Spot the difference.

rick_chasey

Lads mag chat or rapist chat?

Seems it's not that easy.

http://jezebel.com/5866602/can-you-tell ... d-a-rapist

roger_merriman

indeed.

jds_1981

Despite not having read a 'lads mag' in ages I managed to work out which was which in just about all of those quotes.

Easiest ones were about people dressing in certains ways 'asking for it' = 'r'. Then carry on from there.

iPete

12/16 right but then I tend to avoid lads mags!

bails87

iPete wrote:

12/16 right but then I tend to avoid lads mags!

....but not rapists? :shock:

SimonAH

With careful thought and analysis it is reasonably simple to identify which is which - but if not the language, then certainly the sentiment appears almost identical in both....which leads to some worrying possible conclusions (and generalisms!)

1) The journalism is tailored to the intended readership.

1) The intended readership harbour deep misogynistic views, and whilst might not be likely to commit rape themselves get a frisson of excitement reading / fantasising about it.

2) In fact they believe that all women are gagging for it, and the only reason for not bending anyone in a short skirt over a park bench and, ahem, smashing them is that in this misguided lefty world it isn't legal anymore.

As these 'mags' are still relatively sucessful (given the overall decline in the magazine market) one has to assume that writing in the style of a rapist (which is what is shown in this experiment) has a large mass market in the UK. Bit worrying isn't it?

Anyway, must go as my dirty slut of a wife is back home soon and me and Des are gonna spit-roast her and put it up on Voyeurweb - whether she likes it or not, the b1tch.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

With careful thought and analysis it is reasonably simple to identify which is which - but if not the language, then certainly the sentiment appears almost identical in both....which leads to some worrying possible conclusions (and generalisms!)

1) The journalism is tailored to the intended readership.

1) The intended readership harbour deep misogynistic views, and whilst might not be likely to commit rape themselves get a frisson of excitement reading / fantasising about it.

2) In fact they believe that all women are gagging for it, and the only reason for not bending anyone in a short skirt over a park bench and, ahem, smashing them is that in this misguided lefty world it isn't legal anymore.

As these 'mags' are still relatively sucessful (given the overall decline in the magazine market) one has to assume that writing in the style of a rapist (which is what is shown in this experiment) has a large mass market in the UK. Bit worrying isn't it?

Anyway, must go as my dirty slut of a wife is back home soon and me and Des are gonna spit-roast her and put it up on Voyeurweb - whether she likes it or not, the b1tch.

The point is the language used is the same.

Lefty academic types see language analysis and deconstruction as a way to understand how people 'know' the world. If you 'know' women in those terms, there's considerable conceptual space for misogynistic ideas and beliefs, and no real conceptual space for more egalitarian ideas re gender.

SimonAH

Absolutely - but what I was trying to point out is that whilst the experiment is couched in the terms of "You can't tell the difference between the mag and the rapist - ergo aren't those mags terrible" it is more interesting to consider it in terms of "Those mags are terrible, but they are written for a specific audience, and that audience therefore must identify with the sort of sentiments that froth from the mouths of rapists"

rick_chasey

I think the study probably was. Haven't looked at it myself, but I've made similar types of analysis.

You know what reporters are like...

bails87

"You know what reporters are like..."
Yeah, rapists apparently

Edit: Actually, calling someone who writes with his bestest crayons for Nuts a 'reporter' is probably an insult to the genuine reporters out there.

But let's not forget Danny Dyer's advice to someone who was sad after being dumped:

The actor and TV presenter said in his Ask Danny column: "...... cut your ex's face, and then no one will want her"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/may/05/danny-dyer-zoo-magazine

Kieran_Burns

bails87 wrote:

"You know what reporters are like..."
Yeah, rapists apparently

At least they aren't rapsits.... (who remembers THAT thread?)

jds_1981

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is the language used is the same.

Apart from it's not as it is quite possible to spot the difference (Perhaps a wide slice of the population in general is not, but I was able to fairly easily and believe there are general hallmarks on the language to allow anyone to tell the difference.)

Anyway, if you want to argue against articles in the magazines in general, go for it. I think taking short paragraphs out of context and using that for some kind of argument is intellectually dishonest.

rick_chasey

jds_1981 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is the language used is the same.

Apart from it's not as it is quite possible to spot the difference (Perhaps a wide slice of the population in general is not, but I was able to fairly easily and believe there are general hallmarks on the language to allow anyone to tell the difference.)

Anyway, if you want to argue against articles in the magazines in general, go for it. I think taking short paragraphs out of context and using that for some kind of argument is intellectually dishonest.

No, the perspective is different. The language used seems pretty similar. Similar enough that in the more controlled circumstances of the research, the participants couldn't reliably tell the difference, and, overall, found the lags mags to be more derogatory...

rjsterry

jds_1981 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is the language used is the same.

Apart from it's not as it is quite possible to spot the difference (Perhaps a wide slice of the population in general is not, but I was able to fairly easily and believe there are general hallmarks on the language to allow anyone to tell the difference.)

Anyway, if you want to argue against articles in the magazines in general, go for it. I think taking short paragraphs out of context and using that for some kind of argument is intellectually dishonest.

I have to say that as a demonstration that writers for lad-mags used the same language and general tone as rapists, I was unconvinced. I spotted the difference fairly easily.

BTW, the editor of Nuts (or was it Zoo) also wrote a column for one of the Mother and Baby magazines about looking after a pregnant partner - I'm not sure if it's more or less worrying that the style of Nuts is 'for effect'.