Fact-checking the UN: Is the Internet dangerous for women? | FACTUAL FEMINIST
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 06. 2024
- A new UN report claims that “73 percent of women have been exposed to online violence.” To combat this alleged epidemic of sexist mayhem on the web, it calls for draconian measures-including more government supervision and censorship of the internet. Before anyone acts on these UN recommendations, let’s check out a few facts.
Subscribe to AEI's CZcams Channel
/ aeivideo. .
Like us on Facebook
/ thefactualfe. .
Follow us on Twitter
/ chsommers
For more Information
goo.gl/ChiQYD
Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.
In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset.
The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials.
#feminism #feminist #politics #news #un #internet #censorship
© American Enterprise Institute
Partial transcript:
The UN report insists the internet is an unsafe place for women. There is a lot of viciousness on the web-including threats of violence-but is it as pervasive as the UN Report suggests-and are women actually at greater risk than men?
Let’s start with the report’s showcase statistic that “73 percent of women have experienced online violence.” Where is the research to back it up? The claim is footnoted. But the footnote takes you to another UN publication that says nothing about online violence.
After a few calls and an email, the lead author of the UN report, Nihdi Tandon, had her office send me the source. It was the web site of a small volunteer group called HaltABUSE that helps people cope with online threats and stalking. The group reported that, of the 349 people who sought their help in 2010, 73 percent were women and 27 percent were men. (The women’s percentage was lower for more recent years.)
And that, believe it or not, was the United Nation’s “source” for its disturbing claim that “73 percent of the women on the internet are victims of abuse.” Imagine if I claimed that, because 73 percent of those who watch the Factual Feminist are women, therefore 73 percent of the world’s women watch my videos. I wish it were true. But the rules of logic intervene.
In 2014 Pew Research carried out a survey of internet users. It found that lots of people are hassled, insulted, and called names online-slightly more men than women. More women than men are sexually harassed (7% women and 4% men), but men are the primary targets of threats (10% men compared to 6% women).
The Pew findings suggest that, overall, men face as much or more abuse than women. Another study by a professional polling organization found that males aged 19 are the group most likely to be affected by trolling or bullying among teenagers.
But the bogus 73% statistic was headlined by TIME, highlighted in Washington Post -and repeated on countless new sites-including several that attract a lot of young readers such as MTV.com and Teen Vogue.
The report is packed with dubious statistics and bizarre pronouncements. On page 48 we learn that “Cyber-touch is recognized as equally harmful as a physical touch.” Recognized by whom? Cyber touch is a metaphor-physical touch is not.
In another section, the report speaks of “recent research on how violent video games are turning children, mostly boy, into killing zombies.” The footnote leads to a rambling screed by a disciple of the infamous Lyndon LaRouch.
Not only is the report riddled with mistakes-its proposals are totalitarian. It urges governments to use their powers to license only those internet providers and search engines that “supervise” user content. This is precisely what China does to censor its people online; except instead of subverting the communist party, the crime would now be mocking a woman.
In the US, freedom of expression is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court routinely blocks government officials from censoring even highly offensive speech. The internet can be rough-and threats of violence or stalking and can be terrifying-but these are crimes and they are legally actionable wherever they occur. Beyond that, a more civil and mannerly internet should be a matter of private norms-and many internet sites are promoting that. Government supervision of conversation is the last thing that any of us, male or female, need.
Fact-checking the UN: Is the Internet dangerous for women?
#aei #news #politics #government #education #feminism #feminist
100% of humans on the internet get harassed.
+TheGoverning BodyBag 5 out of 4 robots are victims of cyber violence. Only you can stop cyber Violence, Listen and believe in bogus reports!
+TheGoverning BodyBag That might be true for social media not the internet as a whole. If you spend enough time on social media and express opinions you are bound to get a negative comment. I have gotten plenty of them here you tube. Most of them on my other youtube channel. Once this channel gets more popular I will inevitably get more shit because now I am making videos expressing opinions rather than just writing comments.
+TheGoverning BodyBag don't forget the bots. They get their fair share of rudeness too.
+Ian Srven Many by the government.
+TheGoverning BodyBag
note that meanings are Progressing
*harrassment (n)* _insult, derision, contradiction, criticism or persistently expressing a differing opinion._
so, yeah -
I totally found this video useful. It just told me that 7% of all the women in the world watch my videos. You know, because 7% of my viewers are female and all. Good grief.
How do these people keep getting away with this?
+karen straughan just try making shit up one day, Karen; it's easy and the media doesn't care. (Just make sure you say the right false things)
+karen straughan Because people live in fear of being called sexist.
+karen straughan People get away with it because people don't want to think. "Have someone think for you." They say. ""Just trust me" They say. They will shove the urgency up your flank and you wont have time to react. People, even me, need to stop thinking with their damn emotions. It does more harm than good most of time.
because people don't care about actually being right they just care about scoring points for their side by appearing to be right... until someone bravely points out they got all their facts wrong and then they just come at you from some other fabricated angle. The truth is not infinitely maluable!
+karen straughan
It simply requires the amazing ability to wipe their ass then transcribe what they see.
Under-grad essays have more accurate sources than official UN reports.
That is the world we live in.
+Zeke Freek To be fair there's only one report this bad.
+Zeke Freek Can confirm, have written under-grad essays.
FrontYardWrestling99 Good question, something to look into. I think they are all available for pubic viewing.
+Zeke Freek Unfortunately there's no one to fail the UN for a shitty paper. Who polices the policeman?
Milo Yiannopoulos apparently...
Guys based mom said "shitposter" what have we done to this woman?
+Emperor Nero check her twiter she posted memes there a while back. :D
+Wiaf Every day we move further from God's light ... =[
+Emperor Nero Reality sets in.
If you choose to believe in an imaginary entity thats on you. Why mention it at all though?
God is dead. (this is kind of bait)
+Emperor Nero The right thing
No feminist can ever present points or argue like this woman can.
+Karen Devine No feminist can argue.
You are all correct!
+Karen Devine Camille Paglia can! And she, along with Ms. Hoff-Sommers here, is very eloquent and on-point, though a bit more animated.
+Karen Devine Well, at least one feminist can, since she is a feminist. smh.
***** I don't see her as a feminist. She's more about equality, but I get what you mean lol
"Cyber-violence" is the most absurd concept I've ever heard of. The report made itself a bloody joke on the title, before people realized that one of the sources was *_someone's goddamn C-Drive_*.
+Laytonaster They had to redefine the word "violence" to push their cultural Marxist bullshit and the sad part is almost everyone just went along with it.
+Laytonaster Not to mention, one of the reports was from 2000 which claimed video games was turning kids into zombie killing machines, pokemon caused murders and Nintendo was making Satanic video games. You couldn't get much worse then this if you tried.
+Jarhead Junior Vidya gaemes maek pepol stoopid. Dnot edn pu liek me!
+Laytonaster When asking someone to back their claims, or challenging a stupid idea becomes literal abuse, it certainly is an absurd concept.
+Jarhead Junior It's not the video games making kids violent, it's the rock and roll music IN the video games!
I cannot believe a report that was this flawed make it through an organization with that much clout & functioning at such a high level.
It was poorly researched, poorly thought-out, horribly written, was filed with TYPOS , had garbage citations & was obviously written by somebody who didn't have a technology background.
I guarantee that the only reason that this report was uncovered was because of the due diligence of GamerGate and other folks on social media. Hours after it was released, you so many people pouring over the reports picking it apart.
If it wasn't for this attention I'm certain (simply because it has a UN stamp on it) that this report would have made its rounds through the media and different NGOs without anybody questioning it.
I think this incident says a lot about the credibility of a) UN commissions b) Progressive orgs like the APC and c) the MainStream Media for not covering this more.
This has been an eye opening event.
Why not? The fake rape and wage statistics do every yr.
***** I think instead of using the word internet, they called it the "undernet".
+pulpnonfiction
czcams.com/video/1RcjzrvhGzk/video.html
+whenindoubtdo I guess you don't know much of the clusterfuck that is the UN
+whenindoubtdo I'm more concerned with the fact no mainstream "journalism" realized any of this and just parroted the feminists bs as usual.
Christina Hoff Sommers is the only feminist I know, where I get exited for her feminist speakings. I had to drop my work just because I saw her in my subscriptions list. :)
+Kel A That's because important facts and statistics are getting increasingly harder to find (especially in the UK where I live) and much of what does get published is either BS or twisted to suit an agenda
+Kel A Check out some interviews with Camille Paglia, she's pretty kick-ass, too. Wipes the floor with the whiney 3rd wave feminists (I don't agree with everything she says, but she's been driving the kind of accountable feminism I can subscribe to as a member of the "patriarchy" ;-)
+uɐılıʞ ɹǝʇsnɯ
Paglia seems pretty cool.
+Kel A Prince Judar, cast in the same mold. Not as famous. Probably not as well researched. No offense, PJ.
+m1nt3a
On the subject of sex-based oppression, I don't see any women being executed for being women, or women being denied jobs in STEM due to their genitals. In fact, their are many programs actively supporting the increased involvement of women in almost every field except for the lowest ranking jobs(but we'll let this slide since it is only a tangent to my actual point). I do not actively see women in the first world being barred from having a voice on social media, nor do i see them being discriminated against the way that Trans people have been. In fact, I see more oppression of Trans-sexual people and gays than of women.
If we are talking about oppression(oppression being the Merriam-Webster definition of oppression source: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppression), then you would need to prove that men are unjustly and/or cruelly pushing women to be a subservient gender. I think that would be relatively hard to prove since the "patriarchy" itself has been pushing to advance women. If the "patriarchy" was truly out to oppress women, why would they allow them into jobs with the equal pay as men? Why would they advocate for women going to college so much that women are now the majority of degree earners? Why has the patriarchy not pronounced women to be slaves, with chains on their hands, neck, and, feet? Why would they allow women the vote where one woman's vote is the equivalent of a man's vote, whereas they could simply make it one woman's vote the equivalent of only, say, 3/5's of a man's vote? If they were subservient and inferior to men, why has the patriarchy, then, not turned women into chattel, kept in pens or camps? How would we the patriarchy benefit from pushing almost half the entire population down a drain? From a capitalistic point of view, what good would spending so much labor and resources to make sure that half the entire population are not worth the food on the table do? Rather than that, I would think that it would be better to advocate for those who can work to work.
Now on the subject of approval, I think there's been a slight misconstruing of what's been said. The main reason, in my opinion, that Kel A approves of Christina Hoff Sommers is because she uses real FACTS to back up her points. Unlike most feminists, she actually sees both sides, and understands that factual inaccuracies and over exaggerations are damaging to any movement. The video series on which you have posted your comment is a video series dedicated to pointing out the flaws on the data promoted by feminist activists. I do not believe that he would like Christina Hoff Sommers if she did not use real facts, irregardless of whether or not she threatens "male privilege" . Because if she did not use substantial data that have been checked to be true, then she would lose her position as "The Factual Feminist". He admires her, as I would be inclined to believe, because she takes the time to find credible sources that can be verified by the other sources. To say that he simply likes her because she doesn't threaten him is generalizing, in my opinion. Who knows, maybe your assertion is true, I do not claim to know his beliefs. But I can say that me and many others here are admirers of Christina because she knows the value of objective truth.
For example, let's talk wage gap. Now, traditionally that has often been the male's role to work for the family and therefore be the bread maker in the family, but that is because a pregnant woman cannot work as strenuously for as long as a healthy man. That is biology, not sexism. Now, a women can choose not become pregnant, but many do. Before we did not have the materials available to prevent pregnancy should a person choose not to. But if they are pregnant and wish to carry through, they will still have to take a break from their work, because they will be unable to work as if they are not pregnant. Does that mean that choosing to be pregnant is oppressing women? Absolutely not! But will that mean a women will earn less than a man, obtain less tenure in a job than a man would, be unable to receive as much a pay raise as a man, or get a promotion than a man would. This will translate into less pay overall for that women compared to a man in the same job.
How about factoring majors? Studies have shown that women, on average, choose to enter lower paying majors than men (sources: www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/18/the-most-lucrative-college-majors-for-men-and-women-charted/ ; www.forbes.com/2010/03/02/top-10-college-majors-women-forbes-woman-leadership-education.html ; www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2015/05/07/the-highest-and-lowest-paying-college-majors/ ; www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-women-like-me-choose-lower-paying-jobs) Now throughout these you may notice that women tend to enter lower paying majors, with a few outliers like business. With this in mind, can you say that a gender wage gap is all that unlikely? I admit that some may say that there is a bias against women in certain fields or that women's work is not as highly valued, but if these were truly the case, then would we have programs for promoting women in said fields? Would we be valuing the work of Marie Curie if the second point were truly the case? For the second point, a woman's work may be less valued due to them being more likely to leave work due to pregnancy or, (and this is my own speculation)to do less work overall? You also see that women tend to enter fields more because they like it, rather than higher pay. That would account for why many of the engineering jobs, such as petroleum engineering, are so commonly avoided by women on average. However, women also seem to be entering jobs that pay less; a defining trait in the graph in the Washington Post article. I would be inclined to believe that part of the wage gap is because of employment choices rather an inherent discrimination throughout every single person in the entire field
Now if a women were to never go pregnant, obtain the EXACT same major, work in the EXACT same job, for the exact same amount of tenure, would they really earn earn the exact same amount as men? Almost, but you're forgetting a key factor that also differentiates between wages: Bargaining(sources: ftp.iza.org/dp7592.pdf ; web.stanford.edu/~pista/oxbes.pdf). Studies have shown that men are more likely to bargain for higher wages than women, and and on average they generally succeed at this better. These studies show that there may be more to the wage gap attributable to the bargaining power of men and women than is given credit for. When accounting for all these factors, the wage gap shrinks to the point of vanishing.
As you can see, the wage gap, a common feminist data point, can be and has been shown to be attributable to things that are not sexist in nature. This has already been addressed on this video series, but I tried to use some different points/sources(and added some of my own) than the ones that Christina used to illustrate a certain point: the results we find can be repeatable. And this is part of the reason why we as an educated audience admire facts: because they do not lie. Therefore, we would admire many a person who we believe to be factual, rather than someone who only propagates a certain point of view. Because being a zealot can only get you so far in life. I would rather be corrected with facts than have my own thoughts, no matter how appealing they are, repeated back at me if they are factually inaccurate. Your move, m1nt3a.
A sample of 349 people used to extrapolate to all users of the Internet...
+Valosken A sample of 349 people who specifically asked for help due to abuse used to extrapolate to all users of the internet...
+Valosken 349 pretend women,
+Valosken The analogy the woman in the video (sorry I don't know her name) made kind of bothered me because it wasn't really apt and didn't really explain why extrapolating a 379 people sample size to all internet users is so egregious, but making an extrapolation like that is still pretty unreliable practice-y.
This report is a primer on how to generate and promulgate bogus statistics.
+SubMan USN that's 80% true.
Really only 73% but what the hell? :P
+SubMan USN
I invented a new perfect device.
20% of the time it works 100% of the time.
+Marz10 83% of statistics are made up on the spot. The other 45% were made up ahead of time.
+SubMan USN
The most telling detail: It doesn't seem to take a lot of effort or information to do it. All you have to do is what the media has been doing for years:
Get people to feel outrage, rake in the ratings and views. Produce as many of these as possible, even if they are low quality. If the population feels immersed in bad news they will be less likely to question the narrative.
Feminists not only demand women speak first, but demand that they cannot be criticized for what they say after they have spoken. No challenges, no critiques, no fact-checking; these things are abuse. Is it any wonder that many folks think that feminists just flat-out hate men? As a male, I'm not allowed to speak first. I'm certainly not allowed to speak during, because were I to attempt to get a feminist to stop calling me "privileged" as a straight, white male, I'd be accused of mansplaining or whitesplaining or needing to check my privilege. And even after they've finished going on about their long-winded screeds, I'm *still* not allowed to question the dogma, lest I'm an abuser.
I'd hate to steal someone else's line, but I really must echo Thunderf00t. If you need to make criticism of your ideals illegal, then your ideas are shit.
+woooudoo Certainly my natural inclination is to also throw a colorful word or two in their direction, but that is the exact type of stuff they're whining to the UN is worse-than-Hitler threats and what needs to be policed. Unfortunately, we're seeming to go full circle on their idiocy here:
Feminist: Nonsense, bullshit, boilerplate, stolen-verbatim gender studies course speech, yaddah blah...
Dude: "STFU! You're crazy."
Feminist proclaims, "Stop calling me crazy! Stop telling me to STFU! These things are abuse! Just let me speak!"
So, regular dudebro says, "But when you speak, you accuse me of...."
Feminist interrupts, "Stop mansplaining and interrupting me! You have had your chance to speak for *millennia!* Now it's women's turn, you privileged cisscum. I'm gender-queer and polysexual with an amorphous vagina puppet, and you're making me feel bad. You are problematic. You need to change. You need to self-censure. Everything is sexist!"
Dude: "Evidence? You sound hysterically and hopelessly lost under enough bullshit to crush Jupiter. Do you realize how hypocritical and nonsensical and illogical you sound?"
Feminist: "I'm a second-class citizen! In every walk of life the Patriarchy tries to stop me and subjugate me and control me, and I'm just fighting back, and you can't stand it as a man. You are abusing me *right now*!"
Dude: "Shut the fuck up, you crazy cunt!"
+woooudoo Yes, they certainly did. I don't disagree. And I'd go further: Not only gamers, but *any and everyone!* Most of these girls are white. We're not telling any tales out of school here. Most of them went to good schools. Most of them grew up privileged with parents who had money. Most of them had their college paid for and rather than studying any science, philosophy of business, they took a "studies" course on race or gender. These people literally have no reason to tell *anyone anything!* They don't have any life experience; they have ZERO frame of reference in the world. They have never had a problem that their daddies didn't handle for them. These white girls are spoiled and privileged and most are barely legal drinking age, yet they have it all figured out: What gamers should think, what's wrong with men, what oppression is, etc.
They don't know the first thing about anything in life. Yet they *demand* to be the very people who get to create all standards by which reality operates.
To say they're crazy is an understatement.
+lemmh2 If you want to know who rules, look at whom you are not allowed to criticize.
(I'm watching this from under my covers, flashlight in hand and rolling pin at the ready)
+The Justicar
Why? You making pizza tonight?
+Plebeian how else will the monsters be afraid of me if I'm not hiding under my covers with BOTH a flashlight and a rolling pin?
I'm a boy; I don't cook, but I'll rock a monster nine ways to Sunday if I need to.
+Prince Revolver well, I didn't say where I had that rolling pin, now did I?!
+The Justicar Same here but I am in my Panic room.
+Sand Theb check your rich privilege!
Honestly, when it comes to the net, there's gonna be A-holes everywhere, and you really only need a strong resolve.
Mash Zawad Real original. 10/10 would meme again.
+Angelic Beast FUCK YOU SHITLORD!
How am I doing?
One of the sources was seriously a fucking C: Drive link. I wish this was just a fantasy, Freddie; I really do.
They love their "moral high ground"
+Domenick boucher Another source linked to a guy's blog or I don't what that unironically mentioned NIntendo made satanic games
+Domenick boucher Well, at least there was a link (not working obviously but still, there must be something behind)
Some of the other foot notes were fucking BLANKS
+Domenick boucher
For the sake of readers, I'll quote the source put in the report:
"Halder, Debarati & K. Jaishankar (2015). Harassment via WHATsAPP in Urban & Rural India. A Baseline Survey
Report (2015) file:///C:/Users/owner/Downloads/CCVCresearchreport2015.pdf"
^ Yup; copy pasted it.
+Player7 I checked on my C:/ drive and the file isn't there, the Illuminati must have hacked me and erased it!!! XD
Thank you factual feminist!
Oh shit get your popcorn ready folks, based mom is about to drop some serious facts on the social justice warriors.
Would have been slightly better if you had pointed out the absurdity of the term "online violence". There's no such thing.
Violence requires physical interaction.
Short, entertaining, to the point, and well-made. Thanks for doing these wonderful videos!
I watched my first interview of Milo last night and I am so glad I did. I was beginning to feel like there were no more "real journalists" left. During the interview he opened my eyes up on a lot of things. I could go on for hours about what information he informed me about because he is one fast speaking person. Glad I ran across the interview, and this video. He was talking about this information in the interview, and so I woke today and wanted some of the details. Great human being in my eyes!
"Online Violence"..... the hell?
Unless you are literally throwing a book at someone, or a laptop with an open PDF file.... words in print *do not* equate to violence.
*Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words on Twitter will give me PTSD*
+HeliRy Just another example of Feminist/SJW newspeak.
Ok it seems i seriously have to ask but since when were you able to commit violence over the net?
Did it get redefined in some way while I wasnt looking or does it still require physical action with the intent to harm before the word applies, and if so, how is anyone a victim of online violence, its a digital space, not a physical one.
As for the UN, what kind of derpy morons are they hiring if this is the standard of their work? They could have hired college students to put together a report and it would have been sourced better. That's not even touching on the implications to free speech. If the UN wasn't a laughing stock before it should be now.
+Christoph Hofland No it was PR spin BS feminists made up for this very report.
+Christoph Hofland I have seen grade school reports that have been sourced better then this report was.
+Christoph Hofland
"Ok it seems i seriously have to ask but since when were you able to commit violence over the net?"
Since we had teh interwebs. It's quite simple: punch through your computer screen, and it will come out the other end :)
+Christoph Hofland : And don't forget that now, ''Cyber-touching'' should be considered as a real form of sexual assault. Dafuk UN?
Facts be damned. It's all about "muh feelings", Christina. You know how this goes. Thankfully, that laughable report was canned even if that act made them look even dumber.
5:16 are you sure you didn't mean an "enthusiastic yes?" ;)
+DoomRulz That report is being edited and will be republished in a few weeks,
arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/10/un-agency-backtracks-expresses-regret-over-cyberviolence-report/
+Joe Joeseph Yeah and they reposed it already as just report highlights taking out all the sources so no one can check them. You can see some of the bullet points in the video. It is a better report in that it stops calling some things just women's problems but that is it. It is still an awful report written by charlatans making conclusions and then putting in bs to try to support it in the hope no one would notice.
***** I wonder what happed to UN resolution 68/167 .. trodden by the feminist boot I guess? www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx
No idea but it would not be the first time a large entity had two different divisions going against each other.
+Joe Joeseph At least their only source wasn't a woman named Jackie.
I dug into that WHO@ data ages ago. Their data was a mess. Don't know if it still looks this way but at the time not only could I not find how they define harassment but the survey itself was missing from their site. It's a complete mystery on what their standards were for evaluation.
I had no clue that bad data had been spread so far. Thank you for bringing this to light.
I truly wish everyone could be as level-headed as you are. Thank you, Christina, for being what everyone in the entire world should aspire to be - Someone who actually cares about facts, and not hearsay. Someone who doesn't overreact to silly claims with no real source, and who actually wants to track down the so called "Citations" that are being provided.
I think people just need to realise that the internet, on the whole, is a toxic cesspit. People are overly aggressive and hostile, and it has been this way for as long as I remember.
Even if there were not blatant errors in the report, it is truly horrifying what they are suggesting. Has none of these people ever read Animal Farm or 1984? Or at least the cliff notes? Or maybe watched the Thug Notes youtube videos (which are great).
It is mind boggling to me that anyone thinks censorship is acceptable for any purpose. And worse to create language that sensationalizes online harassment ('cyberviolence') and attempts to equate that with real violence? I can't see how this is seen as reasonable. Clearly it is all about power and control, not about right, wrong or anything else. Attempts at silencing criticism or debate, whether in poor taste or not, is the fastest path to a totalitarian state. We are already struggling with the power of the state and people want to increase that further to no actual benefit?
And as you point out, the things that are actual violence and threats - are already crimes! And can be prosecuted as such.
Anyhow, thanks for an excellent video on this. The debunking the 73% number is probably the most significant tangible element of calling out blatant misuse of facts.
based mom said "shitposter"
life is complete
Wow, I just happened across your video. Thank you for not only being as factually accurate as you are, but for being as civil as you are. Your civility and the civility of others is how people need to act when discussing issues.
Great to see you posting again, Christina - just sorry it had to be on an event like this. Guess, from the White House to the UN, there's no-one who won't buy into this narrative. Thanks for continuing to be the voice of reason.
How in the name of God can an important organisation such as the UN ever deliver policy recommendations for the entire population of the world based on a test of which the number of participants are in no way shape or form representative of the world's entire female population? Like how? How is it even academically and ethically acceptable for them to choose, with extreme bias, a specific figure from a specific year to prove a (false!) point?
+Tedrick Leong I've pointed this out like 5 times now, the UN threw out the report, they merely allowed the case to be heard (which was still fucking stupid)
73 percent doesn't honestly sound that high considering the internet is what it is but it's not just women. 73 percent of everyone is harassed in some way on the internet. It's just the culture that is caused by anonymity and you'll never change that on the web.
As far as research and citations, this U.N. Report fails to meet the standards I'd expect of my undergraduates in a freshman writing class.
Whoo, glad you're back, CHS.
wow...
How about women just deleting comments of jerks and refusing to interact with jerks. I have 2 channels, one of which is usually assumed to be male and one which is obviously female. I routinely get more abuse when people assume I am male. On either channel, it is deleting and blocking trolls works just fine.
Deleting and blocking is policing and censorship and a form of denying free speech.
+JE Hoyes Boohoo. Put whatever you want on your own channels or pages. You have a forum. I am not obligated to give you one on mine. If no one gives a hoot about what you are saying, then maybe the problem is with YOU.
Jemase
Just saying, if you are opposed to censorship, at what point do you become in favour of it? And vice versa.
+JE Hoyes Oh, but I am in favor of censorship. We have laws regarding libel and slander, stalking and harassment that I am perfectly happy to have applied to the internet. Non-public figures have a legal right to privacy that has been the basis of some decisions and that needs, in my opinion, to be expanded. I am sure that you can think of several instances in which personal information about private people has been posted to the internet in a malicious attempt to cause harm (revenge porn, addresses of abortion providers, etc). I have absolutely no objection to people o cannot behave in a civilized manner being disciplined. As far as blocking and deleting goes, my channels and pages are mine. They belong to me and they contàin information and opinions I want to be associated with. No one is stoppiing other people from creating their own internet soapboxes.
+Jemase You see, you just don't get it. Do you?
A woman should not have to use an umbrella to stay dry. *The sky must stop raining on her*.
A woman should not have to change herself in any way. *The world must change to suit her*.
/sarcasm
If Mohammed had been a woman, she'd still be waiting for the mountain to come to her.
Thank you thank you thank you. It's appalling that they try to make it seem that men do not get bullied.... or if they do think so they think that men aren't hurt.... or if they do think so they just don't give a damn. I don't know which is worse but whatever the case, the report should not be applauded. It's disgusting to constantly see this pattern of ignoring men,
I honestly love you (obviously not in a relationship way, but you gave me a breath of fresh air just now).
You're so sweet and honest.
Please keep doing what you do.
I'm so glad you pointed this out, it really shows how reporting has gone down the drain, and that people can create such propaganda without criticism.
Thank you for being you.
_"This report is currently in revision and will be re-posted as soon as all relevant inputs have been taken onboard."_
There is no mention in UN Women page though that they are reviewing the report. I would say that is rather dishonest and misleading.
+depenthene I'm pretty sure it's a face save and they are never going to go back to it.
doomed89 Agreed. Unfortunately now it looks like they are in fact trying to hide the report, but yet keep information up that had the report as source.
While taking down a report, they would have taken down the page or at very least mentioned in huge block letters that they are reviewing the report and information presented on this page might not be correct.
depenthene Yeah they have the page saying the reports "findings" and recommendations up but the not the page with the actual report. Normally I'd chalk this up to a minor oversight but there's so much corruption involved in this that I'm not willing to let it go that easy.
BASED MOM STRIKES AGAIN!
Things like this turn my stomach. I don't know wether to laugh or cry that most regular people don't even know it's happening.
This hurts my hope for humanity, and at the same time restores it. I'm glad there are some people trying to bring intelligence, logic, and fact-checking back into society. Keep fighting the good fight for all of us, based mom!
My favorite feminist :)
i literally had to pause this video every minute or so because of the inconceivable stupidity of the UN on this matter. It hurt me to my core hearing this. Really, thank you for exposing this, shedding light on it, and applying a critical lens to it.
Keep up the good Work Ms. Sommers, always refreshing to see your videos.
That's what we need, censorship. That's always helpful and conducive in discussion of difficult topics.
How do they define 'online violence'? Is it just a simple threat or more invasive means like doxxing?
This entire topic is dubious as what I consider a "threat" is inherently different then almost every single other person on the internet. Calling name-calling "online violence", to me, is ridiculous. If they take physical action against you, like doxxing or hacking/stealing personal violence, this is were we should be discussing the problems.
"Woozles (False Evidence By Citation) are usually not simply a matter of authentic misreporting. They also reveal a desire to read into the data an a priori position that is really not there, what Bacon calls "idols of the theatre" (see page ix in this volume). All the data reporting mistakes I have found in the literature, without exception, were made in the direction of supporting feminist preconceptions."
Rethinking Domestic Violence, Donald G. Dutton, UBC Press, 2006
"Before checking your priviledge, check your facts" this woman is the most badass, better informed I´ve ever seen on the internet
I had not heard of the term "Cyber Violence" before the whole UN thing. But after I did look into it, I found myself offended by it.
Back in my freshman year of high school (when everyone in the house shared a family computer, or went to the library. 2003/2004!), I went though a bout of nasty Cyber Bullying on a discussion forum. One of the big differences between today and then, was most of the chatter was local, in particular from around the city (and primarily in my high school). Though being attacked by anyone is terrible, it's worse when you know they are around you, hiding in plain sight.
Either way, this almost ended badly. Fortunately it didn't.
Fast forward a decade, and as a result of the growing interconnected nature of society due to both social media networking and mobile devices, Cyber Bullying has skyrocketed (or at least, that would be an unsurprising outcome). And even if not, the tethered connections that most of us have to the Internet would/could amplify the sting of this bullying. I didn't have a laptop or a smartphone to serve up a steady stream of new crap on a minute by minute basis.
So we combine this with another of social media's unintentional downsides, promotion of group think and unintentional economy chambers. All of which creates friction, as seemingly opposing ideas but heads.
And the results of the evolution of thought in one of these echo chambers, is this "Cyber Violence" definition. Though there was already a term that was perfectly suitable beforehand (and has been so for YEARS!), it's far to generalized for the goal at hand . . . ending all Violence against women.
1.) If your solution to online bullying is to only seriously aknowledge half (less?) of its victims, your not looking for a solution.
2.) If you think that words spoken or typed are a form of violence, then your not just in for a REAL shock when you enter the real world, but your also slapping in the face any any all victims of actual real life violence and abuse.
*echo chambers
First video I've seen of yours. I'm impressed. Very concise information and fully backed up. I think we definitely should not censor the internet. It's a fool's errand and pointless. We have to understand that threats on the internet are not to be taken seriously.
I know that sounds bad when maybe 1 or 2 in 10 million might be something real. But, heck, I was a bounty hunter working my way through my engineering degree back when I was in school. I received so many death threats to me and my family....but in the end only one tried to actually act on that. And that's a real life, local thing with a hardened criminal. Not anonymous randoms on the internet.
Anyway, you've got a new subscriber. Thanks
Wow. It's been long! Glad to hear your perspective on this.
+EmceeLorder Reviewing stuff takes a while. ;)
I'm glad I found this. This is probably the first sane bit of content I've been able to find under the label of "feminist" in a long time
You would think that an international organisation like UN, if any, would be strict with their journalism ethics. Absolutely disgusting.
My younger sister was violently raped by a man wielding a knife outside of her apartment around 2:30am one night. She spent a few days and nights in the hospital as a result.
The idea that being bullied online, cat-called, or spoken to by a man [one Feminist claimed that men should not feel "entitled to her time"] is the same as what happened to my sister is outrageous. They refer to everything as "rape," which has effectively ruined the meaning of the word completely.
Given the insanity and fascism that modern SJW feminists spout, your video is a relief. I hope that this logic prevails over fear-mongering and fascism that is being promoted by the likes of Sarkeesian.
Netiquets is a term that comes to my mind, when I consider writing comments to others
Thank You Hoff Summers. Once Again you bring sanity into the debate
The Factual Feminist is the only reason I still have the AEI channel subscribed.
1:52 "the rules of logic intervene."
Well put.
Glorious, fantastic work!
What the hell is "online violence" anyway? I can tell you I've never decked anyone online, and God knows there are times I wish I could.
I truly believe you can lead people to knowledge...
... but you can't make them think.
Why do I feel most "cyber-violence" occurs on social media AKA a place where morons post all there personal information for strangers to browse?
I'm soooi glad someone else called BS on that hahahahaha.
I saaw that exact same study on the Women against Feminism Sommers! That's the main reason why I called BS on this whole "Woman are the of Online shit that no one should take seriously because they're empty threats most of the time" thing.
I never saw that second study......that's amazing. Something must be done to curb that type of thing only question is......How?
Holy hell
That 73% was one of the sloppiest statistics I've ever seen.
How low of a grade would you have to be in, to not get a failing grade when handing that in? Answer: The UN.
First of all I`m so happy that the series is continuing; welcome back! This whole UN thing is a great example of confirmation bias. People who think they are doing something good and for good causes. It just shows how you should never believe something just like that. That`s why i have some footnotes to go trough after seeing this video : D. Like you have said many times over, truth is going to serve people who have actually been affected by internet stalking and harasment so much more than these poorly made and downright false statistics. I`m gonna be in a panel about gender and feminism in Finlands biggest book fair next week, and i´m definitly going to mention your name during that panel. So again, thank you for all your work debunking these false statistics. It`s going to help me a lot in this panel, and hopefully get people to check their facts more often than never.
I'm glad someone like you exists in this world. Keep up the good work
Journalists are so pressured to get things to print quickly so they can be the one to break it to the public. This culture makes it difficult to do real research on the claims made by such groups.
BTW thank you, you renew my faith in humanity.
1:12-1:49 *"The rules of logic intervene."* And thank goodness for that.
Really, that you even need to remind the UN of this is terrifying.
This is so disturbing. You'd think a huge organisation like that would bother to do the most basic of fact checking.
This is almost unbelievable.
A start to any sort of dialog toward the trend of trolling and online harassment that pervades every site and affects anyone, is to have an *open* discussion. Not a closed one. The UN report did what all in the regressive left do, and attempted to silence much needed discussion in favour of one singular perspective. And as it has been shown, that perspective didn't even do it's homework.
How do you reach the regressive lefts without making it a conflict? How do you attempt to question their ideology without triggering their ego? The same can be said about all people who are not open to criticism.
Well, your series does a pretty good job. As good as any.
I was so shocked to hear based mom swear for the first time ever, amazing video as always. I had thought the 73% of women claim being insipid considering that if you're on the internet you know what to expect.
Excellent as always.
Excellent work. Problem is, a lot of people who saw the screaming headlines about the report probably have no idea about its obvious flaws.
These videos are GOLD.
76% of women have experienced cyber violence... so have 100% of CZcamsrs and streamers.
"Every year 1 in 4 woman are admitted to hospitals with life threatening injuries from online violence".
-said no hospital ever.
I think this video came out before Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter for criticising Ghostbusters. I the midst of that, thousands were using the hashtag KillAllMen and no complaints against this were enacted.
I was waiting for this one. Spot on.
Side note: I still don't understand the point in keeping on self-describing as a feminist. I checked the facts and the statements, to the best of my knowledge and good faith (sic) and they compute, total respect. However, the label still creates some kind of cognitive dissonance.
According to the Articles of Feminist Faith, when a man is insulted, threatened, stalked, bullied, or otherwise abused online (or anywhere else for that matter), it has to be because "he must have done something to deserve it."
I freaking adore this woman, not because she is a woman, but because she is an intellectual human being who takes the time to provide thought-provoking arguments and counterpoints, isn't afraid to call out the BS, and stands up for people. You rock, Christina Hoff Sommers!
It's like a bunch of slackers had a report due and just copied off someone else. They don't care if it's "good" or not, just that they have something to turn in.
Thanks to the anonymity of the internet it doesn't matter about your race or gender. It's as dangerous for anyone.
Very good analysis...
This is getting out of hand. These people who are so ridiculous as to hardly be worthy of mockery are now attempting to shape policy. I have grave concerns for the future.
What happened to the intro music? I quite liked that.
Thank you so much for giving us the facts on this. I was horrified when Anita Sarkessian and Zoe Quinn were at the UN. I mean, doesn't it occur to them what sort of road they want to take us down ?
Wow you are the only reasonable feminist I have found on the Internet. I congratulate you. You've earned yourself a new subscriber
I too wish 73% of women watched these videos. The world would be a much more logical place.
Very enlightening. Thank you.
I get harassed every day on the internet and I'm as cis, white and male as it gets. Where is *my* hugbox?
+Jarrod0067 Here
Very Useful...
Great video; People should question ALL statistics.
If I could, ma'am, I would LOVE to shake your hand for being someone in this society that can still think with a clear head.
Perfect statement for Anita, "...but the rules of logic intervene."
"before checking your privileges, check your facts"... I'm loving this channel, just as much as Camille Paglia. Subscribed, Liked with all bells and whistles woohoo
I definitely think some major brands of news should begin fact-checking rather than just making a story - being critical of the things they turn into headlines. Unlike media click-bait it is the duty of the news to keep us properly informed, and their reputations should be put on the line every time they offer incorrect data.
I say this as an avowed atheist, Mrs. Sommers: You are a Godsend of reason and rationality. Thank you for your work.
Personally, i think this is less about protecting women online, and more about getting people to support government supervision and give them more power.
The internet can be tough, aye, but its the last place where we truy have free speech. The anonymity protects us from getting harrased by people for having a different point of view.
Thx for another great video. These big publications should be ashamed. Old media will die if they can't be more credible than Milo.
The lack of any ability in Maths, especially statistics, in people in positions of power is very worrying!!!
Thanks for this posting, Christina. The UN seems to be becoming a source of questionable information these days. A recent critique by a Canadian investigative journalist reveals a similar kind of sloppy reporting on Climate Change. And just when we need to know the real facts too!