Category Archives: Article and Video

#MeToo — Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Video and Script.

We live in a very dangerous time for men. If they are accused of sex assault or rape they are automatically assumed to be guilty. Whatever happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty? Out the window, but why? That‘s what we are going to talk about. We’ll examine the ways that feminists have encouraged the disruption of due process. I ran into an excellent article on this topic provided by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity titled “‘Believe the Victim:’ The Transformation of Justice”. This video will give you a summary of that article and some additional ideas.

But wait. Before we go any farther. We know that not all accusations are true. Right? Just a quick look at these gentlemen  (here and here) easily makes that point. These are all men who were falsely imprisoned for rape or sexual assault, many of whom for years. It turns out the Innocence Project has rescued 353 cases of wrongful convictions and 274 of those cases were men falsely accused of rape or sexual assault.   That’s about 77% of those who have been freed. Do we see a pattern here? It’s also worth noting that less than 1% of those who were freed for wrongful convictions were women. That’s with about 18% of the jailed population being women. It seems clear that we are not as careful in convicting our men as we are with our women. And we are simply not very careful when it comes to rape.

But why? One answer is of course gynocentrism which defaults to protecting women and children at the expense of men. That is likely a part of the problem but there is obviously much more. I think that the advent of the feminist driven gynocentrism 2.0 has played a much larger role than most assume. If you want to know what I mean by gynocentrism 2.0 you can check out a video linked here. 

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity paper starts by quoting Lewis Caroll and pointing to the Red Queen’s zany idea that you need to start with the sentence and worry about the verdict after.  Yes the wonderful fantasy of Lewis Carroll, and Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.  Think about it. This Lewis Carroll crazy “world upside down” fantasy is now coming true. This is exactly what the feminists are telling us. Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

Let’s have a look.

There are lots of women me too-ing these days. And good for them to speak up about possible past trauma but there is another trauma that is running parallel that no one notices.  That’s the cultural assumption that all of the men who are being accused are guilty.  All of them.  Simply because a woman has accused them they are thought to be guilty. The falsely accused men are alone in their awareness of this travesty. It’s a good guess that they are trapped and left to face alone a great deal of trauma, undeserved judgment, and hatred. In some ways this is standard gynocentric procedure since the emotional pain of men is taboo and the emotional pain of women is a call to action. That is, people run from male emotional pain but work to help the emotional pain of females. We see this in spades and amplified with the me too rush to judgment.

But how did it get so bad? Enter the feminists who have proven over the years to be willing to ignore the pain of men.

What did they do?

Look no farther than the violence against women feminists.  The End Violence Against Women International folks have played a role in this. They wanted more rape convictions so what did they do? They wrote a manual to instruct law enforcement how to treat the accusers. Can you guess what they told them?

I bet you can.

They focused on the idea of “Start by Believing”. They basically portrayed rape and sex assault accusers as needing to be believed at all costs. Without exceptions. Involved police officers should start by believing women who claimed they were raped or sexually assaulted. Believe them no matter what. These feminists seem to be saying that the accusers didn’t need an investigator who sought the truth, no they actually need an understanding buddy and the first thing that new buddy needed to do was believe what they said. No matter what! Just like a good friend!

Hard to believe right? When I read this the first thing that popped in my mind was that this strategy didn’t work out so great with Crystal Gail Mangum and the falsely accused Duke lacrosse boys. The faculty at Duke started by believing and kept believing even though the accuser was a liar.

Have a look at the start by believing web site and what they tell law enforcement. This page has testimonials, let’s read one:

My name is Officer Don Kirk. I am a Police Officer at the University of Utah, Department of Public Safety. When someone tells me they were raped or sexually assaulted, I Start by Believing.

Get the picture? These trainings tell police that they are supposed to believe the victim NO MATTER WHAT. Just what do they think this might do to an accused man who is innocent? Wouldn’t believing the accuser necessarily make one not believe the accused? They don’t seem to care. This is the typical only see one side of the picture bully feminists.

They are not even allowed to consider that there might be a false accusation. In essence what they are asking the police to do is to become an advocate for one party, not an impartial investigator. All the while believing that women never lie.

These feminists are demanding that Sgt Friday who asked for just the facts ma’am be transformed into Mr Rogers. You know, the accuser’s best buddy. Now I liked Fred Rogers but surely even Fred knew he was not suited to be a criminal investigator. This is something the feminists don’t seem to care about. The accuser gets Fred while the accused gets Sgt Friday.

An investigater doesn’t pick sides. He gathers that data and lets the courts decide. But If he tells one party he believes them what does that do to the other? Well, the other party must be guilty!

English Jurist Sir William Blackstone famously said in 1765:

‘It’s better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted’

It seems the feminists are thinking just the opposite, it’s better to see 10 innocent men jailed than to let one guilty man free.

It’s worth noting that this hateful stuff doesn’t talk about complainants or accusers, it only talks about victims. It veers away from using typical vocabulary of investigations. Here’s what the Center for Prosecutor Iintegrity article has to say about this

The pro-conviction, pro-victim orientation of EVAWI’s 2006 manual and other documents is evident in EVAWI’s choice of terminology: the words “alleged,” “complainant,” or “accuser” never appear. In contrast, “victim” appears literally hundreds of times

In 2011 they started the Start by Believing Campaign funded by millions of dollars of grants, that is, taxpayer money, from the Violence Against Women folks. (DOJ) They used this campaign to do workshops and spread this philosophy to law enforcement and other professionals such as detectives, criminal investigators and even college administrators. ugh  What did they train them to do? They trained them to believe the accuser, no matter what. Ooops, I mean believe the victim.

So the VAWA folks are asking us to ignore the possibility of women lying and false accusing when science has shown us clearly that women do sometimes lie.

In fact the more likely form of aggression from women is not physical violence but relational aggression and what constitutes relational aggression? Lies, gossip, false accusations, mis-directions and more. So lying is a part of the female manipulative repertoire and the police are told to start by believing? Really?  For more info on relational aggression see a previous video.

2.
Another part of their philosophy is to demand that officers carry out what they call “trauma informed investigations.” In other words, be sensitive to the state of the accuser and adjust judgment due to her having been traumatized. They go on to list many symptoms that they say are due to trauma that investigators need to overlook since they may be due to trauma. Things like memory lapses, or fragmented memories, or even appearing incoherent. Why overlook these? Well, they claim that the neuroscience of trauma explains that trauma will induce such things as memory losses, and inconsistencies of the story. You know, the sorts of things that red flag an investigator into questioning the veracity of the complainant. Those things. But now the feminists are saying that the things that might be red flags are simply symptoms of her trauma and in fact prove she was traumatized! Wow. What a system! But sadly for feminists the facts of neuroscience seem to say something else. There are studies that indicate that trauma actually improves memory! Trauma is remembered more clearly than an uneventful lunch last week.  hmmmmm

If you want confirmation of the misuse of neuroscience look no further than a Harvard Feminist, Janet Halley, who is attacking this nonsense. Listen to what she says:

The remaining third of the document (and thus the entire remainder of the training) provides a sixth-grade level summary of selected neurobiological research.

What she calls a sixth grade summary others call junk science. And how do they use this junk science to get more convictions? She then goes on to explain how this is used. Remember, this is a Harvard feminist speaking:

The take-away lesson of these pages is that a victim of sexual assault may experience trauma, which in turn causes neurological changes, which in turn can result in “tonic immobility.” Tonic immobility, in turn, can cause the victim to appear incoherent and to have emotional swings, memory fragmentation, and “flat affect.” Her story “may come out fragmented or ‘sketchy,’” and she can be “[m]isinterpreted as being cavalier about [the event] or lying.” These problems, in turn, can cause police and sexual harassment investigators to dismiss serious claims, tragically because of symptoms of the trauma itself.

Can you see how devious this is? What we see is a push for the normalization of symptoms such as inconsistencies, incoherence, fragmentation, lack of memory or others as signs of having been traumatized. These claims happen to also be the very things that an investigator might use to dismiss charges. See how it works? The very things that might prove the defendant innocent are claimed to be due to trauma. What a racket!

So far we have that you must believe the victim and now that you must believe her even if she says things that indicate she is not telling the truth!

What, oh what could the last section be?

3.
The third wave of this zany propaganda is that investigations need to be “victim centered.” What they mean by this is that they believe the victim needs to have more control over the investigation and have input over what needs to be discussed and when. Mind blowing idea.

Imagine it was the other way around. Believe the accused, no matter what. Ignore his inconsistencies, give the accused more say in the way the investigation unfolds. Oh boy. It’s easy to see the preposterous nature of always believeing one side when we suggest to only believe the accused. No one would buy that and all would protest loudly. But the other way and people cheer, sign on, and take the pledge. Yes, these folks have been getting law enforcement to pledge they will start by believing.

These bullies are more than happy to force investigaters to become a one sided advocates to the complainant and to ignore inconsistencies while they crap on the accused.

Can you see how for years these zealots have been pushing the idea that accusers never lie and if you have the audacity to think they might be lying you are a real scumbag misogynist. They have been working the public, the police, our universities and the court system to subvert our system of justice. The most infuriating aspect of this is they are doing this with taxpayer money. Your money, my money. Where is the oversight? It is blatantly obvious that they are defying our constitution and our system of justice. Where are those who are willing to say NO to these bigots?

If we are going to give an advocate to one side of a criminal investigation it seems only fair that we do the same for the other. How many accused men could use an advocate? But that will never happen in our one sided hateful system that allows the accuser to be protected with anonymity while the accused is dangled in front of a hungry press that sells more papers by condemning and ridiculing an accused man. Wouldn’t it be more fair to give both accused and accuser anonymity? Not the way the world works now, no.

I don’t really mind family members, friends or therapists to take on the start by believeing support. That is fine and needed by both the accuser and the accused but where we need to draw a firm line is when we try to influence criminal investigations with ideological propaganda. That is way out of line and in need of immediate correction.

The last word goes to Superior court justice Anne Malloy who articulately summed up this situation:

Although the slogan “Believe the victim” has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society.

Well said your honor.

I hope you’ll all come and join us on patreon where we’re starting to meet in video hangouts. All menaregood videos now go to patreon first for review, feedback, and suggestions before being finalized for youtube. We could use your input. Special thanks to J, Paul, and Peter for their helpful feedback on this one.

Join us.

And let’s not forget, men are good, as are you.

Please follow and like us:
error

The Manmade Plague of Fatherlessness

 

One of the most damaging things that has ever impacted our culture is fatherlessness.

Back in 1965 Departent of Labor Secretary Moynihan did a report on the inner city and his report showed that it was not race or poverty that had deteriorated the inner city African American community, it was the absence of dads.   We knew at that point, in 1965, that not having dads in the home was seriously injuring our families and our children.

But what did we do? Our politicians both from the left and the right marched ahead and did more and more to remove dads from homes. We went from Father knows best to father is a pest. Government slowly took on the role of substitute father. Welfare demanded no dad at home in order to get that welfare check. No fault divorce was instituted and then we created bogus expensive echo chambers called family courts that routinely removed men from their homes after they had depleted whatever income and savings the men might have had. We glorified single motherhood which was actually the root of our problem while we demonized males as being the source of all of our difficulties. It is hard to imagine a more sinister plot to ruin our country. Now we spend billions upon billions of dollars failing to fix the symptoms of fatherlessness while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the real problem, the chronic absence of dads in the home.

We are at the point now where nearly 40% of all school age children in the United States are not living with their father.

The research tells us plenty about this mess. Here’s a list of problems that are related to fatherlessness:

  • Suicide
  • Rape
  • Job Failure
  • Delinqueincy
  • Low empathy
  • Anxiety
  • Bullying
  • Drug abuse
  • Prison
  • Smoking
  • High school failyure
  • Depression
  • Alcohol abuse
  • Being bullied

The research could not be more clear about the connection of these things to fatherlessness. In fact the research goes a step farther. The work of Sara McClanahan literally shows that some of these results of fatherlessness are causative. That is huge. Never have I heard social science research claim something is causative, they always frame it in terms of correlation not causation. But the results of fatherlessness are now being understood to be causative.

Damn.

McClanahan points out that the evidence is strongest for outcomes such a s High School graduation, Children’s social emotional adjustment, and later adult mental health but there is plenty of data supporting all of the others.

Let’s take just one. Low empathy.

A longitudinal study found that the strongest indicator of empathy was father presence in the home. So often we assume that mom is the empathic one and would be the one to teach the children about empathy but the research shows something very different. In fact it showed that the importance of father presence was so critical it was three times as important to the child’s later empathy than the top three factors from mom combined.

Why would dads be connected to empathy? I am sure you are wondering this as did the researchers. Most are thinking now that it is the dad who sets the limits and does not back down or waver. Think about it, the child says I want my ice cream and dad says, nope, not till you eat your broccoli. The child says, no, I want ice cream now, dad says nope, broccoli first or no ice cream. This goes on for a while until the child realizes that dad will not back down and so they eat the broccoli and then get the ice cream. What happened? One element in this is that the child had to see the world through the father’s eyes. They couldn’t simply see their world through their own desires, they had to see them through dad. It turns out this act is practice at seeing the world through the eyes of another and this is actually the critical rudiment of empathy. The capacity to see the world through another’s eyes. If we can’t see the world through another’s eyes we will likely stay  in our narcissistic and self centered world. Dad’s limit setting is essential for the maturity of the child.

This is a stunning finding and if true you would expect to see a diminishing of empathy among our young people that would correspond to the increasing lack of dads in the home. Guess what? That is just what we see. A study showed that empathy was down 40% in 2010 college students compared to those in the 1970’s.  This 40% drop was from negative responses to questions like this one  “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective.”  Wow.

Could  this drop in empathy be related to fewer dads at home? My guess would be yes.

So dads set limits, what else do they do? They roughhouse!

Guess what is being found about rough housing with kids? Research shows that roughhousing helps the kids be more socially adept and fosters their resilience. It teaches them the difference between play and actual aggression. When dad roughhouses they learn that being rough can be fun. They also learn the limits in this fun as dads tell them when they’ve gone too far.

And what about dads throwing their kids up in the air? Ever seen that? The dad throws them up and the kids scream with delight while mom frets and complains! The kids love it and dad knows exactly what he is doing. Guess what, they have found? Children who are tossed in the air are better able to take risks as adults. Again, this is a behavior that dads do automatically, both they and the kids love it and it has huge positive impact on their later development.

It’s hard to imagine how many other things dads do with kids that have been shamed that are actually helpful to their children? I am sure there is more to learn about this.

It seems very clear that dads are a crucial part of a child’s life. It’s also clear that certain groups have been trying to minimize this for decades. Politicians, feminists and lawyers come to mind. I think these groups owe dads and men an apology. It’s time we all worked together to be sure that dads and moms both have time with their children. .     Also know that there are some excellent organizations that are fighting hard to make this happen. Leading Women for Shared Parenting and the National Parents Organizations are two doing this important work. Check them out and support them!

My thanks to Warren Farrell who has been sharing chapters of his yet to be published book on boys. Some of this was used for this video.   It’s due out in March. We are all in for a treat!

Let’s not forget, men are good, as are you.

 

Please follow and like us:
error

The Everyday Hatred of Men: Part one, Patriarchy

(this is the script for the first video in a youtube series that I just completed on the Everyday Hatred of Men.  The series examines Patriarchy, Toxic Masculinity, Hegemonic Masculinity and then concludes with some ideas about why the hatred is allowed to stand. I will be publishing these here in order.  If you want to skip ahead and see the entire series you can see them here. TG)

___________________________________________

Rarely in nature do things go just one way. We live in a world that is filled with complexity and subtlety. And yet, when it comes to men we see three popular theories that are horribly one sided and hateful. The feminist Patriarchy theory, the academic hegemonic masculinity theory and the media’s whipping boy toxic masculinity.

Were going to have a look at all three. Let’s start with patriarchy.

Feminists have developed a clever system that they can call on to assign blame for most any problem they might have or see. They call it patriarchy. Basically it holds men as evil and accountable for the ills of the earth and women as its victim.

Here’s one of the only definitions I could find:

Patriarchy is the term used to describe the society in which we live today, characterized by current and historic unequal power relations between women and men whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed.

Uh huh, right, I believe the idea of women being oppressed in the us was the biggest lie of the 20th century. But let’s move on.

Listen to what Andrea Dworkin a feminist icon had to say about it:

Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.

Every son is the inevitable rapist. Every son means all men. Got it. Now let’s hear from Mary Daly, another well known radical feminist

Almost everything has been stolen from us by the patriarchy. Our creativity has been stolen, our creative energies, our religion. I want it back.

So patriarchy is a narcissists dream, something to point all the blame at others and at the same time holding you as an innocent victim. Pretty snazzy way to blame men while being blameless.

You would think that after many years of making such ground shaking claims that these folks would have research to back them up. Nope, not that I can find. What I saw repeatedly when asked to prove the existence of patriarchy was the pointing towards the fact that more men are the ones in the positions of power.

Okay, gotta agree that men are dominant in positions of power but just how did that happen? These folks would have you believe that eons of evolution of our sex roles have been created just to disadvantage and oppress women! This is an extraordinarily ego centric and self centered claim. It actually reminds me of a 5 year old girl who’s birthday party and pony ride was rained out and she blames it all on her brother. It’s all Jimmy’s fault! He ruined my birthday. It’s all about me! Jimmy hurt me jimmy had a pony ride! She just doesn’t have the psychological maturity to see the actual factors that are involved and needs someone to blame.

When one does look for research about how and why our sex roles have differentiated as they have you get a very different picture. Let’s look at just one tiny aspect, that of testosterone. Scientists are now claiming that the major role of testosterone is to increase one’s striving for status. That’s right, trying hard to win, wanting to be at the top, competing competing competing. Since men have 10 to 20 times more testosterone doesn’t it start to make sense why there are more male CEO’s? The men are pushed by their biology to succeed. To hear more about testosterone and other factors that push men to the top you can see my recent video on that topic.

So wait a minute. Patriarchy is likely at least partially due to biology. Uh Oh. Feminists don’t believe in biology! They think that all of our differences are due to socialization, and that means that even patriarchy is due to socialization! They are what is termed cultural determinists. That means that they see the world only through the lens of how our culture constructs it. Biology be damned! Genetics be damned! Brain and hormones be damned!

So its not hard to imagine feminists getting confused about what is caused by biology and what isn’t. I can guess they might get upset about women not being as tall as men. Patriarchy! Start support groups, get legislation to make women taller, shame tall men. Get the idea? This may be a silly example but it is not far from their myopic gestalt challenged cries of patriarchy

The most perplexing part of this is how intelligent people have failed to call the feminist’s cards. Very few are willing to in argue the ridiculousness of patriarchy theory. When something is this one sided and wrong the most likely problem is likely a bully. I think that is happening here. No one is willing to tell the empress she has no clothes. Academia is petrified to cross the women’s studies gulag. Academia is filled with cowards.

There are some who are willing to question this. Most are men and as usual the men have both clarity and a sense of humor. Let’s take a couple of examples: Here’s one from Milo:

You see, feminists don’t really like to define the Patriarchy. They prefer to keep it nebulous and amorphous so they can conveniently blame it for everything that goes wrong in their lives. Not being paid enough? Patriarchy! Not getting a promotion? Patriarchy! Too many catcalls? Patriarchy! Too few catcalls? Patriarchy!

And then an urban dictionary poster named shikaku says patriarchy is:

The bogeyman that feminists blame for women’s problems or under-achievements because their big-girl pants apparently don’t fit. shikaku

And here’s one from Fidelbogen. He says patriarchy is:

A rhetorical device which props up feminist ideology by making it easy to impose a state of collective guilt upon half the human race, namely the male half.

Bravo gentlemen, thanks for stepping forward with the courage to challenge patriarchy.

So the term patriarchy has become a weapon used against men.

At the same time it is a shield to protect women from accountability. I can hear the feminists saying “but but but patriarchy hurts men too.” Yeah, right, that is like saying men are assholes and that hurts men too. Give it a rest. Hate is hate. Blaming a birth group for the worlds problems is hateful. We need to call it out wherever we see it.

Part two will look into Toxic Masculinity

 

 

tp see parts 1-4 you can access the menaregood youtube playlist here.

Please follow and like us:
error

Domestic Violence Double Standards: Men Get Shackles, Women Get Chuckles

Ray-Rice-married.final

Ray Rice got a raw deal.  

We are living in a world of huge double standards when it comes to domestic violence and our men are on the bad end of the deal.  When a man commits domestic violence  he is punished very harshly.  But when a woman commits domestic violence she gets cheers, chuckles or is all too often ignored.

Just look at what happened to Ray Rice.

The video of the incident showed Rice’s girlfriend (and soon to be wife) hitting him twice, once before getting on the elevator and once on the elevator.  Then it shows her moving aggressively towards him in what appears to be an attempt to strike him a third time. (please note this not a defenseless woman cowering in the corner) Rice responds by hitting her in the face and she hits her head on a handrail which then knocks her out.  The eventual response to this incident?  Ban Ray Rice from his lucrative association with the NFL, and be fired from his team, the Baltimore Ravens.  These two things obviously shame him, put a big DV on his forehead, cut off his income, his prestige, and his association with his friends and teammates.  A very harsh and far too stringent response in my opinion.  But wait.  What would happen if we reversed the roles here?

Let’s see.

Imagine this: Ray Rice hits his girlfriend before getting on the elevator and then again on the elevator.  Then moves aggressively towards her in what appears to be a third attempt to hit her.  As he moves in to hit her she hits him in the face and he hits his head on a handrail knocking him out. What is the response to this?  My guess is she would get accolades and be seen as a hero, a woman who successfully protected herself from an abuser.  She would likely be on talk shows and be held up as a role model for all women.  Rice would likely be arrested for domestic violence while she is seen as a hero.

Do you see the problem here?   For the same behavior she is a hero and he is shamed and banished.

So Ray Rice was not guilty of beating up on a completely defenseless woman.  No.  As we previously described this was not some cowering woman in the corner covering her face with her arms and hoping not to be hit, this was an aggressive woman who had already struck him twice and was moving in for the  third blow.  This is very different from a defenseless women.  Yes, Ray needs to take responsibility for hitting her but doesn’t she need to take responsibility for hitting him? Isn’t she clearly guilty of domestic violence?  I read quite a few articles on this incident and I simply don’t remember ever seeing her violence addressed. No one ever mentioned it.  Just another example of the huge double standard we face.  It is so powerful that the media simply ignores the violence of women.  The youtube with this article shows numerous women who were violent in relationship and what was the response?  Laughter and very little.

I think the NFL really blew it on this one.  

The punishment he received was far from helpful.  What sort of help might he get from being banished from his profession?  What sort of help might it give his wife?  None. The sad fact is that the NFL acted like a cowardly white knight who was more than willing to throw Mr Rice under the team bus in order to appear that they didn’t hate women and had uber concern about the issue of domestic violence.  It just seems like one big disgusting play for image by the NFL.  A play that ignores the humanity of both Rice and his wife.

What happens to the man on the street who hits a woman?  Is he tossed out of his job as punishment?  No.  Is he banned from working in his profession?  Highly unlikely.  Is he offered some form of counseling or educational opportunity that might help him deal with his mess?  Yes, usually, and in severe cases people go to jail but apparently the Ray Rice situation found that he was best served by this former alternative but the NFL stepped in and amped up the ante to an extremely humiliating degree.  

Does the fact that she didn’t hit as hard matter?  Not really.  If a 5’ 7” 150 lb man came to me in therapy and said that he had hit a pro football player twice in an elevator and was moving towards him again to land a third blow and he got knocked out what would I tell him?  Would I tell him that he should have the pro football player arrested and that he was a victim?  Or should I tell him that his behavior was a part of this equation.  Duh.  Why doesn’t Mrs Rice get the same treatment?  Because we are living in a gynocentric world that holds men accountable and fails to do the same for women.

If we are going to let women off and not hold them accountable for domestic violence than we need to do the same with men.  If we are truly equal it is the only fair thing to do.

Please follow and like us:
error

Choose the Best Soundbites

 

Below is a list of nearly 70 soundbites that were suggested on a recent menaregood youtube.  I wanted to open this list up to a vote and get everyone’s opinion about which ones might be the most useful for our purposes.  You can vote for up to 25 soundbites.

What makes a good soundbite?  It tells a story in very few words.  The fewer the better.  It is catchy and easy to remember and will leave an impression on those who hear it.  A very good soundbite will help people see their own double standards.

I will paste in the original youtube at the end of the poll for those who may not have seen it.

 

 

[yop_poll id=”3″]

 

Please follow and like us:
error