Women's rights

[gazumped]

As in the wolf looks better, or people didn't want to be sheep? Or because they agreed more with what the wolf was saying?

A simpler way to put it is: It seems silly that they've portrayed a group that believes in gender equality and the strength of women as dopey and ultra-stereotyped feminine.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Yes, yes, I'm going to mention the cartoon because I'm an illustrator and found it really interesting because even though I'm sure the girl who drew it did just want to draw a pretty sheep and I like to give her the benefit of the doubt, the lack of thought behind making feminists so docile was just a bad move. On the comments on that image people were saying they'd rather be the wolf. Which suggests most people got a misandrist vibe from it rather than a misogynist one, though?

I hate to dredge up the debate from the first few pages, but I really think you've read too much into the picture. As I see it, the only reason the feminist is a sheep is so that the artist could demonstrate 'a wolf in sheep's clothing', a well-known phrase to describe someone pretending to be something they're not. In this case, a misandrist pretending to be a feminist.

To reiterate: the cartoon is not suggesting that women should be sheep.

No, yeah, I know. All I mean is that the way she drew it makes being the wolf look more appealing than being the sheep.

As in the wolf looks better, or people didn't want to be sheep? Or because they agreed more with what the wolf was saying?

Because the sheep looks dopey and pathetic and the wolf looks evil but at least like it's not going to get pushed around. If the illustrator had attempted to make the sheep not a summary of every cutesy girly cliche people would be able to sympathise/empathise more with its position as the feminist that's getting a bad name.
I mean, it's very cute, but a lot of feminists (even proper ones that wouldn't approve of the wolf's views) would prefer not to be represented as kinda stoopid lookin'.

OK, I can understand that some of the features of the sheep are...unfortunate, given the subject matter. But I think the message is clear enough, without any deeper, misogynistic implications.

I certainly think that the arguments from early in the thread were wholly unnecessary and over the top.

 

[gazumped]

OK, I can understand that some of the features of the sheep are...unfortunate, given the subject matter. But I think the message is clear enough, without any deeper, misogynistic implications.

I certainly think that the arguments from early in the thread were wholly unnecessary and over the top.

Indeed, I'll be quite interested to see if/what the artist responds to the Escapist who posted on her DeviantArt about this thread. I assume something along the lines of "Whoa, chill out, guys!"

 

[Sandwichboy]

The problems of lack of support structure for the areas that society fails men is NOT the fault of feminism. Feminism is not bringing us down or holding us back, WE are every time we buy into bullshit stereotypes of masculinity that encourage us to feel shame over needing any sort of emotional support structure.Women have emotional support structures because they're taught throughout their lives that they can and should communicate amongst their friends and family what crises they're working through, but we don't. We're just supposed to "man up." THAT crap is toxic and the reason that men don't report when they're raped, why we feel such shame when we can't magically deal with everything ourselves, and why statistically we're three times more likely to take our own lives than women are when suffering a serious crisis or depression. THAT needs to change.

Do feminists have an agenda to support women? Of course they do, and with good reason. When it comes to the professional world, and victims of domestic violence, they ARE still suffering when they shouldn't be. But they're not the reason for our own problems. That's Marc Lepine thinking right there, and that shit is dangerous.

 

[Sandwichboy]

Yes, yes, I'm going to mention the cartoon because I'm an illustrator and found it really interesting because even though I'm sure the girl who drew it did just want to draw a pretty sheep and I like to give her the benefit of the doubt, the lack of thought behind making feminists so docile was just a bad move. On the comments on that image people were saying they'd rather be the wolf. Which suggests most people got a misandrist vibe from it rather than a misogynist one, though?

I hate to dredge up the debate from the first few pages, but I really think you've read too much into the picture. As I see it, the only reason the feminist is a sheep is so that the artist could demonstrate 'a wolf in sheep's clothing', a well-known phrase to describe someone pretending to be something they're not. In this case, a misandrist pretending to be a feminist.

To reiterate: the cartoon is not suggesting that women should be sheep.

This really really is the last thing I'm going to say on this damned cartoon as I was happy that I thought we'd moved past it.

It's obvious what the intent of the image is. But for some people it's also obvious that the artist didn't think about the potential implications of some of the choices she made with the illustration. That's it. No one is wrong here. If you think it's funny and not at all sexist, cool. If you think it's in questionable taste because of an unintended interpretation, that's cool too. That's how art works.

 

[Project_Omega]

Before I start, I am a guy and also not in the least sexist but do you think the feminists of today have more of a bad reputation than they did a hundred years ago? I mean before women had a right to vote they worked through blood, sweat and tears to get equality and now you have some women who insult you for kindly opening the door for them. This has rarely happened to me but post opinions, experiences etc on feminism.

Dude, if you ever wanna get laid you better be quiet...

Its better that way... Trust me...

 

[funguy2121]

And your sister responded by "beating the shit out of her," which is either something that you felt was a cool way to end a B.S. story or a truly extreme reaction on your sister's part. The woman you describe as an "extreme" feminist doesn't come out looking like the extreme one in this situation at all.

I can say, with hand on heart, that having my sister fighting is not my idea of a "cool" way to end a story.

She's never been the most placid of women even when we were kids, I say kids I was a kid she was coming up to her teens when I was born (she's 12 years older than me) and i'm 31 now so that was my 40 (at the time) year old sister scrapping in the middle of the pub.

Nope, not my idea of a "cool" way to end a tale.

I do understand my sisters reasoning if not the end result. She's been married for 20 years so think she's entitled to have her husband treat her to a night out without someone basically calling her a prostitute for allowing her husband to pay for her drinks on her birthday.

Then again if thats "buying someones love" i'll make sure to tell my own wife I can never again buy her a present or take her out because it's demeaning to her as a woman.

Apologies. I just read my own post and I kind of come off as a jackass. It's just that I see a lot of posts on here that sound like adolescents bragging about the time they totally kicked this guy's ass or totally killed somebody.

Now you've provided thorough context so I see that the feminist in your story was overboard. Clearly there's a very big difference between your sister's situation and my mother's. Personally, I don't mind spending money on a woman, but I don't spend a lot up front because there are a lot of opportunistic gold diggers out there and there are also guys who can afford to spend a lot more than me anyway, so if that's what she wants, she's gonna leave soon enough anyway.

 

[hooksashands]

So no, I'm not comfortable with "argle bargle feminazi!" arguments, because a lot of what women and women's organizations have to say about violence against women is most probably 100% true. As you point out, violence against men is also an extremely serious problem, and perhaps I've been too quick to minimize it in my own mind. The existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other, and the fact some women gleefully engage in misandry doesn't make misogyny cute or appropriate, as some people in this thread seem to believe.

There was a thread in here a while back about some guy groping his unconscious female friend without her consent, which is legally sexual abuse and ethically abhorrent. Half the posters were of the "bah, big deal, he was drunk" variety, a few presumed she was probably into it, and at least one said she was a ***** who had probably lead him on for years and got what was coming to her. So casual misogyny? A real thing.

It's best to bury that hatchet and not let it carry over into another men/women discussion. But since you bring it up, again here you are admitting that you turn more or less a blind eye to men being abused by women while touting examples of misogyny (against women). It doesn't need to be a preclusion of something else, only apparent in day to day life.

I've been punched, slapped, and kicked by girlfriends before, it happens, couples fight but the reality is... A man may never hit a woman. I've taken my tremendous share of beatings from the opposite sex without seeking reprisal, without complaint, I just accepted it as part of my nature. 'Don't hit girls'. Not because they're "weak" or because this is some "noble" intention, but because hitting your partner is unacceptable in every way. So when people like you come around these threads acting like you got everything figured out, telling me women will forever be the true victims of hate and sex crimes, it just makes me shake my head.

In the thread you make mention of, you painted everyone who didn't specifically agree the groper guy was a rapist--as a misogynist. Simple as that. I pointed out that if the same thing were to happen only the girl messed with the guy while he was sleeping, she wouldn't be considered a rapist. And somehow this makes me Mr. Unfriendly Park Molester according to you, because of a stack of random percentages you got from typing 'rape report stats' into Google. So all I gotta say on that one is... are you done?

 

[b3nn3tt]

I've been punched, slapped, and kicked by girlfriends before, it happens, couples fight but the reality is... A man may never hit a woman. I've taken my tremendous share of beatings from the opposite sex without seeking reprisal, without complaint, I just accepted it as part of my nature. 'Don't hit girls'. Not because they're "weak" or because this is some "noble" intention, but because hitting your partner is unacceptable in every way. So when people like you come around these threads acting like you got everything figured out, telling me women will forever be the true victims of hate and sex crimes, it just makes me shake my head.

Out of interest, did you break up with these women immediately after they 'beat' you? Because from the sounds of it you just accepted it and let it be. Whereas I would argue that if you think it's wholy unacceptable to hit your partner then that has to go both ways.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's best to bury that hatchet and not let it carry over into another men/women discussion. But since you bring it up, again here you are admitting that you turn more or less a blind eye to men being abused by women while touting examples of misogyny (against women). It doesn't need to be a preclusion of something else, only apparent in day to day life.

I've been punched, slapped, and kicked by girlfriends before, it happens, couples fight but the reality is... A man may never hit a woman. I've taken my tremendous share of beatings from the opposite sex without seeking reprisal, without complaint, I just accepted it as part of my nature. 'Don't hit girls'. Not because they're "weak" or because this is some "noble" intention, but because hitting your partner is unacceptable in every way. So when people like you come around these threads acting like you got everything figured out, telling me women will forever be the true victims of hate and sex crimes, it just makes me shake my head.

In the thread you make mention of, you painted everyone who didn't specifically agree the groper guy was a rapist--as a misogynist. Simple as that. I pointed out that if the same thing were to happen only the girl messed with the guy while he was sleeping, she wouldn't be considered a rapist. And somehow this makes me Mr. Unfriendly Park Molester according to you, because of a stack of random percentages you got from typing 'rape report stats' into Google. So all I gotta say on that one is... are you done?

Hey guy, I'm sorry a girlfriend of yours acted like that. And I'm sorry that the society you live in frowns on you smacking her around in return. That's a raw deal for you I guess. I've been hit by women too, and incredibly enough the first thing that popped into my head wasn't how unfair it was that I couldn't batter her around for it. Guess that's just me.

And hey, I never said I turned a blind eye to anything. And I never called anyone a rapist in "that thread", either, I called it "groping" and "sexual molestation", which...by the english definitions of "groping" and "sexual molestation", and the information provided to us by the OP...it was. Maybe there were half a dozen other people in there with puffer fish avatars calling it rape (because apparently by Canadian Criminal Law, it was, which is a pretty stupidly fucking literal interpretation of that law, but alrighty folks), and you got confused. I don't know. And really, I'm sorry that you're apparently still seething days later because I suggested your hand waving of the molestation of a helpless human being might have been in poor taste. Maybe if you don't like the implications of that, you might reconsider being so flippant about fondling unconscious people who haven't given their consent. You seem to lose your shit over strangers on internet forums disagreeing with you, so clearly you've got some outrage to spare.

So, carry on with your crusade to pull the mask back on my supposed bristling misandry I guess. I'm sure you'll be back for another last word, although God knows it'll probably be in some unrelated thread a week from now after I've forgotten all about this shit. Again.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm only replying to people who actually made an original point instead of endlessly repeating the 'you didn't understand the idiom' argument as if being offered just one more simplistic explanation is all I need to be fine with it. I'm sure I've missed some, so I might have another attempt later, but sorting through my inbox just seems like too much effort right now.

That isn't an inherently bad or good thing. It's just a cultural phenomenon. It isn't harmful or demeaning in any way shape or form. It isn't enforcing gender roles or trying to make women submissive.

Not even close to the point.

Also completely, utterly wrong. The 'it's just culture' defence gets applied to a lot of things. It's harmful and demeaning in the associations it evokes, not because of the colour. Saying 'lol, the colour pink isn't misogynist' is meaningless. A hundred years ago blue was the colour associated with young girls, it had the same meaning.

If you don't understand how gendering works as a social construction, I can't take you seriously in a discussion of feminism, because you won't be able to understand the basics of feminist theory.

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?

What, you've never laughed at a nut shot?

Sorry to point it out, but if that's anti-male rhetoric then you're part of it. Men abuse, attack and harm each other all the time, what you're doing now is projecting that onto women as if somehow men didn't delight in harming each other long before women were given a social voice.

This is something men's rights movements completely miss, that in between the fag bashing, sissy bashing, violent competition for hegemonic rights and constant attacks on each other's manhood, maybe some of it rubs off onto society. It's not an anti-male rhetoric, it's border policing around the meaning of masculinity and you do it yourself.

You don't think feminism, as a body of theory which (usually) views gender norms as mutable and constructed and looks for ways to change them, has nothing useful to add to this issue?

Why don't you just go and ask the woman what she intended to portray with that picture instead of bloating this vomit stain of a thread?

A fair point, but it's not about her authorial intent, it's about the rhetorical functioning of her work.

The point she intended to portray is fairly obvious. The issue is with the way she does it.

c) Feminists blaming everyone else for associating supremacists with them instead of blaming the supremacists for associating with them.

I take the fundamental point here, but..

1) Feminism is not just a word. For most of recent history it has denoted a social movement of interrelated writers and activists. While people like Valerie Salonas have been called 'feminist' in a very general sense, the fact is that she wasn't part of that movement and she actually didn't like the people who were very much. I've been involved in the modern incarnation of this movement for a couple of years, meeting hundreds of 'feminists', and I've never met anyone like you describe.

If these female-supremacists are such feminists, why aren't they involved in feminist activism, why aren't they writing?

2) Misandry is not female supremacy. For that matter misogyny is not (intrinsically) male supremacy, it just usually manifests that way. There are misandrist feminists who are very open about their misandry, not because they feel men are inferior but because they cannot see their presence as anything other than oppressive - not even intrinsically because they are men, but because of the way gender functions in our current society.

It's not the best attitude, but one thing which defines such people is the desire to be left alone and to have minimal contact with men. This is very different from the common attitudes of misogynists, who generally feel they should be able to control or possess women, rather than to live without them. There's a major difference.

Is misandry really such a problem? Plenty of guys on this site have bad attitudes to women or want nothing to do with them, I don't see anyone saying that those people are dangerous, just a little silly.

3) What entrenches people like me is the completely inability of anti-feminists to display any kind of perspective. Maybe there are these people who would claim to be feminists and who actively feel that women are superior. I wouldn't rule such people out completely just because I've never met one, but those people aren't 'dangerous' because I can tell you that they have no appreciable influence, even in the feminist movement.

This idea that somehow female supremacy is this enormous threat buried in the feminist movement just makes people like me roll our eyes.

There are more points, but I've run out of time. Sorry.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Every piece of art has a specific meaning. interpretations of this meaning can be more and less correct than others.

Says who? More frequently, as with the works of Shakespeare, for example, a work of art is pretty much defined by the multiplicities and complexities and ambiguities of its meanings.

Artistic criticism and interpretation needs adequate evidence to back it up. Otherwise it's simply a gut response.

That's fine, but it does not require the creator to interpret the evidence for you, nor does it preclude multiple meanings.

There obviously are pieces of art who's intent is to simply evoke an emotive response. No specific one, just a response.

And all are does have individual effects on people.

But what I was getting at is that for most work, the artist will have had a specific meaning they were trying to convey.

Also, I really wouldn't have used Shakespeare as your example of your point. Shakespeare is a prime of example of someone who's been over analysed to the point of redundancy. You could find hidden meaning the colour of a piece of toast if you wanted to. So of course you're going to be able to attribute meaning and complexities (that never existed) to works as linguistically rich as Shakespeare's.

---

No. I'm not saying that artist needs to intemperate it for you. I'm saying that if the artist has laid out the meaning of the piece and you find your POV to be contradictory to that. I'm going to go ahead and side withed the artist.

I really don't care if you find it "overanalysed". The only important part is that there's more than one meaning being communicated in his work. Whether you find those meanings overanalysed or not doesn't magically remove their presence. I was also pointing out that the rich complexity of his work is what makes it so appealing as art as opposed to his works having one simple message. Remember, you said that "Every piece of art has a specific meaning." Are you now going to pretend that a) "Hamlet" only has one meaning or that b) "Hamlet" isn't art? What is the specific meaning of "Hamlet"? Really, if you want a work that's simple and communicates only one meaning, well, I guess there are some children's storybooks... If it means that much to you, though, how about a more modern example like Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"? Ooh, or how about some of satirists, like Pope and Swift? They obviously and skillfully communicate multiple meanings in their work. "A Lady's Dressing Room" is particularly complex.

I also wasn't talking about fairly simple emotional impressions, but intellectual complexity created by multiple "meanings" communicated by a piece of art. It's pretty clear that "A Lady' Dressing Room" evokes more than simple emotions (although it can certainly evoke emotional responses too! "Gut reaction" might be particularly accurate phrasing in this case, heh).

Hey, if you want to just go along with everything a creator says, that's cool. Frankly, though, prefer to look for actual reasons for my opinions within the text itself. When dealing with a creator's statement of intent, it kind of comes down to "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm well aware of what the well-meaning cartoonist no doubt intended; however, the cartoon was so poorly constructed and thought out, I maintain, that it undermines its own message in many ways. A critic is in an excellent position to point this out to the artist, and if the artist is upset, perhaps he or she should take more care in the future to ensure that the work doesn't undermine their own intentions.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Personally no, but I think it's still more acceptable to lash out and punch a guy who's just being an extremely offensive asshole, whereas I think most guys would limit themselves to calling a woman out on her actions even if angered.

Also, you can grab a guy and bundle him out of a place, but do that to a woman who's decided she's going to cause the maximum amount of trouble and she can decide you put your hands on her in a sexual way. There's no reason a guy can't do the same thing, but I don't think it's taken as seriously.

In the same way that sexual abuse by women and domestic violence by women on men is not taken as seriously.

Thinking on those lines, maybe it is time for chivalry to be buried, even tho I firmly believe it's intent is a pure one, not one of keeping anyone down. Women seem to have gained the equal rights to be shitty to the opposite sex, and ,I stress I only mean in some areas, in some ways perhaps it's swung too far, in the way that it's fairly acceptable to make fun of men's intellect, sexual prowess, and other failures, whereas in the opposite direction it's seen as sexist abuse.

It's a highly complex issue however, and even simplifying it down to real basics, look at advertising, the man of the house is a borderline idiot, only able to function because his darling wife is there to wipe his butt and feed him, however, these ads are normally for household products and aimed at women, as women are seen as the cleaners of the home.

Managing to be sexist to everyone in one go, impressive stuff

Yes, there definitely are problems with men not being taken seriously in cases of sexual and physical abuse/harassment, but that's a product of pre-feminist society, not feminism. You make a good point about those commercials; the majority of family sitcoms also rely on these stereotypes and ohmygod they're annoying.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

T

Historically women have opened shelters for women of their own initiative.

MEN HAVE HELPED AND FULLY SUPPORTED the opening of womans shelters both through personal contributions and tax dollars.

hat WOMEN HAVE HELPED AND FULLY SUPPORTED the opening of men's shelters at least through tax dollars

Okay, first off i thought it was pretty obvious why I said that, I was not denying that women helped start mens shelters particularly since in the same post I brought up the founder of the Mankind initiative, who happens to be a woman, I recommended reading some of her works, obviously im not denying womens support in the mens rights movement. but Evidencebased was denying mens support in the womens rights movement.

Evidencebased's sentence doesn't seem to deny men's support of the women's rights movement at all. Heck, it doesn't even mention the women's rights movement...In fact, Evidencebased simply seemed to be suggesting that men emulate feminists and take the matter of opening shelters into their own hands.

And tell me, should that men's shelter be forced to open its doors to women? Be stripped of its funding?

Ideally i think the two should remain separate, Domestic violence often has a reciprocal aspect and mixing the genders could potentially cause more problems. HOWEVER would you argue that if this was applied universally it wouldn't DRASTICALLY improve services for men?

Should an organization devoted to raising money for prostate cancer research and awareness set aside a portion of that money for breast cancer?

No but they should have to at the very least treat cancers in there chosen field, how would you feel if a womens shelter started turning away anyone black? An organization that recieves taxpayer money cant discriminate like that. why is a mans life with breast cancer invariably not worth treating. There actions were obviously wrong and in fact illegal yet its still common practice.

Okay, I'm confused. In one paragraph you state that men's shelters shouldn't have to open their doors to women give many good reasons applying to both types of shelters for why single-gender only shelters are a good idea. Then in another paragraph you seem to imply single-gender shelters are discriminatory. So which is it, "ideal" or "wrong and in fact illegal"?

since what I'm dredging up on Google indicates that the funding goes to victims of domestic abuse

Erin Pizzey, the woman whose name i have been shouting throughout this thread has started two organizations to shelter victims of domestic abuse. Refuge and The ManKind initiative. Refuge houses women, when it was founded in 1971 it receved grants of £10,000 (according to her book Prone to violence). on the flipside ManKind is not elegable for public funds.

A damned shame. Who knew that the UK could be so backwards? The refusal to acknowledge that men can be victims of domestic abuse is a truly odious stereotype best done away with. Fortunately, many feminists work towards destabilizing such gender norms, so there is opportunity to work together on this.

Heres what I want you to do find ANY shelter in your state and check there website if they take men. or heck post em here and ill sift through there site.

Oh I don't live in the States. However, I did find this:http://www.silcom.com/~paladin/madv/dvagencies.html. The list seems very incomplete but even so there are several organizations, shelters, and agencies listed that provide services to men. There are also men's shelters in Canada.

The fact that you set up men's and women's shelters as competing with each other is rather telling. And don't just say that women's shelters dismiss men's abuse and exaggerate women's abuse and then think you shouldn't have to prove that.

First thing, google domestic violence. Now tell me how many things popped up with the heading Violence Against Women

Precisely one. There was also one link specifically about children suffering domestic abuse. Every other link's heading and explanation was gender neutral. In addition, earlier, and I'm afraid I don't know the precise wording, but I found as the second link on the first page a helpline specifically for men suffering domestic abuse in the US, so I hope this gives you some optimism.

A little ways down I came across this page http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/viol_intro.html , Most of the information is blatantly untrue...Now im sure you can use the No True Scotsman argument on this, but these "facts" are repeated over and over and far too many people grow to believe them.

My request was that you prove that "women's shelters dismiss men's abuse and exaggerate women's abuse". That doesn't seem to be a site for a women's shelter. I would hardly call my expectation that you meet this request and not pull out a random feminist website an application of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Do I have to prove that dollars are finite and that providing extra funding to one group often leads to cuts to another?

The finitude of funding provides an excellent reason for men and women's shelter to co-operate to create a larger voice in order to raise awareness and lobby for more funding. It seems like a poor choice to expect men's shelters to separate themselves from women's and mixed-gender shelters and treat them as enemies instead of allies.

And why is it "especially" the fault of feminists and not, say, the privileged few men you say are in charge of the patriarchy and benefiting from it?

Because the few who are benefiting are simply passive while the feminists who shout things like "Domenstic violence harms more women than anything else in america" actively hurt the cause, they fight for things like the VAWA, Thats the Violence Against Women Act, that currently lables domestic violence in America as something a man does to a woman, it successfully eliminates due process in any allegations of abuse, physical or sexual on campus all in order to shore up the numbers of convictions.

Haha a bit of a change from "everyone in our society has to shoulder some of the blame, especially the feminists who passively support this." Anyway, you'll have to show me where in the wording of VAWA that anything you've accused it of is actually written; I'm far too lazy to read a 176-page document for free. I will say, however, that you're wrong on the statement that the act "currently lables domestic violence in America as something a man does to a woman". It actually states

The term ?domestic violence?
includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed
by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with
whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who
is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as
a spouse, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the
victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction
receiving grant monies, or by any other person against
an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person?s
acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.

Women can falsely inflate the rates of this for personal gain and yet I hear few objections by feminists http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4413:beeman-gets-five-years-probation-in-embezzlement-case&catid=74:judicial-watch&Itemid=100. or hey, look up where that 1 in 4 statistic comes from, sure more than half the people. Hell its considered a major reason that rape centers cant get enough funding in lower income areas http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html.
I blame feminists for this because they harbour these extremists and often rally behind them.

That Sommers article attempts to claim that intoxicated people can consent as long as they're conscious. What the hell. Also, what feminists are supporting the "extremist" embezzler (and how is she an extremist)? What feminist is harbouring her? What feminist is rallying behind her? Why are you expecting some huge apology from feminists in general on behalf of an embezzler?

If you feel that there should be more crisis centres for men, for example, you should found one, work for one, donate to one, not complain that the feminists aren't doing it for you.

This may come as a shock to you but I do donate! I do volunteer! In fact i moderate some forums specifically for male victims (we don't exclude women by the way) Most of what i do is delete comments as to why male rape does not count. Its actually probably the reason i'm so testy about this.
I don't expect feminists to do these things for me, I expect them to stop spreading lies in order to further their agenda.

That's great to hear! Way too many people like to hijack a legitimate cause in order to whine without actually doing anything to support that cause. Also, what's the "feminist agenda"? Considering the incredible diversity of feminists and the fact that the movement is more like movements to the point where they will often disagree with each other, I'd love to see an attempt to incorporate all feminist thought into a unified whole. I bet it's hilarious.

To be frank, I think you're barking up the wrong tree by attempting to blame feminists for problems getting funding for men's shelters. The idea that men can't be victims is widespread, predates feminism, and is part of the gender norms that many feminists constantly challenge. In fact, people like Sommers, who attempt to pretend that violence and aggression is "natural" in boys but not girls, seem far more detrimental. Considering also the idea that men are supposed to get drunk and have sex and then regret it in the morning, you can see how the attitude she takes towards rape victims can be especially harmful to men.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Every piece of art has a specific meaning. interpretations of this meaning can be more and less correct than others.

Says who? More frequently, as with the works of Shakespeare, for example, a work of art is pretty much defined by the multiplicities and complexities and ambiguities of its meanings.

Artistic criticism and interpretation needs adequate evidence to back it up. Otherwise it's simply a gut response.

That's fine, but it does not require the creator to interpret the evidence for you, nor does it preclude multiple meanings.

There obviously are pieces of art who's intent is to simply evoke an emotive response. No specific one, just a response.

And all are does have individual effects on people.

But what I was getting at is that for most work, the artist will have had a specific meaning they were trying to convey.

Also, I really wouldn't have used Shakespeare as your example of your point. Shakespeare is a prime of example of someone who's been over analysed to the point of redundancy. You could find hidden meaning the colour of a piece of toast if you wanted to. So of course you're going to be able to attribute meaning and complexities (that never existed) to works as linguistically rich as Shakespeare's.

---

No. I'm not saying that artist needs to intemperate it for you. I'm saying that if the artist has laid out the meaning of the piece and you find your POV to be contradictory to that. I'm going to go ahead and side withed the artist.

I really don't care if you find it "overanalysed". The only important part is that there's more than one meaning being communicated in his work. Whether you find those meanings overanalysed or not doesn't magically remove their presence. I was also pointing out that the rich complexity of his work is what makes it so appealing as art as opposed to his works having one simple message. Remember, you said that "Every piece of art has a specific meaning." Are you now going to pretend that a) "Hamlet" only has one meaning or that b) "Hamlet" isn't art? What is the specific meaning of "Hamlet"? Really, if you want a work that's simple and communicates only one meaning, well, I guess there are some children's storybooks... If it means that much to you, though, how about a more modern example like Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"? Ooh, or how about some of satirists, like Pope and Swift? They obviously and skillfully communicate multiple meanings in their work. "A Lady's Dressing Room" is particularly complex.

I also wasn't talking about fairly simple emotional impressions, but intellectual complexity created by multiple "meanings" communicated by a piece of art. It's pretty clear that "A Lady' Dressing Room" evokes more than simple emotions (although it can certainly evoke emotional responses too! "Gut reaction" might be particularly accurate phrasing in this case, heh).

Hey, if you want to just go along with everything a creator says, that's cool. Frankly, though, prefer to look for actual reasons for my opinions within the text itself. When dealing with a creator's statement of intent, it kind of comes down to "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm well aware of what the well-meaning cartoonist no doubt intended; however, the cartoon was so poorly constructed and thought out, I maintain, that it undermines its own message in many ways. A critic is in an excellent position to point this out to the artist, and if the artist is upset, perhaps he or she should take more care in the future to ensure that the work doesn't undermine their own intentions.

There can only be what the artist intended. I don't buy into the work becoming more than the sum of it's parts.

I never said anything about ye olde "more than the sum of its parts" and I'm not sure what that has to do with the work containing parts that the creator didn't consider the implications of.

If the artist intended a multitude of themes to be conveyed. Then that's what it is. You're getting hung up over a simple poor choice of words. When I said a piece of work has one meaning, I meant that it means what the artist was trying to convey. Not that it can't have a multitude of intentional meanings and or plotlines. What I was saying still stands. If you read into it more than the artist intended, then you're over analysing.

Occasionally the artist conveys what they never meant to. This is a particular problem with poor artists. I mentioned the cow/cat example earlier. You're taking an increasingly hardline approach too. Earlier you stated that "A lot of artists do accidentally communicate their own suppressed prejudices through their work", but now you are claiming that identifying this would be over-analysing?

And Shakespeare is a prime example of that. His plays have been picked apart so many times that people give them their own meanings.

And that is another prime example. The comic that started this whole interwoven shitfest of pedantry and confusion.

And tell me, save by relying on the text itself, how do you know what meaning Shakespeare "intended"? He didn't write manifestos for each of his plays and poems. Also, Shakespeare's great because he wrote plays, ones with very few stage directions. Each play appears slightly differently as each director, each actor, each costume director, etc. interprets the work differently. His plays are fascinating precisely because people do give them their own meanings in producing them.

You're also forgetting that the unintentional meanings do not necessarily replace or supplant the intended meanings. They can work alongside, augment, or undermine the "intended" meaning. In the case of the cartoon, a lazy thought process and poor drafting has created unintended meanings that undermine is core message. Rather unfortunate, really.

And you say it like it's so simple, identifying what the author really "meant". There are scholarly studies dedicated just to figuring out what a "true" version of a work is, not to mention its "true" meaning.

There is no malice in that image. Intentional or otherwise.

Haha, well malice requires intent, so I don't think anyone said the comic was malicious, since the unintended messages were the concern. If they did, they weren't using the word correctly.

It's people reading to much into it, again, because it's art and fuck. You can make someone elses art mean anything these days. All you have to do is find some flimsy elements in the text to ride to death.

You can do that as the artist too, actually, make your own art mean anything. If I put a dot on a piece of paper and said it conveyed all kinds of profound meanings on the state of human nature, because that's what I intended it to do, does the work then convey that? You never did address the little issue of "creators can lie". You also did not address the point I made about artists having preconceived notions about their own art that can colour their own interpretations.

Hey, it was done on a PC wasn't it? So there's obviously and underlying hatred of traditional artwork being conveyed in it. Maybe the artist was an eco terrorist and refuses to touch paper.

That makes sense!

-_-

I caution you to not try to interpret the person from the work, which is what your last sentence is doing. I believe even the first comment about the cartoon was that it can be interpreted as misognistic, not that the author was a misogynist. If you want to talk about hurting the author, that's probably the best way to do it. I do hope that I have been as careful in my wording. You raise an excellent point about how media communicate their own message though, and how this message can often create unintentional messages in the work itself (like I mentioned with Plato earlier). Always something to be aware of (oh and it seems more of a slight pro-digital art message, which doesn't necessarily imply a strong anti-traditional art message ). Really, though you present the problem of over-analysis, yes, in that it requires sufficient evidence, but it still doesn't persuade me that the evidence necessarily must come from the artist.

Oh, and I should have mentioned this earlier, but be careful not to confuse "hidden" meaning and "unintentional" meaning. Some artists do have hidden meanings in their work quite intentionally. Some unintentional meanings can be blatantly obvious.