"Biased Point Of View" is what humans do when they/we talk about a subject as if the whole world is the same sex, or race, age, etc. as themselves.
It can be found in quite a lot of forms, forums and venues, from creative prose to poetry, to songwriting, to unfortunately journalism, education, and instructional material that's supposed to be non-biased. It can even be found in many religious writings (including the Bible, the Quran, and many other religious or anti-religious materials), also in medical and psychiatric papers, and also in various science studies and reports.
When biased point of view is seen in creative writing and other creative projects, then it can be taken into consideration as part of the expression of the producer of the creative work. It should be pointed out during study, for example "Leaves of Grass" by W. Whitman; while much of it could be taken as gender-neutral, there are points that show that Whitman is writing in "male-only" and "male-favored" point of view, not from a "human" inclusive point of view. A very large amount of poetry and other creative writings are written in specifically biased point of view, which excludes or sometimes demeans and attempts to invalidate the point of view of others.
A song by the rock band Led Zeppelin, for example, states in the lyrics, "The soul of a woman was created below", which does not require further explaining. There are thousands, if not millions, of examples throughout human creative writing and other projects that expose the producers' exclusive and biased point of view. Refusing to recognize this fact seems very strange and agenda-based; there is no legitimate reason to deny that it exists.
There are more male-biased examples throughout human history mostly because more males than females have been permitted to create and publish their original work over the centuries. One will find the same holds true in relation to race and ancestry; those who are permitted or encouraged to create original work and have it published and preserved are the ones whose point of view will be seen, of course.
There is also an element of a higher objectivity in point of view in females because girls are often actually instructed to empathize with boys, while boys are often not instructed to empathize with girls. Also, being the mother of both daughters and sons, mothers in general tend to have more interest and empathy in both male and female offspring's real point of view than fathers in general, and are therefore more likely to have the ability to see the world from more than their own personal point of view.
When biased point of view is seen in Journalism, educational material, textbooks, instructional material, and religious writings, then the issue of agenda-based influence and conditioning is introduced.
Journalists who report from male point of view, female point of view, racial point of view, class point of view, and POLITICAL point of view are not doing "real" journalism, they are projecting their own personal bias onto whatever they're covering.
Educational material is agenda-based when there is a political, religious, anti-religious, sexist, or racist slant to the content, which means someone is trying to control the way students feel, think, and see the world and themselves.
A carpentry teacher can teach all of the students how to make a napkin holder, OR that teacher can IMPLY that only certain students would be good at it, or would understand how to use the tools and work with wood. One is actually objective teaching, and the other is subjective, biased, and agenda-based.
The story of the Little Red Hen was used by a first grade teacher to influence political agenda on the students. The story is straightforward, about putting in work and help toward something, and then getting to benefit from it (Little Red Hen is going to bake bread, but no one will help her do any of the tasks needed such as harvesting wheat or kneading the dough, so she does it all herself and then keeps it for herself and her family, without giving to those who refused to help when she asked them, which is a healthy and "normal" action.)
The aforementioned first grade teacher told the story to the students, but then skewed the meaning and asked the students questions such as "Why do you think the Little Red Hen was so selfish?" This is agenda-based "teaching", the story was not written that way, the teacher purposely twisted the meaning to match his/her political beliefs, and then "taught" the students in such manner.
Many religious writings are written in only one gender's or one race's point of view, due to the sex or race of the writer and producer of the piece. Those who are not familiar with objective "human" point of view, or perceiving the world outside of their own sex, race, or class, often express themselves and report stories in speech and writing in a biased point of view. So everything is from a male, TO a male, or from a female, TO a female, or from a certain racial ancestry TO another member of the same ancestry. It is often simply taught as religious instruction WITHOUT recognizing that the content is completely biased because of the producer's personal point of view. Some writings we can see in the Bible, for example, are obviously personal instructions or advice to a son from a father, (specific, real people), but very few people seem to recognize this, or understand that it does NOT imply that the male point of view is "more righteous" than the female, or "wiser", or "higher" in wisdom on some esoteric level. They are simply the writings from a male, in male point of view, addressing his son, because he had a real son.
The less able a person is to perceive the world objectively, in the point of view outside one's own, the more likely he or she is to express themselves or convey instruction IN the person's OWN biased personal point of view, TO others who are similar to them physically.
Seeing this in action right now is very simple and easy: Turn on any Major League Sports show and listen to the reporters or announcers, and turn on most media "news" networks in the US. Listen to most modern stand-up comedians, there are few who can do comedy outside of their personal biases and prejudices. Flip through comic books, listen to song lyrics. Watch practically any sit-com, some are more obvious than others (The Big Bang Theory is an obvious one). Read blogs online. Thousands of movies.
In fact, bias in the media, politics, creative projects and journalism may be at an all-time HIGH, in spite of the "information age" we supposedly live in.
To be sure, a person is not automatically biased because of their sex or race; there are and have always been both males and females, and people from any ancestry who are capable of relatively objective point of view. It helps when one sees one's self as a "Human being" first, who happens to have a certain background and be of one sex or the other.
It can be found in quite a lot of forms, forums and venues, from creative prose to poetry, to songwriting, to unfortunately journalism, education, and instructional material that's supposed to be non-biased. It can even be found in many religious writings (including the Bible, the Quran, and many other religious or anti-religious materials), also in medical and psychiatric papers, and also in various science studies and reports.
When biased point of view is seen in creative writing and other creative projects, then it can be taken into consideration as part of the expression of the producer of the creative work. It should be pointed out during study, for example "Leaves of Grass" by W. Whitman; while much of it could be taken as gender-neutral, there are points that show that Whitman is writing in "male-only" and "male-favored" point of view, not from a "human" inclusive point of view. A very large amount of poetry and other creative writings are written in specifically biased point of view, which excludes or sometimes demeans and attempts to invalidate the point of view of others.
A song by the rock band Led Zeppelin, for example, states in the lyrics, "The soul of a woman was created below", which does not require further explaining. There are thousands, if not millions, of examples throughout human creative writing and other projects that expose the producers' exclusive and biased point of view. Refusing to recognize this fact seems very strange and agenda-based; there is no legitimate reason to deny that it exists.
There are more male-biased examples throughout human history mostly because more males than females have been permitted to create and publish their original work over the centuries. One will find the same holds true in relation to race and ancestry; those who are permitted or encouraged to create original work and have it published and preserved are the ones whose point of view will be seen, of course.
There is also an element of a higher objectivity in point of view in females because girls are often actually instructed to empathize with boys, while boys are often not instructed to empathize with girls. Also, being the mother of both daughters and sons, mothers in general tend to have more interest and empathy in both male and female offspring's real point of view than fathers in general, and are therefore more likely to have the ability to see the world from more than their own personal point of view.
When biased point of view is seen in Journalism, educational material, textbooks, instructional material, and religious writings, then the issue of agenda-based influence and conditioning is introduced.
Journalists who report from male point of view, female point of view, racial point of view, class point of view, and POLITICAL point of view are not doing "real" journalism, they are projecting their own personal bias onto whatever they're covering.
Educational material is agenda-based when there is a political, religious, anti-religious, sexist, or racist slant to the content, which means someone is trying to control the way students feel, think, and see the world and themselves.
A carpentry teacher can teach all of the students how to make a napkin holder, OR that teacher can IMPLY that only certain students would be good at it, or would understand how to use the tools and work with wood. One is actually objective teaching, and the other is subjective, biased, and agenda-based.
The story of the Little Red Hen was used by a first grade teacher to influence political agenda on the students. The story is straightforward, about putting in work and help toward something, and then getting to benefit from it (Little Red Hen is going to bake bread, but no one will help her do any of the tasks needed such as harvesting wheat or kneading the dough, so she does it all herself and then keeps it for herself and her family, without giving to those who refused to help when she asked them, which is a healthy and "normal" action.)
The aforementioned first grade teacher told the story to the students, but then skewed the meaning and asked the students questions such as "Why do you think the Little Red Hen was so selfish?" This is agenda-based "teaching", the story was not written that way, the teacher purposely twisted the meaning to match his/her political beliefs, and then "taught" the students in such manner.
Many religious writings are written in only one gender's or one race's point of view, due to the sex or race of the writer and producer of the piece. Those who are not familiar with objective "human" point of view, or perceiving the world outside of their own sex, race, or class, often express themselves and report stories in speech and writing in a biased point of view. So everything is from a male, TO a male, or from a female, TO a female, or from a certain racial ancestry TO another member of the same ancestry. It is often simply taught as religious instruction WITHOUT recognizing that the content is completely biased because of the producer's personal point of view. Some writings we can see in the Bible, for example, are obviously personal instructions or advice to a son from a father, (specific, real people), but very few people seem to recognize this, or understand that it does NOT imply that the male point of view is "more righteous" than the female, or "wiser", or "higher" in wisdom on some esoteric level. They are simply the writings from a male, in male point of view, addressing his son, because he had a real son.
The less able a person is to perceive the world objectively, in the point of view outside one's own, the more likely he or she is to express themselves or convey instruction IN the person's OWN biased personal point of view, TO others who are similar to them physically.
Seeing this in action right now is very simple and easy: Turn on any Major League Sports show and listen to the reporters or announcers, and turn on most media "news" networks in the US. Listen to most modern stand-up comedians, there are few who can do comedy outside of their personal biases and prejudices. Flip through comic books, listen to song lyrics. Watch practically any sit-com, some are more obvious than others (The Big Bang Theory is an obvious one). Read blogs online. Thousands of movies.
In fact, bias in the media, politics, creative projects and journalism may be at an all-time HIGH, in spite of the "information age" we supposedly live in.
To be sure, a person is not automatically biased because of their sex or race; there are and have always been both males and females, and people from any ancestry who are capable of relatively objective point of view. It helps when one sees one's self as a "Human being" first, who happens to have a certain background and be of one sex or the other.
