Women's rights

[Hagi]

The definition of an idiom isn't related to the literal meaning of the word of which it is made (such as sheep and wolf).
The definition of an idiom is related to the common use of that expression.

Semiotic analysis.

Learn to do it.

Anyone can see that clearly this is referring to the wolf in sheep's clothing idiom.
If they think it somehow refers to literal sheep and literal wolves they wouldn't understand the picture anyway.

Knowing that it's referring to figurative sheep and wolves anyone reasonable will not interpret it as literal sheep and wolves, unless they're obtuse and looking to be offended.

Idioms such as these are part of the English language. Don't blame others if you don't know that language, blame yourself.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

That people who don't understand what an idiom is completely derail a thread?

OH FFS.

You can't POSSIBLY be this dense.

Look at the picture. Look at it.

Look at the wolf. Look how the features of the wolf are clearly feminized. Look how the wolf is holding a MAN'S TESTICLES, DRIPPING BLOOD. Now look at the sheep. The PINK SHEEP, with docile, gentle features that are also clearly feminized.

Seriously, I hate this. I don't want to be pushed into a situation where I'd defending knee-jerk, hysterical over-reactions in the field of gender politics, because god knows we've got enough of that to go around and then some already. But you cannot POSSIBLY tell me that you're utterly blind to where someone might construe that picture as misogynist. It's fucking cartoonishly over the top. What would do it for you? Should she have a man's severed penis dangling from her teeth as well? At that point, would the picture no longer be too subtle for you to get where the problem is?

THIS is supposed to be a bold statement about misandry? I'm completely embarrassed on behalf of my gender, seriously.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Idioms such as these are part of the English language. Don't blame others if you don't know that language, blame yourself.

I'll repeat myself again. The idiom has a rhetorical function. What is that function? Why has it been used in this context? Why did someone think it would be persuasive in this context?

You can't use something to make a point because it will carry implicit meaning and then deny that meaning exists.

You have said the words 'good' and 'bad' yourself. You have elaborated on the meaning of the idiom yourself by talking about farming, now you want to pretend all that is meaningless? I understand the fucking idiom, I also understand that someone thought it would be persuasive to draw a picture of a placid faced pink sheep and a she-wolf holding a fucking scrotum. Why did they think that, because there is an established body of meaning to the idiom which can be referenced in its use.

Having a problem with the way that meaning is used does not mean I don't understand what an idiom is. Now grow up and stop accusing other people of not understanding something you clearly don't fully understand yourself.

But you cannot POSSIBLY tell me that you're utterly blind to where someone might construe that picture as misogynist.

I know you're not necessarily agreeing with me, but thank you, seriously..

 

[Hagi]

It's fucking cartoonishly over the top.

Kind of you to notice.

Do you think Bambi is an accurate representation of forest life as well?

 

[Dexiro]

The problem is that Feminism has come to mean "Female Superiority" in a lot of cases.

A lot of Feminists don't seem to realise that to become truly equal then they're going to have to lose some rights too, and men are going to gain some.

To be honest we need to change the term, Feminist and Masculist are essentially the same thing but fool people into thinking that the problem is one sided. For some ridiculous reason Feminist is coined as meaning "equality" and Masculist is coined as "male superiority", there's something else I disagree with.

 

[Lawyer105]

Personally, I don't think that there are ANY such thing as "human rights" let alone "women's rights". I'm firmly of the opinion that what you have are privileges earned by fulfilling associated responsibilities. You want the privilege of not having your stuff stolen by thugs, you fulfil your responsibility not to steal other peoples stuff. And so on.

While I totally agree that women's privileges were, for a long time, suppressed by men, now that they've claimed them, they need to fulfil the responsibilities associated. You want to be treated with politeness (however we finally define it), you treat other people with politeness. Yelling at some dude because he opened a door, or gave up his seat, is a perfect example of NOT fulfilling your responsibilities. If you don't think it's appropriate, by all means... decline. But just because he was trying to be polite, and you didn't like it, doesn't mean you should be rude.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Kind of you to notice.

Do you think Bambi is an accurate representation of forest life as well?

Is Bambi meant to be a statement on gender politics and misandry? Do you think it's constructive and/or artistically meritorious and/or subtle to boil down a philosophical or political movement to a couple of broadly drawn and hugely sexist cartoons? To reduce a complex viewpoint to a couple of easily batted down straw men?

Yeah you're right, this is a BRILLIANT use of idiom to illustrate a world view, in that it makes the artist look like a juvenile, misogynistic idiot. Maybe there wouldn't be so many scary misandrists running around with a hunger for testicles if we didn't make ourselves so absurdly easy to hate.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I know you're not necessarily agreeing with me, but thank you, seriously..

I think you're inhumanly patient, to be honest. I've naught but respect.

 

[Hagi]

Idioms such as these are part of the English language. Don't blame others if you don't know that language, blame yourself.

I'll repeat myself again. The idiom has a rhetorical function. What is that function? Why has it been used in this context? Why did someone think it would be persuasive in this context?

You can't use something to make a point because it will carry implicit meaning and then deny that meaning exists.

You have said the words 'good' and 'bad' yourself. You have elaborated on the meaning of the idiom yourself by talking about farming, now you want to pretend all that is meaningless? I understand the fucking idiom, I also understand that someone thought it would be persuasive to draw a picture of a placid faced pink sheep and a she-wolf holding a fucking scrotum. Why did they think that, because there is an established body of meaning to the idiom which can be referenced in its use.

Having a problem with the way that meaning is used does not mean I don't understand what an idiom is. Now grow up and stop accusing other people of not understanding something you clearly don't fully understand yourself.

Sigh....

It's a cartoon. It exaggerates relevant properties. That's what cartoons do, that's the art-style.

It's a cartoon about feminists, so clearly the feminine properties are exaggerated.
It's a cartoon of a sheep, so clearly it's sheepish properties (such as placidness) are exaggerated.
It's a cartoon about misandrists, so clearly the misandrist properties (the scrotum) are exaggerated.
It's a cartoon about wolves, so clearly it's wolfish properties are exaggerated.

Stop looking so far into things, you're adding all that meaning. Nobody else. If you look hard enough to be offended you'll find something every single time, not because the rest of the world are such offensive ass-holes but because you yourself are just acting obtuse.

 

[Hagi]

To reduce a complex viewpoint to a couple of easily batted down straw men?

An editorial cartoon, also known as a political cartoon, is an illustration containing a commentary that usually relates to current events or personalities.

They typically combine artistic skill, hyperbole and biting humour in order to question authority and draw attention to corruption and other social ills.[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_cartoon[/footnote]

That's what political cartoons do.....

It's a cartoon. It's not a philosophical essay. It's just a cartoon.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Does feminism get more of a bad rap now then when it was illegal and stamped out by anyone in power? No. It might have some culturally negative connotations but for the most part people support feminism as opposed to 100 years ago.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I already used this video today...but I think the point about the cartoon is this;


The pink fluffy nice sheep represents the woman, saying that a 'good' woman is one who is agreeable, attractive and placid.

That is why someone could take offense at that picture. It has nothing to do with idioms.

Women are still oppressed in society today, we get less pay than men and are kept from doing certain jobs. Don't start up with that 'you wouldn't work in a sewer' crap becuase I think anyone would take any job in todays economy... Being labelled as feminazi's as soon as we complain about anything is just a reactionary stance to protect men from having to recognize that there needs to be further changes.

This is strikingly clear in the computer games industry but I think it's getting better.

Men also have a right to complain if they are being mistreated.

We want equality not supremacy.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's a cartoon. It exaggerates relevant properties.

Ugh.. you're misunderstanding again.

It's not about the degree of exaggeration, it's about which properties are considered relevant.

It's a cartoon about feminists, so clearly the feminine properties are exaggerated.

Why?

(..and how the fuck does that link even follow?)

It's a cartoon of a sheep, so clearly it's sheepish properties (such as placidness) are exaggerated.

WHY?

It's a cartoon about misandrists, so clearly the misandrist properties (the scrotum) are exaggerated.

..do I need to go on?

I don't give a shit about the fucking art style. I give a shit that someone chose to reference those specific things in that particular context on the belief that they would be persuasive.

If I draw a cartoon of a black person as a monkey to suggest that black people are stupid and inept, I'm not 'exaggerating the monkeyish properties because it's a cartoon about monkeys' I'm drawing a black person as a fucking monkey. I'm doing so because there's an existing body of meaning which I can invoke by doing so, and thus it has rhetorical weight.

It would not be unjustified of someone else to point that out, and I would not be able to defend myself by simply saying 'oh, it's exaggerated', because that's a reference to the art style and genre, which noone fucking cares about.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Women don't have rights. Men don't have rights. Both have priviledges that are earned.

When someone can work out a way of keeping both in line without crushing the other's independence, then we can move forward.

 

[Hagi]

It's a cartoon. It exaggerates relevant properties.

Ugh.. you're misunderstanding again.

It's not about the degree of exaggeration, it's about which properties are considered relevant.

It's a cartoon about feminists, so clearly the feminine properties are exaggerated.

Why?

(..and how the fuck does that link even follow?)

It's a cartoon of a sheep, so clearly it's sheepish properties (such as placidness) are exaggerated.

WHY?

It's a cartoon about misandrists, so clearly the misandrist properties (the scrotum) are exaggerated.

..do I need to go on?

I don't give a shit about the fucking art style. I give a shit that someone chose to reference those specific things in that particular context on the belief that they would be persuasive.

If I draw a cartoon of a black person as a monkey to suggest that black people are stupid and inept, I'm not 'exaggerating the monkeyish properties because it's a cartoon about monkeys' I'm drawing a black person as a fucking monkey. I'm doing so because there's an existing body of meaning which I can invoke by doing so, and thus it has rhetorical weight.

It would not be unjustified of someone else to point them out, and I would not be able to defend myself by simply saying 'oh, it's exaggerated', because that's a reference to the art style and genre, which noone fucking cares about.

Because there is no relating idiom of black guys and monkeys. Black guys and monkeys clearly refers to racism and not a well-known idiom.

This clearly is not a reference to submissive women, it's clearly a reference to a very well known idiom.

It uses the tools of any political cartoon: artistic skill, hyperbole and biting humour.

It's a political cartoon. It's not a philosophical essay.

You're supposed to be offended, then you're supposed to realize it's just a freaking cartoon and you're supposed to take the relevant point (the idiom) and realize the rest is just hyperbole and biting humour.

Again. It's not a philosophical essay. It's a hyperbolic, humoristic political cartoon.

You're not supposed to base your life's view on it. You're not supposed to treat it as a holy book telling you the world's truth. You're not supposed to take it that seriously.

Reasonable people know this. They know the function of a political cartoon in our society (which is why they got so outraged when people drawing political cartoons about Islam got death threats). Because it's just a freaking cartoon filled with hyperbole and biting humour.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's a cartoon. It's not a philosophical essay. It's just a cartoon.

I'm aware of what political cartoons are. evilthecat already covered most of the relevant points about the nature of the exaggeration here, so I'll just chip in that there is nothing "biting" or "satirical" here. It's just a "BOOGA BOOGA, FEMINISTS! AMIRITE?" cartoon, exhausting in its simplicity and insulting in its literal-mindedness. I'm not insulted by the premise that some feminists might harbor feelings of (gasp) misandry. I'm insulted by how broad, self-congratulatory and transparently misogynistic the delivery of this completely disinteresting message was.

 

[Rack]

At this stage women completely dominate the media, earn 102c on the dollar, get better pensions, better benefits and better education. If you're STILL a feminist at this point you're completely going beyond any sense of equality and are just trying to get an even fatter slice of the pie.

 

[Verlander]

There is a massive issue where womens rights can conflict with other civil rights, usually religion, but also culture and race rights. That's when it becomes a fairly "right wing" issue.

The thing is, there are people who will continue to fight even when the battle has been won. The original feminist movement came about for legitimate reasons that a lot of women at the time could get behind-namely equality. Now, however, "feminists" have no real battles left. Sure inequality still exists, but nothing organised will get rid of it. Women are as protected by law as men are (some may argue that they're more protected), and so the vast majority of women sink into the real world again, happy that the status quo is now on a level.

The ones who are left fighting? They go looking for fights, such as the rights of women in other cultures, or not being able to make a joke about women, or even that "feminist" who hated men so much, she genuinely claimed that they were all rape supporters (by virtue of being born male). Feminists aren't the only ones who are resorting to this, there has been a huge rise in what I like to call "Christian-baiting", where member of the homosexual community purpousefully set out to see how far they can push someones moral system, knowing that they have the general protection of the law behind them.

To everyone, I say this: the best you're ever going to get is political equality and representation. You will never convince everyone, and you will never change everyone's minds. If this situation shows us one thing, it's that there are massive cunts everywhere, regardless of age, culture, sexuality, gender or race.

 

[MrJKapowey]

I read an article from some feminist that claimed all men support rape.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

Now that is a woman with clear issues.

He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects

Wow, so if I like West Side Story (where a woman is raped during one scene by people who ae on the opposite side) I am a rape supporter...

 

[Wolfhowl the shadow lurker]

a lot of the so called feminists I have met just seem to hate men so I think I have a bad view but I do believe we should all be seen the same male or female I just wish people would stop calling themselves feminists and then hating men it gives them a bad name