believed to indicated genetic health), rich hair growth, good teeth etc etc.

        So you can promote any message more by association with attractive presenters. The preference for women to men for both genders... is a bit more complex. This is my opinion but if you put a beautiful woman on a poster or image to grab my attention it'll work, it'll just biologically work. But if you poorly pick the context, like try to selling a hammer drill or even a new CPU by draping an attractive young female over it... it's going to backfire. If I think about about I'm going to find it insulting, if I don't think about it, I'm going to subconsciously associate the product with something low brain (as in reptilian brain) an incongruous association that works against what the product is being sold to do. Advertising has long known this, the age of stick a woman on and it will sell, is massively exaggerated. It's part of short attention span grabbing. However the short attention span grabbing can be valuable as a tool and needs to be looked why it works.

        The reason is... very low brain...

        It's not the female, it's the physiological state she is promoting. This is an area where feminist research could have done some good, if they weren't so barmy and ideological. The female form shows overt but socially acceptable states of sexual arousal to display. The attractiveness of the person isn't the issue that is working psychologically. It's that the females used in those images that work are displaying sexual arousal. Even with clothes on, lip and eye accentuating make-up is about showing sexual arousal. Male arousal would be just as potent for gaining female attention, but can you imagine the social backlash of using male erections to get women and men's attention. That takes us into wholly different territory, about acceptable roles and boundary demarcations between what males and females are allowed to do, that's a whole area of it's own related to the real double standard.

        Now as you move away from using the sexual arousal state, where as just said the female image is the more effective, simpler to use and more socially acceptable canvas to use, the gains diminish between using an attractive male or female. The gain for better association for the intended target market soon start to overwhelm, appealing to higher brain starts to pay off.

        There are two other major factors to bring in, when looking at this which I'll go into further in looking at your questions, but these are female in-group bias and female tendency to threat react over invasions of their domains of power.

        Originally posted by Mifune View Post
        Have you heard or read women going on about how they need more "role models" in whatever field to make women "comfortable" going into that field? I wonder how much of that has to do with status. Can a woman intuitively measure the amount of status she'll receive from achievement in a field without observing the status another female achieves in that same field?
        Females have a much greater automatic in-group bias than men. I dunno if you've read Jewel Eldora's long series on this on the main site, but despite her rather long and sometimes confusing polemic arguments, that point is a statement of the obvious. Female presence is comforting to women as it's a marker of a safety from physical harm. This isn't because males are dangerous to them, that association is a deliberate manipulation of natural response. Where females cluster evolutionary was in areas where the threats from nature were controlled or contained. That is imprinted on female minds. An all male space is associated with greater danger. Now there is another angle to that - risk reward strategy / bad boy appeal etc - where people as individuals have another division in them between thrill seeking and security seeking behaviour. However the take home point isn't in the different numbers of thrill seeking vs security seeking in humans, it's in the fact that humans are security seeking and thrill seeking, the degree varies but both exist, humans enjoy thrills of danger in completely safe ways... horror movies, roller coasters etc.

        So what does the all female represent to appeal to females? It appeals to security and safety seeking, but look at the other associations being made: reward seeking. Reward is big point of going to university and taking top jobs.

        If you wholly use these types of safe female images, and we are now talking about separation from the low brain sexual arousal attention grab strategy to the associations being sought from the juxtaposition of image and message. A group of females enjoying something will be off putting to males, the image may or may not have some appeal (attractive people are attractive etc...) but the message association will be this is a security seeking activity, that will appeal to some males but put many off, and it will disproportionately appeal to females as well as putting some types off - the undesirable to university ones - females who don't seek or like conformity to sacred feminine.

        The problem Equity highlights isn't that some images are used, in a mixture across all media, it's that only images that conform to this narrowband message are used. These are not images to appeal masculine males, to women who like males, to women who seek an amount of challenge. They are images that appeal to safety seeking and reward seeking females, who are risk averse.

        The numbers bear this out, as the mixture in universities shifts more and more to left wing females - and females who like to control and have a predatory attitude towards those types of female.

        None of these points are actually in contention with your comment about status seeking. You can view status seeking as 'reward + security' seeking behaviour, so in that view, I think the point you make is basically correct. Though I would not myself phrase it like that. I don't think they are intuitively getting a social status message, I think that is being incessantly pushed in the text, but the visual message come here, you'll get reward for it and be safe, look these females are safe you'll be safe too.

        There is no problem with that message, unless it's the totality of the message, which at UK universities it pretty much is, then it's rejecting others who form the diversity by approaching things with a different mindset.

        Originally posted by Mifune View Post
        I would assume that boys and girls want to "succeed" in the classroom in equal numbers. I wonder if there's something in there where the boys simply need to succeed (internal validation) but the girls need to be seen succeeding (external validation). So the news outlets run with the girls over the boys, because the boys don't generate ad revenue....they don't need the external validation. Where-as the girls are telling everyone that their picture is in the paper to get the attention boost....resulting in the benefit if more clicks for the website, more purchased papers..etc. (Obviously these are generalizations)

        There's little doubt in my mind that at least in the US, the education systems is being manipulated to result in the appearance of female success. Sometimes at the expense of male success. Girls are definitely receiving more encouragement and resources to transition them into post-secondary education.
        On this the key point is manipulation of the image of success. That is deliberately being manipulated to reflect a form of left wing corporatism and statism, that pushes a very simple message, and attacks other forms of message. You will get safety + reward by conformity to this model of behaviour, we fashion this behaviour on female iconship, this icon is stability, safety, reward that is characterised by attractive young females (not particularly sexualised as that is threatening to females, and some males - and really for university would contextual suck, just be nahhh not gonna big money to whore out my kids). The female behaviour being exhalted is harvesting, a safe group activity that operates by co-operative organisation.

        Those are some thoughts, hope it's of some interest.
        Last edited by voidspawn; 08-09-2017, 05:01 PM.
        "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
        Originally posted by menrppl2
        Can't live with em, life is great without them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mifune View Post
          Please understand that the following are musings not criticisms.
          I'll muse in on this, too.

          I've always thought that attractive women are the best tool to sell stuff to men while at the same time, they're also the best tool to sell stuff to women. I know these are from the UK, but I can't help noticing that not a single image contains a person with an american average BMI or above. Both men and women seem to prefer looking at pretty women and girls as opposed to men and boys. I wonder if there's some of that going on with the optics.
          Yes and no. There has never been any shortage of attractive women in advertisements, but very often there was some kind of pairing or mutual gaze or reflection, I assume in order to mimic attraction, to cater to womankind's eternal dream of eternal love.
          The new thing here is that men are being blanked out. Though of course boys like to look at pretty girls, they also would like to be included in the group of "people who hang out with pretty girls" (or even just "people"); but now there isn't even a Marty Stew, nor a vicarious Bond-ish fantasy fulfillment character.
          To me this says "Women don't need men", loud and clear.

          Have you heard or read women going on about how they need more "role models" in whatever field to make women "comfortable" going into that field? I wonder how much of that has to do with status. Can a woman intuitively measure the amount of status she'll receive from achievement in a field without observing the status another female achieves in that same field?
          A _very_ astute observation. Women need role models because few women want to be the first to put their toe in unknown waters.
          First they need to send in somebody to check for danger.
          Then they need to send in somebody to see if being in that field makes them attractive.
          Then they need to send in somebody to see if making it to the top in that field brings the gift of "star quality".

          I wonder if there's something in there where the boys simply need to succeed (internal validation) but the girls need to be seen succeeding (external validation).
          Another glittering gem.
          To stay with the valuables metaphor, yes, I thiink women need to present as valuable in themselves, like gold, jewels, perfume ...
          Men need to present as valuable to others, like Rolex, a BMW, a building ... machines, tools ...
          (That's why bodybuilders are so .... weird ... to both men and women. They are merely "pretty".)

          There's little doubt in my mind that at least in the US, the education systems is being manipulated to result in the appearance of female success.
          Eh ... that's been a publicly stated goal since the sixties. No secret there.
          The problem is that they initially claimed to aim for the famous parity. Now we see what that was worth.
          As someone else pointed out in another thread, it's been known since the seventies that boys struggle with reading.
          But men were already "ahead", so all the support went to the 'deserving oppressed'.

          The comfort I take is that I think media are going to change enormously.
          Educational computer games will replace school books, YouTube will replace TV, the whole press will disappear, etc. etc.
          And again, boys are pioneers, way ahead of the girls, not to mention the parents, an certainly not the antediluvian school system.
          These left-behinds will all have to learn to read Gamerese and Smartphonerian and Tubulore or whatever the new lingo will turn out to be.

          Girls are definitely receiving more encouragement and resources to transition them into post-secondary education.
          When we can turn our own household garbage into our own plastic to feed our own 3D printers, then companies, factories, malls, shops, and with them a their offices, will disappear. I wonder how the dearies will fare then.

          M

          Comment


          • #6
            good job equity. thanks for sharing this.
            Originally posted by MatrixTransform
            where were you before you put yourself last?
            Originally posted by TheNarrator
            Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
              Once again Equity. You need to be published on the main site and more widely. If you ever want to create your own blog site or such like but don't have website technical skills (yet) in your repertoire, I'd be happy to help.
              As always thank you very much for the encouragement and support voidspawn. You sir are an asset to this movement. I don't think I can say this enough.

              We have a great wide variety of skill sets and men and women with great minds and potential on this platform and we all want to help each other and this is really really encouraging.

              Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
              The education system, just like the family court system have been massive hidden ways for hugely systemic discrimination against males. The true story of sexism plays out there, and these are the biggest examples of horrendous systemic & government led sexism in our society.
              Indeed voidspawn and on every level in the education system from student and staff recruitment to funding, even in student representation in unions. The misandry, the discrimination in favour of women against men in the edcuation system is pervasive and not just here in the UK but across the globe.

              Originally posted by TheNarrator View Post
              good job equity. thanks for sharing this.
              Thank you so much TheNarrator.

              Originally posted by Mifune View Post
              Please understand that the following are musings not criticisms.

              I've always thought that attractive women are the best tool to sell stuff to men while at the same time, they're also the best tool to sell stuff to women. I know these are from the UK, but I can't help noticing that not a single image contains a person with an american average BMI or above.
              That’s an interesting observation Mifune. This, though, is what most teenage girls and guys look like in this country. We have very, very, very few obese teenagers. At college I had around 100 students in my year. We had maybe four or five obese guys and girls and they weren’t really that overly obese but just mildly overweight.

              Originally posted by Mifune View Post
              Both men and women seem to prefer looking at pretty women and girls as opposed to men and boys. I wonder if there's some of that going on with the optics.
              I believe, this bias in reporting is the direct result of deliberate discrimination against men in favour of women in the media that results from institutionalised feminism. This discrimination is clear not just in the pictures but in the text of the articles published in these newspapers, all of which exhibit a glaring bias, clear discrimination and double standards, in favour of women against men.

              Let me give you an example of this bias, these double standards, from the last week.

              On the 17th of August Camilla Turner a feminist and journalist for The Daily Telegraph wrote this following article about boys outperforming girls in A-levels (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 17 YEARS!!!!) by 0.5% in A* grades!!!!!!!!! She argues that this 0.5% advantage in A*s that boys had this year the first advantage that boys have had in the last 17 years is the result of discrimination against girls. She argues for change.

              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...years-despite/

              This same Camilla Turner wrote a second article just a few days later this time of girls making up two thirds of top achievers in GCSE exams this year thanks to bias new reforms in marking. She celebrates this gap in her article. She celebrates this advantage as a victory for girls!!!!!

              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...et-top-grades/

              She was aggravated by boys for outscoring girls in A*s by 0.5% for the first time in 17 years but she celebrates girls outperforming boys by roughly 70% overall thanks to discriminatory marking reforms. Such are the double standards of these people. I politely pointed these double standards out in the comments section of the article. My comment was deleted.



              https://image.ibb.co/d16snQ/tyrtt.jpg
              https://image.ibb.co/dj7Mgk/sfsdfsfdsfs.jpg

              Girls aren’t plastered all over the front pages of every magazine every year during results day because they are slim and attractive but because we live in a gynocentric society where feminism, this highly institutionalised ideology, is driving favouritism towards girls and discrimination against boys based on its core principle. That core principle that argues that we live in a world that is run a by system created by men a world where men are advantaged and women disadvantaged and therefore men need less focus, less money, less power etc and women need more focus, more money, more power etc.

              If you question feminism, if yo do not conform with this ideology and its bias in favour of women, you are censored. You are fired from your job. You are shamed an abused.

              Originally posted by Mifune View Post
              Have you heard or read women going on about how they need more "role models" in whatever field to make women "comfortable" going into that field? I wonder how much of that has to do with status. Can a woman intuitively measure the amount of status she'll receive from achievement in a field without observing the status another female achieves in that same field?

              I would assume that boys and girls want to "succeed" in the classroom in equal numbers. I wonder if there's something in there where the boys simply need to succeed (internal validation) but the girls need to be seen succeeding (external validation). So the news outlets run with the girls over the boys, because the boys don't generate ad revenue....they don't need the external validation. Where-as the girls are telling everyone that their picture is in the paper to get the attention boost....resulting in the benefit if more clicks for the website, more purchased papers..etc. (Obviously these are generalizations)

              There's little doubt in my mind that at least in the US, the education systems is being manipulated to result in the appearance of female success. Sometimes at the expense of male success. Girls are definitely receiving more encouragement and resources to transition them into post-secondary education.
              Girls don’t appear to be doing better they are doing significantly better than boys across the globe, thanks to a favouritism for women across the education system driven globally by institutionalised feminism. Favouritism in the form of exams written such that they are 'girl friendly', favouritism in the form of gender initiatives and quotas. Favouritism in the form of state funded woman's educational institutes. women’s educational institutes the combined membership of which is a quarter of a million women in this country alone!!! These institutes play a role in providing women with educational opportunities and are directly funded by the British tax payer. Their membership is restricted to women and there is no male equivalent. This despite the fact that men are officially considered a disadvantaged group in education in this country whilst girls are considered a privileged group in education.

              Girls outnumber boys in higher education by a ratio of 2:1 in this country. Women now outnumber men in 112 out of 180 degrees. Women from poorer backgrounds are 50% more likely to enter university than men from poorer backgrounds. Women are 32% more likely to enter higher tariff courses than men. The global parity index for education is 1.08 in favour of girls. The GPI is calculated every year by the UNESCO. It measures the ratio of boys to girls in education. A GPI value below 0.96 shows significant disparity in education in favour of boys. A GPI value above 1.04 shows significant disparity in education in favour of girls. Like I said the GPI is 1.08. As in girls significantly outnumber boys across all levels of education across the entire globe. The report from which I got the data pertaining to the GPI can be found below. It trivialises and unfairly justifies any disparity in favour of girls whilst exaggerating and condemning any disparity in favour of boys. The bias in the report is as clear as light.

              http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/002...55/215522E.pdf

              This bias makes sense when you find out the fact that the director general of this organisation, UNESCO, that moderates and influences education systems across the globe is prominent feminist Irina Bokova, daughter of a prominent communist Bulgarian politician.

              The UNESCO dismisses disparities in favour of girls in education and justifies them. As in the UNESCO sees girls outnumbering boys in education as a positive thing whilst treating any disparity in favour of boys as discrimination. The double standards are systematic and pervasive, not just in the west and in the media but across the globe and in every area of life.

              You find the same favouritism that we saw in the pictures shown in my original post on UNESCO's main website (http://uis.unesco.org):



              https://preview.ibb.co/eJL7Mk/Screen...t_20_31_39.png

              A focus on girls in reporting and gathering data. A clear bias by an organisation that is supposed to be impartial but is not. An organisation that is driven by a clear feminist agenda.
              Last edited by Equity; 08-31-2017, 09:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                1. Most of it is a scam to sell overpriced education/indoctrination to the corporate plantation and tax cattle. Girls have always preferred a "theme park" environment with all inclusive parking, latte vendor, elevator bank and cubicle farm with automatic tax-withholding and regular half-percent cost-of-living pay increases. That's the kind of life these universities are promising, for the low low price of $150,000 which could bloat to $300,000 with interest and late charges by the time you pay it off 20 years later.

                2. Even AFTER all the programs and quotas and positive discrimination, most women crater by their early 40's, either becoming SAHM's or living on welfare/disability, which prompts an exasperated government to continue dumping untold resources trying to get women productive or at least be a smaller drain on the system.

                3. I'm not too worried about boys, they /have/ adapted, just not in ways that the govt wants them to. They've come to view the establishment and baby boomers with a very healthy sort of "What's in it for me?" skepticism. They'll be beneficial to the state only on THEIR terms, otherwise they'll do the bare minimum.

                Comment

                Working...
                X