Women's rights

[Hagi]

Because people act silly at times. They judge things without rationally considering them and they're not aware of doing so.

If only a single person holds an opinion the chances of nobody else coming to that same conclusion are rather low. Not everybody is an Einstein able to come up with truly unique and revolutionary ideas. Most of the time if nobody agrees with us it's because we're not being reasonable.

If a large group holds an opinion chances are much higher (not 100%) of that opinion being reasonable given the tools and information available. Note that reasonable doesn't mean true, it means that with the knowledge and tools these people have it's logical that they came to the conclusion they have.

Therefore if you're to only one who thinks something is good or whatever, then chances are pretty high you're not actually the next Einstein and instead are just being silly.

While if your opinion is shared by a larger group of people then chances are pretty high that whatever considerations lead to that opinion are reasonable considerations.

Again, we're talking about chances here. Not certainties, so you can leave your popularity fallacy at home.

This is all well and good, but we're talking about a single 7 page thread on an internet forum. Maybe 20-30 different people have posted in this thread, and there's been far from a consensus even amongst those individuals. How on earth can you then claim to have sufficient ammunition, following your own laws of consensus, to claim ANY opinion stated in that thread is valid or invalid? If we're going to follow your own deeply confusing and troubling logic to the extent that "nothing is valid until consensus is established", then your own rejection of those opinions is just as invalid as the opinions itself. Indeed, no one could really say anything in ANY thread discussing ANY topic that wasn't rigorously reinforced by pre-existing consensus without it being immediately invalid, and ergo "silly". Or "whiny", whichever of your ad hominem attacks you feel is most judiciously applied any given circumstance, I suppose. Although I suppose you'd need to arrive at some sort of consensus before deciding.

Do you know the difference between: "not the only one" and "everyone"?

The first is what I'm talking about. Not being the only one, or a very very small group, holding an opinion.

The second is what you keep, for some mysterious reason, referring to.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

I know. And that's why I asked that you prove it is neutral and that it IS just a cartoon. Rather unfair of you then, by your own statements, to expect people to prove what it isn't then, eh? (PS: It's taking a position, and claiming something about, feminists and misandrists, so it's not neutral or just a cartoon).

Fine. I'll play your game.

Cartoon = Cartoon.

And is there any feature inherent in a cartoon that's either decidedly negative or positive? If not then a cartoon is neutral.

I've already explained that the cartoon takes a particular stance towards feminists and misandrists. Therefore, it contains inherently non-neutral features.

How is that stance either decidedly negative or positive?

The only thus far undisputed statement about that comic is: misandrists sometimes pretend to be feminists. That's a factual statement, not a opinionated one. It's neither positive nor negative. It's neutral.

How do you know it's a factual statement? I require either proof or a significant majority opinion on the matter before I even consider it factual.

However, if we pretend that we don't need other people to do our thinking for us (scandalous, I know), then perhaps yes. And tell me, what attitude towards this "fact", that misandrists sometimes pretend to be feminists, does the comic express?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Do you know the difference between: "not the only one" and "everyone"?

The first is what I'm talking about. Not being the only one, or a very very small group, holding an opinion.

The second is what you keep, for some mysterious reason, referring to.

Whoa, okay. I see now.

So, let's see. In the specific discussion regarding the cartoon, we have 2 people supporting it as not sexist, and one person attacking it as sexist, before you leap in to make you first of several authoritative statements that it is OBJECTIVELY NOT SEXIST.

So in this case, the consensus necessary to support your objective statements was "three". We now have at least three people in this thread supporting the idea that the cartoon can be interpreted as sexist. By your own logic, this is a consensus, and we have been validated.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Also, this, as evidenced by the fact that so many women are being represented by a few overly aggressive feminists.

 

[Sandwichboy]

I'm not going to bother trying to keep up with the new and fascinating directions this discussion keeps branching off into with posts directed at each one, so here's all of them at once.

@Hagi: Nothing is *just* anything. Stories, pictures, words, etc. have the meaning that are attached to them, intentional or otherwise. And since we've all agreed that we're discussing the arts (inherently subjective) then you need to accept the fact that whether the sexist intimation present in the image was intentional is irrelevant. Some people see it, some don't. But you don't get to say that's not a valid viewpoint just because the majority thinks so. The number of people with a particular viewpoint on something is irrelevant to a discussion of the validity of their reaction to it.

@Kirbykrackle: You had me right up until the whole page of bickering over the semantics of whether or not Abandon had invoked Godwin. Seriously? That's what you're going to attach to? Was it a shaky comparison intentionally chosen to be sensationalist? Yes. Does it matter in the larger picture of what was being discussed at the time? No.

@Abandon: I will agree with your commentary that a lot of people who identify as feminists are in fact just misandrists fighting against something (men in general) and not for something (equality). I will also agree that whether or not the people you cited as examples actually identified themselves as feminists and were fully accepted by the feminist community does not change the fact that in the eyes of the public, the label that springs to mind when describing them tends to, most often, be feminist. However. That response is in and of itself indicative of the larger problem, as are the stereotypes used in the form of caricature in the cartoon to emphasize "femininity." This is institutionalized sexism, and I suspect that is also the reason why a lot of the commenters have such a hard time empathizing with and accepting the validity of a view that finds something they like to be sexist. Just because something you like is found offensive by others is not automatically an indictment of you, your views or your moral compass, yet time after time I see people (men mostly) reacting with a kneejerk "push-back" response to someone saying the equivalent of "hey, that thing you like? That's kind of not cool." You look at that cartoon and see one thing. BloatedGuppy, EviltheCat, myself and others all see something different. Neither one is wrong so please stop trying to imply that there's not enough evidence, or people agreeing with said interpretation because this isn't a court room. There is no rulesheet saying "you must have this much ___ to make your opinion valid" because that's not how this shit works. Accept that you have differing opinions and move on.

@BloatedGuppy & Evilthecat: Much as I agree with most of what you're saying, diving into personal attacks doesn't help move a discussion along. ESPECIALLY not on the internet.

and finally to the OP...

No.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Don't you find that constantly relying on majority opinions before having one yourself to be a rather immature attempt to avoid needing to think critically about things yourself? Oh wait, I guess you don't until a statically significant portion of the population tells you.

Do you find that completely ignoring what everyone else thinks leads to well considered opinions? I think it's rather immature to consider one's own opinion so far above all others as to consider them irrelevant.

Isn't the whole point of critical thinking to consider opinions not your own? To not go by anecdotal evidence and singular occurrences? To continually consider the bigger picture and statistics?

It's not difficult to intentionally misinterpret someone else's opinion to your own opposite extreme. It however doesn't actually lead to useful discussions.

Tsk, tsk, what statistical majority informed you that I don't take the judgement of others into account? You must inform them they are in error. Unlike you making rather illustrative examples of how you rely on others to do your opinion making for you, I do not believe I have made any statement claiming that I never take the opinions of others into account.

And no, critical thinking is in large part being able to think for yourself without relying on others to tell you what to think.

You've not actually explained how I misinterpreted your words. You did, after all, state that you even relied on others to tell you that beating a child is bad rather than decide for yourself.

I did not.

I said that one of the reasons, nowhere implying that was the only reason, why beating children is bad is because it's in the law. Reason for it being in the law that scientific and political discussion determined it should be there.

I never implied not to think for myself. That's how you're misinterpreting me. I only said that other opinions are a factor in the making of my own opinions, again not implying that it's the only factor.

However I'm aware of the relativity of my own opinions. You don't know me and therefore can't put real value into my opinions. You do however know some larger groups of people, you know statistics and you know scientific research. So in a discussion it's generally better to provide the conclusions of those as they're more reliable (more != 100%) then my own opinion when reasoned from the point of view of a stranger.

I'm sorry but you only gave one reason for why you consider beating to be bad: "I would immediately decide that beating the child was bad since there are already laws against that". I'm afraid that I require a statistical majority to prove that there are alternatives. If you don't want to be misinterpreted, clarify your language. Hell, even in your explanation in this post you still still rely on others to determine why beating a child is bad.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

How about thousands of people in an audience laughing at the fact a man was mutilated?

You know, the thing that happened on CBS not long ago?

You don't think that doesn't show a really disturbing anti-male rhetoric that exists in our culture?

I googled "the thing that happened on CBS not long ago" and didn't come up with much. You're going to need to be more specific if you want anyone to share your outrage.

You can find evidence of anti-male rhetoric if you want to go looking for it, it's not hard. I'm not really sure how it pertains to the current state of the discussion, however, which is an idiotic spiraling slap fest about the offensiveness of a cartoon and whether or not you need a majority consensus before you know it's okay to scratch your ass.

 

[BRex21]

Have you not pretty much decided that Feminism is only what you and people like you want it to be? Can we just define what the members of our social or political groups believe in now?

Actually I try to go by the commonly accepted definition of feminism, which she does not fall under. If the sole criteria for membership in a group was announcing yourself a member of said group, then I guess I could say I'm a Black Panther and voila! It would be so.

Not really, its more a matter of who you follow as opposed to who you claim to be.

What this boils down to is that Alerie Solanas, a woman who, while inside the International feminist movement NOW, called for the extinction of men and even after trying to murder someone was praised as an important member of the feminist movement, Her book The SCUM manifesto (thats the "Society for Cutting Up Men") is still distributed as course material in many colleges and universities across the western world. My issue isn't Alerie Solanas being a feminist but rather the reactions of major players to Alerie Solanas speeches, writings and actions.

Whoa, I get it. When did this discussion ever boil down to Alerie Solanas? She sounds like a lunatic. I fully support your Solanas hatred, based on what little I know of her from this thread. I'm not sure at which point this was "people for and against Alerie Solanas".

It boiled down to it because of who you are following, while i would never really call Alerie Solanas a feminist, she was schizophrenic and mentally unstable, she became in idol in the feminist community, labelled a cornerstone of the feminist movement in her time and people still follow her teachings. If we go by your definition of who a feminist is in a dictionary, while accurate to much of the rhetoric simply does not fit with the actions and comments of the leaders, But let me use a different example, someone more popular.

Hillary Clinton is widely regarded as a strong feminist woman, she made a play for the presidency of the united states and she has fought for womens rights, but im old enough to remember Bill Clinton's presidency and his affair. After his affair I also remember the scratches and bruises on his face. Now secret servicemen have come forward, Biographies have been published and it has been virtually unilaterally confined that Hillary Clinton assaulted her husband on multiple occasions. Yet feminists everywhere still worship her, they stand up say stop violence against women and yet follow someone who supports and engages in violence against men, y'know provided they do something wrong. If you think this is equality your head is not where its supposed to be.

I might even argue this is a good thing, but generally when people say "well those aren't real feminists" that's its more about bucking guilt than actually show disdain for them, most women who identify as feminists simply seem to pretend the "femi-nazi" movement does not exist.

It's not a question of "do misandrists exist" or "can radical feminism be taken too far", because clearly they do, and clearly it can, and there's plenty of evidence in the world to support whatever confirmation biases we choose to hold dear. The point I got involved in this useless, circular argument was the point at which someone found a picture misogynist, and a second party suggested the ONLY reason she found it misogynist was because she (he, I don't even know) didn't know what an idiom was. There's the original crux of the argument. Either the picture is open to interpretation, or the picture is ONLY open to interpretation if "you don't know what an idiom is".

My point, which you so nicely cut out here, kind of explains why You and Cat were seemingly ignoring the idiom in favour of some imagined sexism. You decided that this woman's drawing style was offensive because clearly... women shouldn't be displayed as cute? i'm not quite sure but it seems like if an artist has to blatantly alter their style just to please you its you who has the problem.
You also complained that feminists should not be displayed as sheep, who, y'know are passive, and women need to be displayed as strong. This second reason is why you and cat were being accused of not knowing what an idiom is.
Its fairly obvious that the sheep were chosen because of this idiom, not because feminists are passive like sheep. hence why i asked if the cartoon would be less offensive to you if you arbitrarily changed the animal.
In fact the first thing I typed was dog, but quickly decided to change that as i was sure you would say that confirmed my sexism referring to all feminists as bitches as opposed to what i would intend it to be as a dog is a strong hunter who is often hunted by bigger more aggressive dog. I changed it to puma because a pack of wolves is just as dangerous to a puma as it is to a sheep however as i pointed out this kills the idiom. My point is not that you don't know what an idiom is, but that you are obviously choosing to ignore it in favour of your own imagination.
To be fair i think we all understand that no one was really being told they didn't know what an idiom is, but rather the between the words meaning of "don't you know what X means" in that it is blatantly obvious what X means.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

@BloatedGuppy & Evilthecat: Much as I agree with most of what you're saying, diving into personal attacks doesn't help move a discussion along. ESPECIALLY not on the internet.

But...but...isn't that what the internet is here for? WITHOUT PERSONAL ATTACKS WHAT DO WE HAVE?!

I think your excellent summary is more or less on the nose, I think a lot of generally sensible people who probably think along the same lines are at each others throats over semantics, and I think everyone has taken a polarized position and the arguments are getting positively absurd.

EDIT: I'm going to need a consensus on this though. At least 50 people, and at least one focus group.

 

[SillyBear]

How about thousands of people in an audience laughing at the fact a man was mutilated?

You know, the thing that happened on CBS not long ago?

You don't think that doesn't show a really disturbing anti-male rhetoric that exists in our culture?

I googled "the thing that happened on CBS not long ago" and didn't come up with much. You're going to need to be more specific if you want anyone to share your outrage.

You can find evidence of anti-male rhetoric if you want to go looking for it, it's not hard. I'm not really sure how it pertains to the current state of the discussion, however, which is an idiotic spiraling slap fest about the offensiveness of a cartoon and whether or not you need a majority consensus before you know it's okay to scratch your ass.

Eh, don't worry. I'm not in outrage, I'm just asking a question. I'm so tired of this forum, I can't make post without someone like you coming in guns blazing being passive aggressive and implying that I'm really worked up or in some kind of panic.

I'm a female, I was just asking a question. I'm not one of the idiots in here who clearly holds sexists views.

Anyway, a show on CBS was laughing at the fact a man had his penis cut off and thrown in a garbage dispenser. The whole audience was laughing and the hosts were making jokes about it and nothing happened. There was barely any uproar at all. I just thought if the same thing happened with the genders reversed then the whole country would be in debate.

I thought it was an interesting question to ask to stimulate intellectual discussion. Apparently not. Whatever.

 

[giggetygooo]

ALL women should be entitled to a free kitchen utensil every year.

 

[BRex21]

How about thousands of people in an audience laughing at the fact a man was mutilated?

You know, the thing that happened on CBS not long ago?

You don't think that doesn't show a really disturbing anti-male rhetoric that exists in our culture?

I googled "the thing that happened on CBS not long ago" and didn't come up with much. You're going to need to be more specific if you want anyone to share your outrage.

You can find evidence of anti-male rhetoric if you want to go looking for it, it's not hard. I'm not really sure how it pertains to the current state of the discussion, however, which is an idiotic spiraling slap fest about the offensiveness of a cartoon and whether or not you need a majority consensus before you know it's okay to scratch your ass.

Heres a link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vq6njtmU7g
Sharon Osborne did eventually sarcastically apologize on air, but she could only barely suppress her laughter at it.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

*increasingly retarded snip*

You almost have a point. ALMOST. But just go back and read what the sheep in the cartoon is SAYING.

"Men and Women should be equal".

That's not misogynistic. Hell, let's assume you're right, and the sheep is supposed represent women who are passive and weak.[footnote]It isn't, but that's beside the point.[/footnote] That sends the cartoon into misandry territory. But still not misogynistic.

So there ya go.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Eh, don't worry. I'm not in outrage, I'm just asking a question. I'm so tired of this forum, I can't make post without someone like you coming in guns blazing being passive aggressive and implying that I'm really worked up or in some kind of panic.

I'm a female, I was just asking a question. I'm not one of the idiots in here who clearly holds sexists views.

Anyway, a show on CBS was laughing at the fact a man had his penis cut off and thrown in a garbage dispenser. The whole audience was laughing and the hosts were making jokes about it and nothing happened. There was barely any uproar at all. I just thought if the same thing happened with the genders reversed then the whole country would be in debate.

I thought it was an interesting question to ask to stimulate intellectual discussion. Apparently not. Whatever.

Whoa, I was no more "guns blazing" than you were in an outrage, apparently. Tone is not always super easy to judge.

Watched the clip. Terrible judgment on the part of the hosts. The audience...tougher to tell, as they might have a prompter telling them when to laugh/clap/oooh/ahhh...you never know with these studio audiences. Have you seen Oprah's audiences when she was handing out gifts? They look like they're at the Rapture. Something is clearly awry.

I think there's a pretty easily witnessed cultural phenomenon where female on male violence is made light of, as opposed to male on female violence, which is (at least officially) frowned upon. This is, most likely, because the latter is epidemic, and the former relatively rare. I suspect it's also at least partly due to culturally accepted gender roles that presume men are burly and stoic and women are flimsy and meek, making the concept of female on male violence comical. Does that make it alright? Of course not. It's a real problem, and society's abhorrent attitude towards it makes it an even worse problem because those men who are abused get to enjoy being laughed at on top of being victimized.

I think one thing that's important to remember is the absolutely staggering number of women who have, at some point in their life, been beaten, raped, or molested by a man. I don't think that excuses rampant misandry, but it does explain why some women might entertain...complicated relationships with their opposite gender.

 

[LokiArchetype]

Also, this, as evidenced by the fact that so many women are being represented by a few overly aggressive feminists.

If generalizing feminists as man-haters is bad and dishonest

Wouldn't generalizing feminists as not being man-haters be just as bad and dishonest?

Either way you're characterizing the population based on a subset rather than the whole. Which part is more predominant can't be truthfully commented on without solid statistical evidence so words like "only a few" and "rare" are baseless.

 

[Sandwichboy]

Yes, sexism works both ways. And in many ways men are far less emotionally equipped (thanks NA society!) to deal with a lot of the really damaging stuff because we have just as many screwed up, unrealistic and fundamentally damaging expectations dumped on our shoulders, but practically no group emotional support structure because that wouldn't be "manly". And yes, displaying/talking about male nudity/genitalia = comedy and displaying/talking about female nudity/genitalia = sexy. Because women are sexy and men are awkward and funny. Apparently.

But we're still predominantly the ones in power so as much as that sucks, we still have more responsibility to check our behaviour on this front than women do simply because in most material aspects of our lives, men have it a lot easier. Doesn't mean that we can't get pissed off about stuff like female/male rape cases almost never getting reported or taken seriously by law enforcement or society at large, or the 3:1 ratio separating the genders when looking at suicide statistics...just means we need to pick our battles a whole lot better.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If generalizing feminists as man-haters is bad and dishonest

Wouldn't generalizing feminists as not being man-haters be just as bad and dishonest?

Feminism by definition implies a belief in equality between women and men. Hating men and zealously calling for their subjugation makes you, by definition, not a feminist.

It's like arguing that generalizing camels as desks is fair, because generalizing camels as camels is fair.

You can make the argument that a lot of people claiming to be feminists aren't actually feminists at all (which the cartoon was purportedly intending to do, however questionable the methods involved). But you can't really make the argument that a lot of feminists are secret man haters without changing the definition of what feminism is.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Spoiler

Also, this, as evidenced by the fact that so many women are being represented by a few overly aggressive feminists.

If generalizing feminists as man-haters is bad and dishonest

Wouldn't generalizing feminists as not being man-haters be just as bad and dishonest?

Either way you're characterizing the population based on a subset rather than the whole. Which part is more predominant can't be truthfully commented on without solid statistical evidence so words like "only a few" and "rare" are baseless.

So which is better; To assume that a certain group is bad, and let them jump through hoops to prove to you otherwise, or to have some faith in your fellow humans?

This... This seems pretty basic.