Longtime critic of feminism Suzanne Venker claimed in a recent column that feminism and contemporary sexual mores have eliminated men's incentives to marry.
According to the Pew Research Center, the share of never-married American adults (ages 25 and older) has increased to one-in-five; double the percentage of never-married adults in 1960. The study also found that the gap between never-married men (23 percent) and women (17 percent) also increased during this time period.
In a May 5 FoxNews.com op-ed, Venker blamed feminism and changing sexual attitudes as the reason men don't want to get married. Venker asserted that "men used to marry to have sex and a family," but argued that "when more women make themselves sexually available, the pool of marriageable men diminishes." Later Venker added that feminism has made marriage unappealing to men because "there's nothing in it for them":
Men used to marry to have sex and a family. They married for love, too, but they had to marry the girl before taking her to bed, or at least work really, really hard to wear her down. Those days are gone.
What exactly does marriage offer men today? "Men know there's a good chance they'll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and -- if it all goes wrong -- their family," says Helen Smith, Ph.D., author of "Men on Strike." "They don't want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.Men aren't wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They're being smart."
Unlike women, men lose all power after they say "I do." Their masculinity dies, too.
There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them.
Or perhaps therein lies the rub. If women no longer expect or even want men to "take care of" them -- since women can do everything men can do and better, thank you very much, feminism -- perhaps the flipside is the assumption that women don't need to take care of husbands, either. And if no one's taking care of anyone, why the hell marry?
Venker has a long history of attacking feminism in what she calls society's "war on men," claiming "women pushed men off their pedestal" since the sexual revolution. Venker has also claimed that "the so-called rise of women has come at men's expense. Men have been disempowered."
Fox host Greta Van Susteren claimed the White House "has not yet connected" the Garland, TX shooting to terrorism. In fact, the White House described the shooting as "an attempted terrorist act" earlier that day.
On May 5, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) claimed responsibility for the May 3 shooting in Garland. CNN noted that the group "offered no evidence" of their connection to the attack, and quoted an FBI agent saying the shooters "may not have had formal contact" with ISIS and that he did not think "they were directed by ISIS."
On that day's edition of Fox News' On the Record, host Greta Van Susteren claimed that "the White House has not yet connected this to terrorism," and asked: "Is the Obama administration being overly cautious and could it hurt national security?"
But the White House had referred to the shooting as an act of terrorism earlier that day. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that what "we can say definitively, because of the quick, professional, brave work of local law enforcement forces, is an attempted terrorist act was foiled."
The criticism represents another instance of a long-standing trope at Fox News. Fox has repeatedly suggested that President Obama did not call the Benghazi terror attack an act of terror. In 2014, an on-screen timeline asserted the White House did not call the attack an act of terror until September 20, when in fact Obama described it as such in his initial statement on September 12. In January, Fox personalities were not satisfied by the White House calling the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack an "act of terror" and insisted the administration specifically mention "Islamist terror." Last year, Fox host Ainsley Earhardt complained that Obama had referred to the Pakistani Taliban terror attack as "terrorism" but had not specifically mentioned the Taliban.
Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor since 2001, was named chair of the Pulitzer Prize Board on Monday. Under Gigot, the Journal editorial page has had several ethical lapses and has been a regular source of misinformation on climate science, health care, the Iraq War, and a host of other issues.
Pulitzer administrator Mike Pride told Media Matters a new board chair is chosen annually and the board member or members who have served nine years of their 10-year term normally get the post.
Gigot, who is going into his 10th and final year on the board, was the only member in that position this year, Pride said.
"It is really relatively automatic and nine years on the board give you a greater understanding in the way things work."
Pride, a former board member from 1999 to 2008, left in April 2008 after one year as co-chair with Joann Byrd. He is also the former editor of Concord Monitor. Pride became board administrator in September 2014.
But while Gigot's appointment is fairly routine, his position is one of power and influence over the board that distributes the most coveted awards in journalism, Pride said.
"The chair has some powers for sure in deciding which things we emphasize and which things we focus on," Pride said, later adding, "It's not a weak position at all, it's a strong position."
"He is on all the committees and is really involved in everything."
Gigot's appointment comes at a time when the Pulitzer Prizes have undergone sharp changes in recent years. In 2008, the categories were opened up to allow online-only entries, a major shift for the prizes that had previously been limited to newspapers.
And this year marked the first time magazine entries were allowed, in two categories. As board chair, Gigot can influence what changes are made or not, Pride said.
"The chair has a big effect on that so if the chair decides to slow down something the process will slow down," he explained. "If the chair decides to move faster, it will move along. It is a person that helps to determine the future of the prizes."
NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen called news of Gigot's new position "strange," noting that the Journal's newsroom "often rolls its eyes at the editorial page's evidentiary standards."
In 2011, Women's Wear Daily reported that the Journal's newsroom "often has objections to Paul Gigot's editorial page." The New York Observer noted that "under editorial-page editor Paul Gigot, opinion writers freely dispute the facts reported in the rest of the paper," while "news staffers disavow the contributions from Mr. Gigot's side."
One staffer told the Observer in 2006 that the editorial section is "wrong all the time" and that "they lack credibility to the point that the emperor has no clothes."
Rosen also noted it should "concern journalists" that the Journal editorial page under Gigot "has been a leader in the manufacture of doubt about climate change." As evidence, he linked to a Journal editorial comparing modern climate research to the party dogma of the Soviet Union.
The Journal's editorial page has also been criticized for ethical lapses under Gigot. In the run-up to the 2012 election, the paper routinely failed to disclose columnist Karl Rove's ties to political organizations acting to prevent President Obama's re-election and published at least 23 different op-eds from various Mitt Romney advisers without disclosing their blatant conflict of interest. (The paper eventually added a mention of Rove's political groups to his bio.)
In addition to its climate coverage and ethical problems, Gigot's editorial page has misled on several issues over the years, including electoral politics, the labor movement, health care, and the economy.
The Journal editorial page's low point under Gigot was probably its role in furthering falsehoods in the run-up to the Iraq War. The Journal routinely promoted the idea that Saddam Hussein either had -- or was on the verge of obtaining or producing -- weapons of mass destruction. A characteristic Wall Street Journal editorial from 2003 claimed that the coalition force would find "nasty weapons and the cheering Iraqis...when it liberates the country."
Broadcast media and major newspapers are ignoring the State Department's determination that there is no evidence to support allegations made by Republican activist and discredited author Peter Schweizer in his book, Clinton Cash, that Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state were influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation -- despite the fact that many of these media outlets previously highlighted Schweizer's allegations after receiving advanced excerpts of the book and entering into exclusive agreements with the author to report on its storylines.
On May 4, State Department spokesperson Jeff Rathke said that the department is "not aware of any evidence that actions taken by Secretary Clinton were influenced by donation to the Clinton Foundation or speech on honoraria of former President Clinton." The statement came ahead of the official release of Clinton Cash, Republican activist and consultant Peter Schweizer's book which alleges unethical ties between Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state and foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Broadcast media and major newspapers have fallen silent following the State Department's assertion that they "are not aware of any evidence to suggest that there was any influence." Neither Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, nor NBC reported on State's assertion in their May 4 evening broadcasts. Major newspapers including The New York Times, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, and Time magazine failed to report on the State Department's response, despite many having received advanced excerpts from the book and having previously entered into "exclusive agreements" with Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer to report on "storylines found in the book."
There are over 20 errors, fabrications, and distortions in Clinton Cash, which is being released May 5. Many of the media outlets with advanced excerpts of the book have since admitted it contains "no smoking gun," but The New York Times and Washington Post have failed to report on the book's errors since entering into exclusive editorial agreements with the Clinton Cash publisher.
An editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News offered an embarrassing defense for not bothering to correctly identify transgender people, arguing that widely accepted journalistic guidelines for talking about the transgender community are "confusing" and "misinform[s] the public."
In a May 4 column in The Dallas Morning News, editorial writer Tod Robberson criticized The New York Times and Associated Press for recognizing "the gender preference of transgenders in news copy." According to Robberson, identifying trans people using the pronouns they prefer "distort[s] the truth" in order to embrace "the politically correct transgender language of the day":
The New York Times and Associated Press, among other news organizations, have decided that they will recognize the gender preference of transgenders in news copy. Which is to say, when a male who has yet to undergo gender reassignment surgery nevertheless calls himself a female and is the subject of a news story, he will be identified as a female in all references.
See how confusing that gets? What is the actual, at-birth gender of the person we're talking about? And what gender will the person be identified as, once reassignment surgery is completed? Who knows?
There is a serious ethical discussion in this issue that we in journalism never really had. The orders came down from on high one day, and everyone just sort of jumped on board without questioning the implications. The first ethical issue is whether we journalists distort the truth by embracing the politically correct transgender language of the day.
Like it or not, the use of he/she, her/him, his/hers in print is a grammatical and journalistic necessity. We can't avoid it. But in doing so, choosing the correct word shouldn't be an option selected out of a sense of inclusion or demonstration of open mindedness about sexual identity. Our only choice must be to use the correct words to accurately and truthfully report the news.
El Diario/La Prensa interpretó erróneamente la cifra de menores arrestados por la Patrulla Fronteriza en lo que va del año fiscal en su reportaje sobre posibles incrementos en el flujo migratorio de menores indocumentados.
El Diario/La Prensa, uno de los periódicos en español de publicación diaria con mayor circulación en Estados Unidos y uno de los más influyentes, interpretó erróneamente como un incremento la cifra de menores arrestados por la patrulla fronteriza entre el 1 de octubre 2014 y el 31 de marzo del 2015, diciendo:
En los primeros seis meses del presente año fiscal 2014-2015, la Patrulla Fronteriza arrestó a más de 15,000 menores, un incremento del 45% con relación al mismo período del año anterior. [El Diario, 5/5/2015]
En realidad, las cifras publicadas por la Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza, reflejan precisamente lo opuesto a lo reportado por El Diario/La Prensa. En el primer semestre del presente año fiscal 2015, la Patrulla Fronteriza reporta haber arrestado a más de 15,000 menores, cifra que es en realidad una diminución del 45 por ciento a la cantidad de menores arrestados en el mismo periodo en el año fiscal 2014.
In an interview released on the day of his Clinton Cash book launch, Peter Schweizer admitted he overreached in attacking Hillary Clinton's purported role in approving a Russian uranium deal.
Schweizer is a Republican activist and consultant with a long history of errors and retractions. His latest book, Clinton Cash, is being released today and claims the Clintons helped foreign donors through State Department decisions. The book features over 20 errors, fabrications, and distortions.
During an April 26 appearance on Fox News Sunday promoting the book, Schweizer falsely claimed that then-Secretary of State Clinton "had veto power" to stop the Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency from purchasing Uranium One. Schweizer has suggested Clinton approved the deal as a favor for Clinton Foundation donors.
Schweizer's "veto" claim is false. As Media Matters and others have noted, the State Department was just one part of a nine-agency review panel that oversees such decisions. And members can only make recommendations to the president, not unilaterally "veto" deals. Furthermore, as TIME reported, there's "no indication of Hillary Clinton's personal involvement in, or even knowledge of, the deliberations." To the contrary, one official involved in the process said Clinton "had nothing to do with the decision in the Uranium One case."
During a May 5 Politico podcast interview, Schweizer admitted that "veto is probably not the best word" and "what I meant by veto power was as we explain the process, you know, if somebody objects it kicks in the special investigation."
Twenty years after 189 countries committed to improving the status of women in the media, the United Nations has found some improvements, but little overall change.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Beijing World Conference on Women, at which representatives from 189 countries committed to a blueprint for new global policy empowering women, known as the Declaration and Platform for Action. The Platform identified "12 critical areas of concern" for women worldwide, including the media.
In 1995, the delegates argued that the media helped perpetuate "gender-based stereotyping," and demanded that the "continued projection of negative and degrading images of women in media" be changed. Signatories committed to promoting "women's full and equal participation in the media" at all levels, from management to on-air talent, as well as promoting "balanced and diverse portrayals of women."
Two decades later, the UN has found that there "has been some progress since the Beijing Conference." Notably, "The percentage of stories reported by women has edged up in most issue areas." Women are also highly active on social media, an important force in the media landscape.
However, women are still far from equal in global media. Based on recent data from 108 countries, the UN released an infographic noting that on print, radio, and television news, men still dominate both news organizations and the stories those organizations report on:
The UN also noted that while social media has become "a sounding horn for the feminist movement," it can also be dangerous for women. According to their data, 26 percent of women aged 18-24 "have been stalked online; 25% were targets of online sexual harassment."
Media Matters research confirms that the inequality women face in global news media is a still reality in the United States. As we recently reported, white men now host all of the Sunday morning political talk shows on CNN and broadcast news, giving them a key platform to set the media and political agenda for the rest of the week.
White men also make the large majority of guest appearances. A 2013 Media Matters analysis found that gender diversity on these shows was practically unchanged over the previous five years -- and the numbers are much worse for women of color. This trend has continued since:
Female experts are also often missing from crucial media debates. In one Media Matters study, women's health experts made up only 4 percent of guests brought on to cable news to discuss key abortion legislation. Another study found that women made up only 28 percent of cable news economic guests over the course of a year. And when it comes to discussing national security and foreign affairs, women made up less than a quarter of guests in one year.
As the UN noted, many of these problems stem from newsrooms that are not diverse. Last year, when Jill Abramson was ousted from her role as Executive Editor at the New York Times, it meant that none of the ten largest U.S. papers were led by women anymore.
The UN is now asking signatories from the Beijing Conference to recommit to their goals from 20 years ago, noting that "even a cursory look at media content shows how far there is to go":
Women have an equal right to participate in public debate, including in the media, and offer insights and ideas that must be heard. Everyone deserves to live free from the burden of harmful gender stereotypes.
The media shapes our world -- but so do women, as powerful agents of change in all areas of society. It is time for media to reflect this reality.
On April 29, Media Matters detailed how some mainstream media outlets were helping advance a misinformation campaign against Pope Francis that is being orchestrated by the fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute. That prompted a quick response by Heartland Institute President and CEO Joseph Bast, who vigorously sought to defend the honor of climate science deniers everywhere -- or as he calls them, "global warming realists."
The crux of Bast's argument is that the Heartland Institute and its allies "do not deny climate change." But he sure has a funny way of proving it -- by reiterating claims about the causes and impacts of climate change that directly contradict the nearly unanimous findings of scientists who study the climate for a living.
Here is a side-by-side comparison of what Heartland says about climate science juxtaposed with statements from some of the world's leading scientific bodies (emphasis added):
Peter Schweizer and conservative radio host Dana Loesch speculated that Schweizer could be murdered by "the Clinton machine" over his new book Clinton Cash.
During a May 4 appearance on The Dana Show, Loesch told Schweizer "there is always that concern for anyone who goes up against the Clinton machine that they could be Vince Fostered" and asked if he considered that possibility when "getting himself security." Schweizer replied: "Yeah, I mean look -- there are security concerns that arise in these kinds of situations."
Schweizer added that the security decision was made by his group, the Government Accountability Institute, and the "reality is we've touched on a major nerve within the Clinton camp. They are very, very upset, and they are pulling out all the stops to attack me in an effort to kill this book off."
Anti-Clinton pundits have for years pushed the deranged conspiracy theory that the Clintons had then-deputy White House counsel Vince Foster killed in 1993 and covered it up. Multiple investigations concluded that Foster actually died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in Northern Virginia's Fort Marcy Park.
There are over 20 errors, fabrications, and distortions in Clinton Cash, which is being released on May 5. Schweizer is a Republican activist and consultant who has worked for Republican politicians like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal.
From the May 4 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
LOESCH: We're going to have more on the terror attack in Garland, Texas, last night. I'm glad that they had security, well-thought-out security for that event. And I was reading an article just the other day where author Peter Schweizer, whose new book Clinton Cash -- and this book is just, is really making a lot of people uncomfortable -- Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. I was reading the other day that Peter Schweizer who, the author who joins us by phone right now, was very smart and ended up getting himself security. And I know that Peter, first off, thanks so much for joining me. I know you don't want to talk too much about it, but there is that, there is always that concern for anyone who goes up against the Clinton machine that they could be Vince Fostered, and I'm sure that that was something that you took into consideration.
SCHWEIZER: Well, Dana, first of all thanks for having me on the show. I always love doing it. Yeah, I mean look -- there are security concerns that arise in these kinds of situations. You know, you don't like to go into too much detail, there were some things that were going on that we felt needed to be addressed. The decision on security wasn't actually made by me, it was made by board members of Government Accountability Institute, and you know, it's I think showing an abundance of caution. The reality is we've touched on a major nerve within the Clinton camp. They are very, very upset, and they are pulling out all the stops to attack me in an effort to kill this book off.