What does the media gain through this secret agenda?
I'll ignore your sarcastic, Jezebel-like response to my comment. Instead I'll outline the reasons for the media's agenda, but I'll do it for the other MEN reading because some people new to the manosphere might need some background on this.
The media pushes feminism and anti-patriarchal ideas because it equals more money for them. How? Why?
The main reason is that 80 percent of purchases are made by women. By pushing for them to be employed, not stay at home moms, media outlets assure their advertising bases will be shored up. If men were back in control, like in the 1950s, women's disposable income would NOT be going to buy the crap the media advertises. It would be going to savings.
Spending, not saving benefits medialand, which is driven by advertising and relies on a constant flow of consumer dollars. If women are cougars, they will NEVER be "stay at home moms" and thus will become lifelong consumers. And heads of households. More households = more consumer dollars.
This is a crucial issue, perhaps THE crucial reason as to why feminism gained such a foothold in the US. It benefits the people who run businesses. They got to double the labor pool and thereby reduce wages and got twice the consumers. The media HAS to go along with this or else it ends up like the Washington Times, having to be funded by a religious cult since big-time advertisers won't go near it.
Reporters and editors don't consciously go about assigning stories thinking "How can we push an agenda." But they do consciously try to please advertisers. And the gist of advertising is almost 100 percent female-oriented.
On top of this, the media attracts activists, not writers per se, so newspapers and magazines are often staffed by former women's studies majors and the like -- people who do, in fact, have an agenda. A poll taken a few years back showed something like 85 percent of reporters leaned democrat, and feminism goes part and parcel with that, needless to say.
The media pushes feminism for reasons beyond what I just outlined. For further study please consult:
1). The blog of Dr. Stuart Schneiderman, "
Had Enough Therapy?"
2). The book "
Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness --- and Liberalism --- to the Women of America" which is an expose on why women's magazines publish what they do by a former women's magazine writer.
I spend my life working for Big Media and saw how this all went down firsthand. It's a culture and that culture is not going to change anytime soon as far as I can see.
Quote: (02-06-2013 07:13 PM)snoop Wrote:
Quote: (02-06-2013 05:10 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:
We need to differentiate between older women and somewhat older women.
I had two experiences at age 19 and 20 with women in their late 30s and early 40s that were extremely important to my maturity (i.e. I got lots of guilt-free high-quality sex).
But meeting a woman 6-7 years older than you can be the kiss of death to your life in a lot of ways. I know first-hand. Forget, kids, baby rabies, ticking bio-clocks, etc. Something more subtle and insidious happens. If you end up in a relationship, you board her train, since her life is already at a more mature stage than yours. This makes you gradually become a player in someone else's play; a bit player in your own life. Since this happens gradually it's hard to see it for what it is, esp. if the sex is good. Even if you're dominant and control the frame it often ends up with the woman leading because of age and experience.
But putting your own life on the back burner (even unconsciously) can have disastrous effects. THIS is why the media is pushing the cougar thing: they prefer men to take subservient roles in life. As soon as it goes from sex to relationship, danger is ahead.
What does the media gain through this secret agenda?
