DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS

Record Label Coalition Asks Appeals

Court To Uphold Verdict Against Vimeo

 

Gavel      Emboldened by last month’s ruling that SiriusXM was financially liable for playing music recorded prior to 1972, a coalition of record labels now is asking the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a ruling issued earlier this year by U.S. District Court Judge Ronnie Abrams in New York. In that decision Judge Abrams said online music service Vimeo was ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Harbor Act’s safe harbor protections for any user-uploaded clips with pre-1972 music. As reported by MediaPost, the labels this week filed papers asking the 2nd Circuit to uphold Abrams’ ruling, arguing that the “plain language” of the Copyright Act supports the idea that Congress intended for pre-1972 music to be treated differently from music recorded after that date.

Vimeo is appealing Abrams’ ruling, arguing that it has no practical way to distinguish pre-1972 recordings from newer ones. Moreover, the company says the Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains safe harbor provisions that give online companies immunity from infringement liability for material uploaded by users, as long as the companies meet certain requirements – including that they remove infringing material upon request of the copyright owner. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 – which overhauled U.S. copyright law – says it doesn’t annul any “common law” rights that existed before Feb. 15, 1972. Thus, the labels insist the provision preserving pre-1972 common-law rights means that the DMCA’s safe harbors don’t apply to older music.

Different judges have reached different conclusions about this issue, and a number of Silicon Valley companies, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter, have supported Vimeo in the dispute. Additionally, digital rights groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation have filed papers supporting Vimeo. In a friend-of-the-court brief, the EFF said treating pre-1972 and post-1972 music differently would “create an impossible burden for service providers and would stifle innovation.” 

Apple Says iTunes Store Revenue

Grew, But Overall Music Sales Dropped

 

Increase and Decrease      In an 88-page annual report filed Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Apple Inc. revealed the iTunes Store overall took in more revenue in its 2014 fiscal year – which ended September 27 – than it did last year, despite the fact that music sales have fallen. “The iTunes Store generated a total of $10.2 billion in net sales during 2014 compared to $9.3 billion during 2013,” Apple said. “Growth in net sales from the iTunes Store was driven by increases in revenue from app sales, reflecting continued growth in the installed base of iOS devices and the expanded offerings of iOS Apps and related in-App purchases. This was partially offset by a decline in sales of digital music.”

As noted by CNET, Apple didn’t give specifics on how much digital music sales have declined, but the Wall Street Journal last week cited “people familiar with the matter” who said such sales have skidded 13% to 14% since January 1. In a statement that seems to support this estimate, Apple said, “The company’s digital content services have faced significant competition from other companies promoting their own digital music and content products and services, including those offering free peer-to-peer music and video services.” The Journal pinned the blame on growing competition from cheap music sources, such as free videos and $10-per-month unlimited music subscription plans.

A drop in digital music sales is having an impact on global music sales, as listeners to streaming services are buying fewer digital albums and tracks. Apple took steps earlier this year to counteract this shift by acquiring Beats Music, which the company hopes will help it regain prominence as the #1source for digital music. Rebranding the Beats service and integrating it with iTunes should help do this. 

Music Fans Will Come Back To

Apple For These 3 Reasons

 

Apple      Apple is in danger of losing its music industry dominance. That’s the hypothesis of the analysts at Tech Cheat Sheet, which this week reiterated that the digital music downloads market has been in a steady decline over the past year, as more consumers shift from buying digital music files to subscribing to streaming music services. Citing and Nielsen’s and Billboard‘s 2014 Mid-Year Music Industry Report, they noted that individual digital track sales and digital album sales fell by 13% and 11.6%, respectively, in the first six months of 2014 vs. the same period last year. At the same time, on-demand audio streaming grew by 50.1%.

Although Apple has been able to buck trends in the wider smartphone and PC markets, a recent report from The Wall Street Journal suggested the company has not been as fortunate in the digital music download market. Still, the company is not about to surrender its dominance of the retail music market without a fight, and the Cheat Sheet gurus offer three steps Apple is taking to regain its prominence in the digital music universe:

  1. Integrating Beats Music into iTunes: It appears Apple has plans to fully integrate the music streaming service into its iTunes Radio service; rebranding the newly acquired subscription-based music streaming platform with the iTunes label may help the company garner more users who are familiar with Apple’s iconic brand.
  2. Undercutting the competition. Apple is pushing record labels to give it a discount rate that would allow it to offer Beats Music subscriptions for only $5 per month, instead of the $10 per month standard charged by most other competitors.
  3. Apple may be introducing a new digital music format. There are numerous indications that Apple is working on a digital music format that, according to U2 frontman Bono, “will prove so irresistibly exciting to music fans that it will tempt them again into buying music – whole albums as well as individual tracks.

New Tidal Streaming Platform To Compete

Against Spotify With “Lossless” Digital Music

 

Mobile increase      In a gamble (of sorts) that pits quality against quantity, a new streaming music service known as Tidal launched in the U.S. and U.K. this week in an effort to compete directly with such online platforms as Spotify, Deezer, and Beats Music. Developed by Scandinavian technology company Aspiro, Tidal’s monthly subscription is twice the price of most of those rivals – $19.99 vs. $9.99 – with the firm hoping that its promise of “hifi-quality” music induces music fans to pay the extra cost. The service will stream tracks at “lossless” quality – FLAC/ALAC 44.1kHz / 16 bit files at 1411 kbps, to be specific – with distribution partnerships already signed with a range of hi-fi manufacturers that include Sonos, Denon, and Harman.

As reported by The Guardian, Tidal is betting on more than just high-quality audio. It has 25 million individual tracks in its library, as well as 75,000 music videos and a team of editors writing features and interviews about established and emerging artists. “The music is just one part of the service,” Andy Chen, Tidal’s chief executive, said in a statement. “The expert editorial educates, entertains, and enriches the music experience while the music videos complement the music perfectly. We are sure that Tidal will quickly become the music streaming service of choice for all who appreciate high quality at every level.”

Unlike other subscription-based services, Tidal is not offering a separate “introductory” version supported by advertising. Parent company Aspiro has signed licensing deals with all three major labels, as well as independent labels and collection societies in the U.S. and U.K. According to company information, Tidal’s roots lie in WiMP, the Aspiro-owned service that is a rival to Spotify in Scandinavia, and which has its own double-price WiMP HiFi tier offering lossless-quality streams. At the end of June 2014, WiMP had 580,000 paying users, including 17,000 signed up to its HiFi version. 

Motley Fool: With Audio Cards Twitter

May Have “Done Music Right”

 

Twitter Music     It’s been a tough week so far for Twitter, which reported on Monday that its usage numbers stalled in the third quarter, and the number of new users has slowed dramatically. This news didn’t keep the Motley Fool from noting that the social media giant finally may have gotten its music platform moving in the right direction, following last year’s #Music debacle that shut down less than 12 months later.

As the Fool reported, Twitter is giving music a second chance with its rollout of Audio Cards, which were developed to fix the numerous problems users had with #Music. Audio Cards offer a simple solution for users to share music simply by pressing a play button. Not only can they launch a song in a new window, but they can “dock” it so they can continue browsing their timeline. To do this, Twitter enlisted the help of Soundcloud, which is highly popular with social media users and has been an acquisition target in the past. With a new round of debt funding, Twitter may make another go at Soundcloud soon, Motley Fool says.

Twitter also is partnering with Apple, allowing any song on iTunes to stream through Twitter, ad giving users the choice to easily purchase downloads through their timeline with just a few taps. Apple was quick to join up with Audio Cards as a way to help boost activity in its iTunes store, and the company is hoping its early adoption helps spur digital music sales. 

New Microsoft “Music Deals” App Offers

Select Albums At Heavy Discounts

 

Music Business      Windows Phone, PC, and tablet users can look forward to scoring some new music on the cheap as Microsoft has unveiled an app that offers albums for as little as $0.99. Silicon Republic reports the Microsoft Music Deals app allows 101 albums to be downloaded every Tuesday, with newer records available for $0.99 and older LPs costing $1.99. For instance, some of the albums available for next to nothing this week are Slipknot’s latest album .5: The Gray Chapter, Maroon 5’s V, Prince’s Purple Rain, and Fleetwood Mac’s Rumors.

     Once an album is purchased via the app it’s added to a user’s Xbox Music account, where it can be downloaded for listening. The app is only available within the U.S., with no announced plans for a worldwide rollout.

The news follows recent reports of Apple re-branding its Beats Music platform and integrating it with iTunes Radio, with new licensing arrangements that allow it to undercut the competition. (See story, above.) If this is the case and Apple is able to lower the cost of music streaming (and/or downloads), it would seem the two tech giants might become engaged in a digital music price war.

 

A publication of Bunzel Media Resources © 2014

 

After the US election, an escalation of the Mideast war

http://kielarowski.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/51cf9-syriawar.jpg?w=378&h=245

29 October 2014

Last week, the Pentagon announced the death of a 19-year-old Marine, the first fatality among the estimated 1,900 US troops currently deployed in the new US war in the Middle East. This will undoubtedly be only the first of many American casualties in this war, a death toll that will be multiplied many times over for the Iraqi and Syrian men, women and children who will lose their lives in this latest imperialist intervention.

Less than one week before the midterm elections in the US, it is becoming ever more clear that, whatever the results in terms of the breakdown of Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Obama administration will embark on a major escalation of military operations once the voting is done.

Already there is a mounting drumbeat from within Washington’s vast military and intelligence apparatus—and those in politics and the media who voice its demands—for stepped-up bombing and more US “boots on the ground” in both Iraq and Syria.

This campaign for military escalation was summed up in a lead editorial published in Monday’s Washington Post entitled “Mr. Obama’s half-hearted fight against the Islamic State.” The editorial asserts that “an unlikely consensus is emerging across the ideological spectrum” in Washington that the Obama administration’s current strategy in the war on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is “unworkable,” and that “the military means the president has authorized cannot accomplish his announced aims.”

The editorial criticizes the “modest tempo of airstrikes” as well as “the absence of ground trainers and special forces who could accompany Iraqi and Syrian forces.” It cites an unnamed senior Pentagon official as stating that the aim of fielding a new mercenary army of “rebels” in Syria is impossible “if you’re not on the ground to advise and assist them.”

“The United States will have to broaden its aims and increase its military commitment if the terrorists are to be defeated,” the editorial concludes. This means “a strategy to counter the Assad regime” and deploying special operations troops in combat together with Iraqi and Syrian proxy forces.

The editorial follows a report in the Post last week that US and Iraqi officials recently discussed increasing the number of US military “advisers” in Iraq, and that deploying them “in the field with the Iraqis” is under consideration, given the abysmal record of Iraqi security forces collapsing in the face of ISIS advances.

Along similar lines, Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon official and adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has written of US strategy in the Iraq-Syria war “imploding” and dismissed the campaign of air strikes in both countries as “military tokenism.” He insists that “advisers” must be deployed alongside Iraqi troops “as soon as possible,” and that the US must accept “risking combat losses.”

Then there is Lt. Col. John Nagl (ret.), the co-author of the Army’s Counterinsurgency Manual, who states that some 15,000 US “advisers” are needed on the ground, and that the war in Iraq and Syria will have to go on “for at least a generation and probably longer.”

The Vietnam War provides an instructive precedent for the steady escalation in the number of “advisers” deployed in a US overseas intervention. John F. Kennedy deployed several hundred to the country shortly after taking office. By the time he was assassinated in November 1963, they numbered 16,700. Within barely two years, 200,000 US troops had been thrown into the war, and by 1968 the number was well over half a million.

Obviously, there are vast differences between Vietnam, where Washington intervened in an attempt to crush a popular anti-colonial struggle, and Iraq and Syria, where it confronts a crisis entirely of its own making, forged through the destruction of Iraq in nearly nine years of war and the devastation of Syria by the Islamist militias that the US and its allies have armed and supported.

What they have in common, however, is that the existing forces on the ground, the Iraqi army and the so-called Syrian “moderate rebels,” are—like the South Vietnamese Army before them—wholly inadequate (or non-existent) instruments for achieving US aims. Thus, the demand for US “boots on the ground”—plenty of them and in short order.

Once again, the American people are being dragged into a criminal war of aggression based upon lies. While this war is being sold with propaganda about ISIS atrocities against minorities, beheadings, etc., the real objective is the use of military force to assert US hegemony over the strategically vital and oil-rich Middle East.

The aims of this war, which spans national boundaries, involves not only the re-occupation of Iraq, but also the overthrow of the government of Syria and its replacement with a pliant US puppet regime. These war aims, in turn, place US imperialism on a clear trajectory for military confrontation with Iran and Russia, posing the real threat of a Third World War.

Every step has been taken to preclude next week’s midterm elections from providing the slightest possibility for the American people to express their will in relation to the most important political question, that of a war which we are told may last for more than “a generation.”

Just before the bombs began falling in Iraq, the members of the US Congress scurried out of town for a two-month campaign season recess without taking any vote to authorize a war that is both unconstitutional and in violation of international law. Any vote that is taken will be held after the election in a lame-duck session of Congress, thereby assuring that no one will be held politically accountable. In the election campaign itself, the war—like virtually every other social question of vital importance to the masses of working people—is not even an issue.

Nothing could more clearly expose the entirely rotted-out character of the American political system, which is controlled lock, stock and barrel by a financial aristocracy, and in which decisions on imperialist war abroad and repression at home are made by an unelected cabal of military and intelligence officials for whom Obama serves as a mouthpiece.

The corrupt capitalist two-party system offers no means to resist the drive to war. The working class must intervene independently, mobilizing its objective strength in a mass antiwar movement based upon a socialist and internationalist program to put an end to capitalism, which is the source of war.

Bill Van Auken

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/10/29/pers-o29.html

Journalist Matt Richtel’s ‘Deadly Wandering’ tells a harrowing story of technology’s dangers

By Wallace Baine, Santa Cruz Sentinel

Matt Richtel

Matt Richtel

On an early Friday morning in September 2006, a young man named Reggie Shaw climbed into his Chevy Tahoe for his long commute to work in Logan, Utah. Somewhere on a highway east of Logan, with the sky just beginning to lighten, Reggie veered over the yellow line and sideswiped a Saturn coming from the opposite direction. The Saturn spun out and was “T-boned” by a Ford pick-up, killing the two men riding in the Saturn.

From that tragic event comes the story at the center of Matt Richtel’s new book “A Deadly Wandering: A Tale of Tragedy and Redemption in the Age of Attention” (Wm. Morrow).
Reggie Shaw, it was later determined, was texting on his flip phone at the time of the accident, which he initially denied. What followed was the seminal legal case that defined the debate about texting and driving.
Richtel, a reporter at the New York Times, won the Pulitzer Prize in 2010 for his reporting on the risks of distracted driving. In his book, he lays out the narrative of the Shaw case, what happened to Reggie and to the families of the victims, and how the events of that morning led lawmakers to look for a proper legal response to what can be a deadly habit.
At the same time, “Deadly Wandering” probes into the neuroscience of distraction, and the deeply seated neuro-chemical appeal of our ubiquitous hand-held devices.
“I didn’t want to write a book just about texting and driving,” said Richtel, who comes to Bookshop Santa Cruz to discuss his book Nov. 5. “What we’re talking about here goes well beyond what happens in the car. Why are we checking our devices all the time? Why can’t we stand idly in line at the grocery store, or at a stoplight, or with our homework, or with the spouse that sitting right across the table, without feeling that itch to look at our device?”
Chapters on what science is learning about how smart-phone and tablet technology are changing our brains are interspersed within the longer story of Reggie Shaw who later went to jail.
“This is not a screed against technology,” said Richtel of his new book. “It’s a wake-up call to be informed about the power of the neuro-chemical power of these things, in the same way we want to be informed about anything that has lots of power over our lives.”

Research suggests that checking in on your smart phone may release a dose of dopamine, the neurotransmitter that regulates the pleasure centers of the brain. “Ninety-six percent of people say that you shouldn’t text and drive, and yet, 30 percent do it anyway,” said Richtel. “The only other disconnect I can find that is that stark is with cigarettes. Every smoker says it’s bad for you, yet they keep doing it. Why do these devices have such a lure over us.”

Today, Shaw is a crusader against texting while driving. “Deadly Wandering” is an often harrowing chronicle of how Shaw got to the point where he could admit his wrongdoing and atone for causing the death of two fathers and husbands.

“The Reggie story is so compelling because we can connect to him easily,” said Richtel. “The battle that happened after his deadly wreck is a metaphor for our own internal battle about how to pay attention, particularly on the roads.”

This is not, however, a morality tale. Instead of talking about the problem of texting while driving as an issue of responsibility and willpower, Richtel asserts that our powerful and appealing technological devises are changing our behaviors on a neurological level.

“People are getting in their cars every single day, people who are not malicious, who are not bad people, and yet they’re winding up in these deadly wrecks. Driving feels boring a lot of the time. And with every passing moment, we are becoming less tolerant of boredom than we’ve ever been. This thing is constantly beckoning us.”

Matt Richtel

http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ci_26823138/journalist-matt-richtels-deadly-wandering-tells-harrowing-story?source=rss

 

Bill Maher under fire: UC Berkeley students petitioning against comedian’s commencement address

More than 1,700 people have signed the Change.org petition

Bill Maher under fire: UC Berkeley students petitioning against comedian's commencement address
Bill Maher in “Real Time with Bill Maher” (Credit: HBO/Janet Van Ham)

Due to Bill Maher’s recent controversial comments about Islam, students at University of California, Berkeley, are petitioning to have the university rescind his invitation to speak at a December graduation ceremony.

The Change.org petition, which had more than 1,700 signatures as of Monday afternoon, calls for U.C. Berkeley to stop the comedian and host of HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher” from delivering a commencement speech. “Bill Maher is a blatant bigot and racist who has no respect for the values UC Berkeley students and administration stand for,” the petition reads.

The petition was authored by ASUC Senator Marium Navid, according to Berkeley’s student paper the Daily Californian. Navid is supported by the Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian Coalition (MEMSA). The Change.org petition appears under the name of Khwaja Ahmed, who according to the Daily Californian is a member of MEMSA. From the Daily Californian:

“‘It’s not an issue of freedom of speech, it’s a matter of campus climate,’ Navid said. ‘The First Amendment gives him the right to speak his mind, but it doesn’t give him the right to speak at such an elevated platform as the commencement. That’s a privilege his racist and bigoted remarks don’t give him.’”



The controversial comments in question are from a now-infamous debate on “Real Time” between Maher and atheist author Sam Harris and actor Ben Affleck about radical Islam. At one point Affleck called Maher’s comments “gross” and “racist,” and the comments have sparked a wider conversation about religion and liberalism, and a response from author and professor Reza Aslan (among others).

Maher is not the only proposed commencement speaker to be petitioned against. In May 2014 alone there was a boom of campus protests that led to the declining of invitations by several invited speakers including former U.C. Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau.

According to the Daily Californian, University Relations has the final say on confirming Maher as the commencement speaker.

Sarah Gray is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on innovation. Follow @sarahhhgray or email sgray@salon.com.

https://kielarowski.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php

The $2 billion Congress

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/05/money.jpg

28 October 2014

While the upcoming midterm election will be the most expensive non-presidential poll in US history, voter turnout is expected to fall to record lows. Public disapproval of both the Democrats and Republicans—both of which are running on right-wing platforms—is at the highest levels ever recorded.

There is an ever-widening chasm separating the political institutions and both parties from the broad mass of the people. At the same time, the dividing line between elected officials and the financial oligarchy that controls economic life is growing ever thinner. With the passage of every election, the government is increasingly not only controlled by, but also composed of, the extremely rich.

Some recently released figures make this clear. The combined net worth of the members of the US Congress hit $2 billion last year, up $150 million from 2012, according to CQ Roll Call ’s annual tally. The median net worth of the members of Congress is over $450,000.

The release of the report follows the announcement earlier this year by the Center for Responsive Politics, using a different method for estimating the average wealth of US lawmakers, that 2012 marked the first time a typical member of Congress was worth over a million dollars.

Enormous wealth knows no party boundaries in US politics. The Democrats, who like to posture as partisans of the “middle class,” were on average richer than their Republican counterparts. Congress’ notable multi-millionaires include:

* California Republican Representative Darrell Issa, the wealthiest US lawmaker, who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa has a net worth of at least $357 million.

* Texas House Republican Michael McCaul, who is second on the list, with a net worth of at least $117 million. McCaul serves as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Unsurprisingly, his top five campaign donors include the defense contractor Boeing and the airport security device manufacturer OSI Systems.

* Maryland Democratic Representative John Delaney, who placed third. His stated net worth increased over 60 percent between 2012 and 2013, hitting $111 million. He is a member of the House Financial Services Committee. Four of his five biggest donors include financial companies, including Credit Suisse and JPMorgan Chase.

* The House and Senate leaders are all multi-millionaires. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is worth about $2.8 million, while Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is worth $11.97 million. Republican House Speaker John Boehner has a net worth of $2.32 million, and outgoing House Majority Leader Eric Cantor $9 million. Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of $29 million, making her the 14th-wealthiest member of Congress.

In comparison, the net worth of a typical US household was $56,335 in 2013, down a massive 36 percent since 2003, according to a study published earlier this year by the Russell Sage Foundation. Based on that figure, a typical member of Congress is 20 times wealthier than a typical American.

In being staffed and run mostly by millionaires, Congress is in the company of almost every other major institution in the US. For example, eight of the nine Supreme Court justices are millionaires (by far), according to a review of their financial disclosures by USA Today .

The growing wealth of those who populate the institutions of the state is an expression of the decay of democratic forms in the US and the ever-more openly oligarchical character of the US political system.

Corruption, bribery, fraud and all manner of insider-dealings: such is the standard operating procedure of government in the United States. With the whole process fueled by unprecedented levels of cash, candidates spend a majority of their time in office fund-raising among the corporate elite and the well-heeled. Increasingly, individual wealth is leveraged into positions of political power.

If politicians are not extremely wealthy going in, they generally find fortune going out—either through extravagant speaking fees paid by corporations or through the “revolving door” between Congress and big business. A case in point is the Clintons. The couple, according to Hillary, were “dirt poor” after leaving the White House, but have since racked up over a hundred million dollars from speaking fees and other sources, putting them squarely in the top 0.01 percent of income earners.

Without glorifying the past, one can note changes in the forms of class rule over the past century of American politics. The two major parties, the Democrats and Republicans, in an earlier period had broader constituencies. The Democrats had the active support of layers of the middle class and large sections of the working class, along with sections of big business. The Republicans counted on support from small businessmen and small farmers as well as most of corporate America.

These parties have largely lost any substantial, active popular base. They have become hollowed out. They are little more than electoral instruments of a tiny financial aristocracy allied to the military-intelligence apparatus. All important decisions are made behind the backs of the population and sold to the people by a mass media whose leading personnel are themselves multi-millionaires.

Over the course of the past 50 years, amid the deindustrialization and financialization of the economy, accompanied by an extraordinary growth of social inequality, any marginal, relative distance between the political apparatus and the corporate-financial elite has vanished. At the same time, the middle class, the traditional social basis of support for parliamentary democracy, has been increasingly broken up. Broad sections have been proletarianized while the upper layers have seen their wealth soar in line with the stock market.

It is a basic tenet of Marxism that the social class that dominates economic life controls the state as well. This historic truth is being expressed ever more openly and nakedly in official politics.

Under these conditions, nostrums such as the belief that change can be realized by voting or writing your congressman are becoming increasingly discredited. Progressive political change cannot come without a direct assault by the working class on the fortunes and property of the ruling class. The task is not to reform, but to overthrow the existing political system and replace it with institutions that are under the democratic control of the working class, together with the reorganization of economic life to meet social needs, not private profit.

Andre Damon

 

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/10/28/pers-o28.html

Jian Ghomeshi to #Gamergate: Our culture’s toxic masculinity crisis on display

When do we get to talk seriously about misogyny and violence against women? A list of opportunities we should take

 

Jian Ghomeshi to #Gamergate: Our culture's toxic masculinity crisis on display
Jian Ghomeshi (Credit: Reuters/Mark Blinch)

We don’t often get to talk about misogyny, toxic masculinity and male sexual entitlement outside of certain feminist and progressive spaces, whether those spaces are online or offline. In fact, just use the words “toxic masculinity” in a sentence and you’re bound to lose a lot of people straight out of the gate. People, even people who think rape is bad and that mass shootings are terrifying and preventable and that men shouldn’t threaten women with death for critiquing video games, bristle when you direct these conversations back to what seems to connect most of them, if not all of them.

But try to talk about toxic masculinity and you’re likely to get dismissed as a cynical opportunist pushing an agenda. Or a misandrist. (A “creeping” misandrist, even.) I saw that happen a lot over the weekend when women I follow on Twitter tried to talk about the Seattle shooting, in which a 14-year-old boy killed a girl and badly injured four other students, as part of a pattern we’ve seen before. It was a familiar script. When I wrote about Elliot Rodger’s misogyny after he killed six people in Isla Vista, California, I received a lot of angry emails telling me that I was politicizing a tragedy. It seems that, even when a killer leaves hundreds of pages detailing his racist and misogynistic worldview, we aren’t supposed to talk about those things. (We also aren’t supposed to talk about the data we have showing that 98 percent of shooters are men. Or, as the Guardian’s Jessica Valenti pointed out on Monday, research that shows that responses of “explosive anger” are ”two to three times more likely to occur in male teens, and twice as likely in adult men.”)

There is a dangerous and deadly pattern at play, and every day I read something that I file away as part of the growing list opportunities to talk about toxic masculinity, opportunities we should take. Because these aren’t isolated incidents, but the product of something more insidious and more dangerous. Sometimes, I keep actual lists. This week, my list looked like this:



1. Cop stole arrested women’s nude photos as ‘game’: docs

2. Teenage Boy May Have Shot Up His School Because His Girlfriend Broke Up With Him

3. Is GamerGate About Media Ethics or Harassing Women? Harassment, the Data Shows

4. Oklahoma City police officer accused of sex crimes released from jail for second time

5. CBC fires Jian Ghomeshi over sex allegations

Now unless you are of the belief that men are wired to be violent (I am not), then talking about our culture, how boys are raised to view themselves and others around them, seems pretty important. And to talk about this does not mean that all men are rapists or violent killers. And to talk about allegations of rape does not mean we are convicting men in the “court of public opinion.” It just means that there is something going on here, that these stories tell us something, and that the response to these stories reveal something, too. We need to look at and challenge those things.

So maybe we look at the story of cops stealing photos and treating a gross violation like a fun activity or an Oklahoma cop who is alleged to be a serial rapist and we question abuses of power and abuser dynamics in law enforcement. Maybe that can shape some of our thinking about why women don’t always report sexual violence to the cops. And while it may be impossible to know what drove Jaylen Fryberg to kill another student and himself, we have a very familiar set of circumstances that we can talk about instead of running away from them. We can look to the tragedy in Seattle and situate it as part of a larger pattern of violence that has revealed itself again and again and begin thinking about what addressing that violence might actually look like. Whether it’s gun control or healthy masculinity or both of these things.

And maybe then we can think about Gamergate and the harassment that has come to define this “movement” and we can question why so many people seem willing to look past that and lend credibility to serial harassers who have forced women offline and out of their homes. And while we wait to learn more about the allegations against Ghomeshi, we can still think about where our allegiances reflexively go when we learn about high-profile assault cases. Whom we believe and whom we don’t. We can ask questions about how the details included and excluded in reporting on allegations shape our view of those allegations. And we can listen to women who say that they didn’t speak out about harassment or violence they endured because they were scared that doing so would lead to more harassment.

Answers don’t always come easily. But a willingness to sit with and try to answer difficult questions is a minimum standard. Sadly, it’s one we’re failing to meet again and again and again.

Katie McDonough is Salon’s politics writer, focusing on gender, sexuality and reproductive justice. Follow her on Twitter @kmcdonovgh or email her at kmcdonough@salon.com.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/27/jian_ghomeshi_to_gamergate_americas_toxic_masculinity_crisis_on_display/?source=newsletter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,594 other followers