Mainstream media and the shameless manipulation of women

Note: Also available in Portuguese.

Over a year ago, Donald Trump was elected as the latest US president, in a surprise result which hit the mainstream media (MSM) hard. The problem was that the biggest media players in the US, and indeed worldwide, had nearly completely (and mostly unofficially) endorsed his competitor, Hillary Clinton. The MSM suddenly was faced with the unpalatable truth, that they had failed to adequately influence the outcome of the US presidential election, despite their gargantuan efforts to the contrary. The somewhat surprising result was that the public thought for themselves and the MSM was left with the knowledge that its potential to manipulate public perception on important issues was not as great as it had hoped or thought.

A consequence of this, is that it shone light on the media’s attempt to manipulate democracy to push their ideological position, which usually aligns with their financially advantageous goals.

In an age where newspaper circulation is down and alternative media influence is up, newspapers need to maintain a business model which is realistic and profitable, while retaining their dwindling relevancy. They achieve this mostly through advertising – and they are increasingly desperate to increase their online advertising revenue as hard copy sales take a hit. Companies pay newspapers to advertise their products so as to reach their target demographic. Interestingly, many people fail to realise that most companies’ preferred target demographic is women.

Wordlwide, 80% of all purchases are made by women. Let that fact sink in for a moment. Men may make more money than women, by working longer hours, engaged in more dangerous careers and entering professions which are more difficult but pay better, such as engineering – but women still spend more money that men do. If you want to sell your product, even if that product is aimed at men, you also target women, as they usually control the purse strings in relationships and the family unit. So when advertisers want to sell something, they know their best chance of capitalizing their return on advertising investment (ROI), is to reach out to the main decision maker in financial matters, which is usually women.

So, in their desperate quest to maintain profit margins, newspapers need to deliver the female demographic to potential advertisers. Doing so gives good ROI to the advertisers and makes strong business sense to the publisher.

So how do newspapers deliver the female demographic to their advertisers? The answer is ruthless manipulation, for which longterm exposure is damaging to women, men, and society as a whole. Before explaining how this manipulation works, there are some facts which need to be stated.

The first fact was already included above, in that 80% of purchases are made by women.
Secondly, women hold a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to what they earn. In the US for example, women own 60% of the wealth, yet earn only 40% of it through salaried or self-employment.

By 2020, one report states that women worldwide will spend the equivalent of 28 Trillion US dollars, yet earn only 18 Trillion of that themselves. One can easily speculate where the shortfall of 10 Trillion is coming from.

Additionally, when in a position of power, women are roughly 4-5 times more likely to exhibit positive sexism to their own gender, than men. This means that a female CEO is 4-5 times more likely to promote equivalently capable/qualified women over men, than a man is to promote men over women. One needs only look to Yahoo’s female CEO to see the changes she implemented to the company management and the consequent legal cases brought against her as she changed the gender ratio from 80% men to 80% women in a matter of 18 months.

Thirdly, women, enjoy seeing men fail. A controversial statement, but backed up with various studies. Whatever the reason, research shows that women are more likely to buy products when men are painted in a negative light, and women in a positive one. This creates a feel-good factor among women, and encourages them to buy products where this misandristic power-dynamic mechanism is in play. Television adverts and comedy shows have been exploiting this effective technique for a long time now.

Where the MSM comes in, is taking this mechanism one step further. By disseminating material which makes women feel good, they grab a slice of the female demographic and offer value to their advertisers. Women will consistently come back to read publications which make them feel good in some way. We are currently experiencing a race to the bottom to see which media publishers dive lowest to cater to the latest fad which boosts women’s self esteem, usually at men’s expense.

Fact-based journalism has given way to emotion-based journalism, in order to secure female readers. Whether that is the “Body-positive” movement, which dangerously aims to legitimize and remove stigma from obesity, to the fake “Wage gap” discrimination myth, which is constantly being rolled out as clickbait to secure women readers and get people commenting and arguing online – a good flame war is MSM’s new obsession in securing reader interaction and hence value for advertisers. Nowadays, a self-pitying female reader and an incensed angry male reader makes good business sense in terms of page views and online clicks, not to forget interacting with the comments section.

MSM will publish any material which teaches women they are victims and suffer oppression. Certain women read this material vociferously and become hopelessly addicted to it, as it helps them feel they are not responsible (in their own mind) for their weight problem, or following a gender studies course rather than an engineering one, or some other such insecurity and poor decision/attitude in life. The MSM is ruthlessly exploiting and misleading these women into thinking they have somehow been disempowered or oppressed. The method of choice to do this most effectively, is to embrace Feminism.

For those who care to read about these things, Feminism is a movement whose stated goals and actual goals are very different. Gender equality is the stated goal, whereas female privilege and misandry is the actual goal. The media gets a steady stream of “evil men” stories which many women love to read, and “poor female victim” stories, which again women love to read. A two-pronged attack which is incredibly effective at manipulating women into feeling victimised and/or not responsible for their own mistakes in life – and eventually parting with cash.

A knock-on effect, is that these women who are effectively addicted to victim status and being disempowered, need their next fix of “confirmation bias” from the media. It is truly an addiction. Contentious and ill-conceived concepts such as “patriarchy” are used to reel these women into reading more and more bigoted material on a daily basis, on why their flaws and failures are in fact the fault of men everywhere, and that society has an inherent bias against women in favour of men – which is demonstrably wrong. The end result is a disempowered woman and an aggrieved man – but a happy advertiser, who can now consistently reach the demographic with the most buying power. The MSM cares not for the damage it causes to any of the affected parties; its main goal is revenue generation. The long-term consequence, is the destruction of relations between men and women, which incidentally has been a stated feminist goal since the 80’s.

Another benefit of harvesting female readership, is the manipulation of democracy. Most floating/swing voters are women. Indeed, at every age in Western countries there are more female voters than male voters. Politicians are acutely aware of this, which is why few will criticise the feminist hate machine. Besides for the last election, the outcome of the previous five US elections was determined by floating voters, i.e. women. Political parties need to win their vote. So not only do we see the media trying to portray all women as frail and vulnerable, but we see politicians exploiting this shameless tactic to try and win their vote.

As a real-world example, in the ’80’s, there was only limited financial resources in the UK National Health Service for medical treatment, but as an election pledge, women were promised free breast-cancer screening to ensure their vote, and it worked (this was the infamous gamble Margaret Thatcher made in the UK to win reelection – no equivalent service was offered to men for screening of testicular or prostate cancer). By giving women victim status and promising special treatment, both the MSM and political parties benefit. At least they do short-term. The bigger picture however, is that decades of embracing feminism and anti-male propaganda, has made society fail both men and women in many ways, and it is being noticed.

Men’s Rights Activists (MRA’s) are fighting back against the negative portrayal of men in society by both the MSM and politicians. However, they are being demonised and accused of being misogynists (the feminist, and indeed the Left’s, go-to ploy to silence dissent or criticism). Just look at the furore over John McEnroe’s factual (in essence) comment that female competitors in sport have a biological disadvantage against males.

When Donald Trump defeated the opportunistic and corporate-sponsored Hillary Clinton, something bigger happened than just an election win. The public won. They sent a clear message to the MSM and politicians that their manipulation is transparent and will no longer work. The question remains to be seen, if this message reaches the ears of advertisers and if change is coming in the way that men and women are treated in pursuit of profit.

Until that moment arrives, if ever, women need to be aware of the MSM and politicans’ exploitation of females’ latent anti-male bias. It is time women silenced the hate rhetoric of feminism for good, and instead promote true equality. The problem is not feminism though, that is just a symptom; the problem is female antipathy towards men’s suffering and society’s lack of empathy for the same. Until women stand together with men, inequality will exist and women will be ripe for exploitation by the media and politicians chasing an easy election victory or quick profit.

Leave a comment

55 thoughts on “Mainstream media and the shameless manipulation of women”

  1. Not sure I’d say “The public won.” … but they haven’t lost yet, so there is that. Jury’s still out on whether Trump is all he claims to be or just a different kind of misery.

  2. Feminism might be getting more for women with its women=victim training, but in the long run it is keeping women down. How can special victims ever be equal? With feminism not pushing for female responsibilities equal to men, they infantalize women as victims, keeping them down. If equal status as men is their goal, they sure have a strange way of showing it.

    1. Women know deep down that equal status as men can only be achieved by bringing men down. Hence the tremendous discrimination against boys in school by female teachers.

      1. They want equal status and respect without having earned either. They erroneously think it is an automatic privilege of males. But what they do not know is that males must earn their place every single day…far from being a privilege picnic.

      2. I think women know deep down that we have always has roughly equal status as men, just not the same status as men. And we don’t want the same status as men; it would be very uncomfortable for most of us. We just want the good parts.

      3. Many women seem to take sadistic pleasure in damaging males. They revel in undermining their own partners. I wonder if this could be innate instinct that has somehow served human evolution? One that no longer benefits survival now.

        1. Or is it a redirection of something that evolved as inter-female competition within a more harem styled part of human evolution?

        2. Textbook shit test? If he overcomes it he’s worthy, and he survives to produce surplus resources for others; if he doesn’t, his destruction is no big loss. If he is successful, she gets partial credit for it. If he fails, she helped expose a poser as a loser. Win-win, for her of course.

        3. My experience in my first marriage is any threats of damage and actual action was simply a badly learned tactic which ultimately was counter to her best interest. A power game. When that happened I cut off my arm to save my life.

  3. There is only one way that women are going to lose their position as the preferred demographic for advertisers to pander too, and that’s if they lose that 80% purchasing power. And there is only one way that is going to happen. Mgtow must grow to be huge. Yes, women have that 80% buying power by being able to decide what they spend ALL of their money on……plus a good deal of a man’s money as well. And it is through marriage and defacto relationships that they gain this power. In Australia, this has gone beyond it being a case of the majority of mangina, simp, cuck husbands “allowing” their wives to manage and spend all the money. It is now considered financial abuse if the man exercises any control over the money….including his earnings. The only men who truly have control over their money, are mgtow men. Rest assured, mgtow is going to grow so big, that the advertisers will have to change their tune.

    Just the other day, I decided to get a new TV. Yep, decided all on my own, without having to check with anybody else first 🙂 So I went down to Harvey Norman’s and was browsing the TVs in the showroom. There was a couple in there browsing too, and a salesman giving them the hard sell. Or should I say giving HER the hard sell because it was like the guy didn’t exist. And he seemed to just go along with this, like he’s just along for the ride….and of course…..to pay for HER choice of TV. I’ve had this exact same experience whenever I’ve gone shopping for major appliances and stuff like that with any of my ex’s. It’s like I’m invisible if there is a woman with me. A few years ago, I went shopping for a house full of shit. Washer, dryer, fridge, microwave…..dinner sets…cookware, bedding, TV, blue ray player, wardrobes, lounge, I spent thousands in one hit. And I had a female friend with me lol And every shop I was in they were all over trying to sell to her. In one store where I ended up spending about 6 grand, I actually told the salesman to piss off and there is no use talking to her because she isn’t buying nothing.

    So anyway, I decided on a 55″ led lcd 4k model. Paid cash for it and that was that. Nothing to think about except what I want. Then came home to my house, ,which I own and live in alone….with all my stuff that I chose without any consultation with anybody lol How long do you think this gynocentrism would last if most men would grow a pair and do what I’m doing instead of selling their soul for the temporary convenience of some on tap pussy…..and maybe their childish desire to have a little women spoon feed them like babies…..for a while.

      1. Yep. And you can bet your arse once the number of men going mgtow is huge and therefore an equal number of women who can’t find a man to run through the meat grinder for his resources, there will be gradually more and more bullshit taxes especially aimed at taking money from single men to give to all the single women. But at some point they will cross the line and men will just say fuck it…..and either produce no more then they need to keep themselves…..or go full revolution. Whatever. Just like socialism…..feminism sows the seeds of it’s own destruction.

    1. Prizm, The Vain Prince

      I’m in sales and it’s easier to get a woman to buy since most women don’t fully understand the value of money (it’s just given to them most of the time). If she wants it, the man will buy it – even through chagrin or stupidity.

      Personally I find it a very good sales tactic.

  4. Wow a lotta truth bombs in this article.

    How pathetic is a creature that has to build esteem or feel better about themselves by bashing others? I can’t stomach watching Doctor Who anymore with all the drive by misandry..which of course goes unchallenged by every male that happens to be the target for this shit.

    I honestly can’t think of one commercial in where the female is portrayed as the one that totally fucks up, or the stupid one. The closest thing was the Jake from State Farm commercial and even then the woman wasn’t portrayed as a buffoon.

    1. I stopped watching Dr. Who a long time ago. Now that they have destroyed it completely by putting in a woman as the Doctor, there is no point ever watching it again. They have just annihilated their fan base.

      They are doing the same with Star Wars. There was a huge following for Star Wars and all its books, games, cartoons and movies, which were based on Canon that was spawned from the mind of Lucas. Now that Disney has openly stated that all passed Canon means nothing and that they are rewriting the story and they are bringing in females who are more powerful than the main character (Luke Skywalker) whom Lucas said was/is the most powerful of all Jedi, they will annihilate the fan base of this as well.

      All of this is to satiate the desires of a bunch of man hating femtards. Look what they did with Mad Max and Ghost busters. Utterly pathetic movies.

      1. Writing in a character for the sake of serving some kind of PC agenda driven motive NEVER works…ever.

        Ripley in Aliens works because she was a great character with moral fortitude; never once did you get the impression that you were being preached to.

      1. Check out my exchange with this feminist on the Husband’s Sexual Obligation is a matter of life and death article. It completely encapsulates and ties in to the entitlement and denial that we are talking about here.

  5. Well said William! I agree with what you say.

    I’ve been saying the same thing for a long time that feminism is not the problem. We only know about it, because it has been given oxygen by the majority of women in society. Women took us down this rabbit hole and they are going to have to work to get us out. Men no longer have the power or position to do anything about this, save open war and killing people.
    Men have no political standing, corporate standing and zilch in the media.

    Men for thousands of years have been taught that they have to control their desires and feelings. Women have never needed to control anything, because for a long time they never had access to the bigger picture of decision making. Until that is the rich elite decided they wanted to tax the other 50% of the human race. So they changed all of the social norms to allow women to earn money and then spend both hers and her husbands money, thus gaining a bonanza for the sellers of goods and services. They gave women the power and authority to change all the laws and rules, so they could do whatever their greedy little black hearts desire.

    One thing that does stand out here. Women in general, are so damn gullible and in many cases downright stupid, but they show a love for cunning and deceit, that is far beyond all men.
    The other thing that shines too, is that men in general have their heads so far up their own arses, they have no idea they are being fed laxatives, even when they are drowning in crap.

  6. congrats you get the first annual menrppl2 knocking it out the park, seeing what mustn’t be seen, speaking what mustn’t be spoke award.
    *no cash value*

    Cassie J heres your next ground breaker

  7. Feminism has been retooled. Stats show that fewer women identify as “feminist” yet feminism appears to be as strong as ever. Feminist, as we once saw them, no longer exist. Nonetheless, their agenda appears to be more aggressive toward the demise of men at any cost. They’ve found their way into the “progressive” camp that focuses on the destruction of men. Whereas we once fought “feminism” we are now fighting a liberal/progressive agenda which is far more dangerous.

    1. Well “progressive” for sure. These days progressive is virtually synonymous with SJW/feminist…and as a matter of fact feminist and SJW are indistinguishable from each other; SJW’s are feminists, and feminists are SJW’s.

      I would quibble about liberal though; conflating liberals with these regressives is like conflating conservatives with trad/cons. Although many liberals ARE complicit in this because they don’t speak up (out of fear?)

    2. They don’t identify as feminist, but they still take all the benefits. Alimony, child support, abortion, no fault divorce for any reason or no reason at all, right to vote without obligations etc

    3. Orion_TheHunter

      Today’s feminist’s are intellectually & arrogantly lazy. I don’t agree with their sexual politics, but I will say this: at least the first feminists presented a consistent front with which you could argue. And most of them were willing to do that. This group, today’s feminist’s, exist in a society with laws that are so gynocentrically biased, there’s nothing to force them to take a consistent approach to their beliefs. I don’t fear the agenda when it’s consistent. We’ve had dumb ideologies spring up and disappear throughout the history of our nation. What I fear is that there is nothing to force them to be consistent. And all media, online, mainstream, conservative, liberal, all of it is pushing the sides farther apart – in the interest of advertising.

      I’m a bit different, I suppose, than many here. I’m not a conservative, but I’m also not a liberal. I see all of this from the same standpoint as team sports (in my case, basketball). You compete with your team mates to make them and yourself better. And that competition can be extremely fierce, full of arguments & viciousness on the court. But it’s done to make the team better. That’s gone from America. The left and the right are supposed to be team mates, each with valuable pertinent points missed by the other. On both the left and the right, that ethic is gone. And a big part of the reason is that there is no real constraint on female power.

    1. Eeehhhhh yeah, I would have worded it as “shameless pandering” but I think overall he made it clear that the MSM is tapping into those biases.

    2. Marketing strategists know of and measure the effects of word-of-mouth transmission of advertising messages. Once aware of that avenue it will be exploited in every way it can be. That is pretty much the definition of marketing. It is called catering to the market. The market must first exist to be catered to. Then the pros take over. Are advertisers aware of gynocentrism? Not in the way it is discussed on these pages. They are aware of it as an avenue of approach to a market. Where an advertiser influences control over programming for a female audience then, yes, the program becomes female-friendly (gynocentric). I suspect but do not know that the word “gynocentric” probably never occurs in advertising circles or in program production management. Instead I would guess that “market”, and “demographic” are the stand-in terms.

      This means that the genesis of any program by a content creator must consider how to get financial support for his cast, his costs. Knowing that 80% of spending is by women the challenge becomes how to attract and hold a female audience. If that can be done then advertisers will beat a path to your door. The result is daytime TV and happy advertisers.

      1. so the problem is that MSM is financed by the commercial sector and the commercial sector panders to shallow spend thrifty females who like to shame men into letting them spend all his money?

  8. “Deliver the female demographic to potential advertisers” is just the 1000 yard view. In the close up it is more like, “deliver a biased and primed female demographic to potential advertisers. The main stream media is nothing more than fluffers for advertisers.

  9. To the Colorado strip club owner that has “Toxic Masculinity Welcome” on her marquee, I say fuck yeah!!!

    Please remain as unapologetic as you have been ma’am…with your middle finger perpetually in the flipped off position to these hand wringing harpies.

  10. Great article. I’ve always wondered why men are often portrayed as bumbling idiots in ads. The women who enjoy these ads are pathetic. You should never put others down to make yourself feel good.

    1. “You should never put others down to make yourself feel good.”

      Not unless you feel inferior or inadequate, of course.

  11. “Additionally, when in a position of power, women are roughly 4-5 times more likely to exhibit positive sexism to their own gender, than men. This means that a female CEO is 4-5 times more likely to promote equivalently capable/qualified women over men, than a man is to promote men over women. One needs only look to Yahoo’s female CEO to see the changes she implemented to the company management and the consequent legal cases brought against her as she changed the gender ratio from 80% men to 80% women in a matter of 18 months.”

    Indeed. I’d go further to say that, based in my own experience of being harrassed sexually & attacked by female supervisors, if you are a man and do your job BETTER than they expect (or that they themselves are capable of doing), female supervisors are far MORE likely to harrass male supervisees. Even when you are just doing EXACTLY what they hired you to do BECAUSE they didn’t know how to do it.

    1. Iwasneverafeminist:honest!

      Yeah if you look IAT’s some famous U.S. universities have undertaken online, women have an implicit attitude bias towards their own gender at rates of 100%. And the sample sizes are enormous! Google? 80%? Where I work it jumped 5.6% increase in female employment to 71% female employees in three years .. And when I started it was 50/50 … Universities now have an approaching 70% female employment … (no wonder in my country no one’s going anymore, and the dropout rate for courses is upwards of 60% 🙂

      The mindset to have towards women should be the same they have for you as a man! Or the mindset they have towards their own gender, they are seldom happy campers … 80% won’t be enough BTW they want it all plus 10% 🙂 I think the main problem with them is that they’re reading a map created by fellow feminists and are holding it upside down, inside out and wrong way round, that’s what is confusing em!!

      1. Orion_TheHunter

        I’ve always felt like their definition of patriarchy is really just a projection of the way they function & operate politically, as a unit, rather than any true, objective outcome of masculinity. Like the definition of ‘objectification’, which they say is a primary driver of ‘patriarchy’: it’s a result of their internal state and modus operandi (i.e. what they do to men). For example, I can say definitively from my own experience, that women are more than willing to grope, grab, manipulate, and beg for sex if you look like they want you to look; and, conversely, they’re more than willing to dismiss you out of hand, completely and without remorse, if you gain weight and stop dressing like they want. That’s what they say we do to them on the job. But, in fact, it’s really just their ‘self’ projected onto us. We need case law to put them in their place. I’ve been on both ends of that spectrum, by the way, and my experience of them was that they were shitty regardless of what they thought of you. They acted like complete douchebags when I was in shape, and utter harpy bitches after I stopped working out all the time. I’m saying all of this to agree with you, particularly your point about there being no ‘boys club’; that it’s just what they do projected onto us.

      2. Let me say this, concerning your statement about Universities hiring more women over men. As a male high school teacher, I have noticed the difference between the student’s attitude toward female teachers over male teachers. Students cannot stand the authoritative tone of male teachers, when we are simply doing our job and asking the students to do the same. But we can see the effects of education and students when females are the primary source of authority in the school. Education and the educational environment is aimed more towards “helping kids feel good about themselves” and NOT LEARNING and students hate learning in general and feel they are entitled for an easy life. I’m not saying it is all women’s fault but they are huge contributor to the problem.

    1. Iwasneverafeminist:honest!

      Yes MSM can make you lose your ass, and it can also make you lose your sense of perspective and reason, I keep away from it …

  12. Iwasneverafeminist:honest!

    I wonder what the ratio is for women to men for watching MSM, whether it be news, current affairs, or talk fest shows about social attitudes? I’m guessing here, but would think about 10:1??

  13. I guess a concrete example would be the horridly patronizing Virginia Slims cigarettes. IIRC one which said,

    ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, men have short stubby fingers and women have long slender ones.

    SO ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF LOGIC, women should smoke Virginia Slims.

    Yes, “THEORY OF LOGIC”. The tobacco companies really insulted their customers that way.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *