Women's rights

[Madara XIII]

Oh screw this I give up!

I'll just continue my life and go on trying treat every human being I come across equally and as respectfully as possible.

[HEADING=2]F*CK MISOGYNY! And F*CK MISANDRY![/HEADING]

Those are 2 things this world can do without.

[HEADING=2]I'll leave Noob to his opinion as well[/HEADING]

 

[ThreeWords]

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.

Oh god, I read tat a while back. Looks to me like a little bit of well executed trolling.

In other news, I find it strange to find someone with the same avatar as me...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

......

:/

Are women not allowed to like pink. Does that make them part of the problem? The reason the sheep is colourised pink is because pink is synonymous with women within our culture. 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. It's simple characterisation to evoke a reaction in the viewer. The reason it looks cute and harmless is to enforce that fact that it's the good creation of the two represented in the idiom. Again, you're reading to much into it.

The idiom is an analogy for the situation.

Sheep = Feminist. Wolf = Misandrist. Not because feminists are like sheep. Because the idiom simply requires that these two animals be used. With Sheep representing the rational/good. With the wolf representing sexist/bad.

If you're actually having trouble with this concept. May the FSM help you. If not, stop being so bloody awkward.

Can people stop explaining this unbelievably commonplace and transparent idiom as though it were newsworthy? The issue isn't that no one understands what an idiom is. The issue is that certain individuals are going out of their way to fail to understand how the particular usage of this idiom in these particular circumstances can be construed as misogynistic.

 

[DoctorFrankenStein]

I hate FAKE feminists. The worst offenders are female GOP politicians. They act like they're capable and intelligent; and then they vomit up nonsense about how they're submissive to their husbands whims and believe in taking away a woman's right to have an abortion if they choose.
They make me sick.

 

[Madara XIII]

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

So why is the sheep pink and neotenic?

Does the idiom say that sheep are like that, or did the artist inflect it? Why?

If the purpose was simply to represent the idiom, why the fuck should anyone care? Why has this picture even been posted here, on a discussion about women's rights, and not just distributed to preschoolers to explain the idiom?

Art is produced for a reason. If you're unwilling to account for that reason and to even look at how it accomplishes it, then we may as well never have left preschool.

......

:/

Are women not allowed to like pink. Does that make them part of the problem? The reason the sheep is colourised pink is because pink is synonymous with women within our culture. 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. It's simple characterisation to evoke a reaction in the viewer. The reason it looks cute and harmless is to enforce that fact that it's the good creation of the two represented in the idiom. Again, you're reading to much into it.

The idiom is an analogy for the situation.

Sheep = Feminist. Wolf = Misandrist. Not because feminists are like sheep. Because the idiom simply requires that these two animals be used. With Sheep representing the rational/good. With the wolf representing sexist/bad.

If you're actually having trouble with this concept. May the FSM help you. If not, stop being so bloody awkward.

I believe his posts would entice this response in anyone.

 

[Chemical Alia]

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.

Well, Humon is a pretty lousy artist, not exactly known for clever or thought-provoking delivery of ideas. But just great for gaining popularity on a site like DeviantArt.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Are women not allowed to like pink. Does that make them part of the problem? The reason the sheep is colourised pink is because pink is synonymous with women within our culture. 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. It's simple characterisation to evoke a reaction in the viewer. The reason it looks cute and harmless is to enforce that fact that it's the good creation of the two represented in the idiom. Again, you're reading to much into it.

Refer to my first paragraph or kindly keep on walking.

It's impossible to debate your first paragraph. You're presenting yourself as an authority on what the cartoon is, and isn't, as if there was no room for interpretation or debate. How are we supposed to have a discussion? Or are you just looking for another opportunity to condescend to someone?

And seriously, dude. Aileen Wuornos is your example of misandry disguised as feminism? Calling that grasping at straws is an insult to straws.

 

[orangeban]

Because it uses the idiom in regards to feminism. A movement associated with women. A gender associated with pink.

So why is the wolf not pink?

She's clearly meant to be female.

If you aren't seeing it by now, I don't think you're ever going to. But meh.. it's nice to know that some people can.

We are working on the of the wolf in sheeps clothing idiom here (sheep=good wolf=bad)

'Good' and 'bad' to whom? Harmful and harmless to whom? I think it's pretty clear if you take another look.

I understand the cartoon and the idiom. I'm not sure how so many people seem to have the idea that all I need is a fucking summary in order to get it, but there are lot of things there which aren't part of the idiom at all. Why is the sheep pink? Why is it neotenic? Why is the wolf not these things? What is the implied relationship between the wolf and the sheep? What is the implied relationship between the sheep and you, the (presumed male) non-feminist subject.

I don't want to have to sit here and do a huge post describing the rhetoric of this one cartoon, so just take it on faith that, as someone who is relatively familiar with how women have been portrayed over the last hundred years, drawing a woman as a wolf or as a pink feminized neotenic sheep is not neutrally persuasive, it is persuasive because it draws on existing meanings.

I might have slightly more sympathy if anyone could present me a shred of evidence that these "misandrists" (wrong word, by the way) actually have any appreciable clout within the feminist movement, but they don't. I've been actively involved in feminist campaigning for several years as a man and I've never met one.

Ugh.. I have to go now, this has chewed up my entire evening. I'm sorry if I've derailed the thread, but I'm not just inflecting this meaning, it's part of how the cartoon works. The sheep was drawn pink deliberately. The sheep was given neotenic, feminized features deliberately.

Darn it, I have a reply for this. Ah well, I'll leave it for the rest of the forum to chew on.

The sheep is pink and neotonic because it's meant to be sweet and lovely (implying that feminism is sweet and lovely.)

The wolf is... well, a wolf because wolves are dicks to sheep. In the same way misandrists (and misandry is a hatred or dislike of men, so I think it's a good enough word for this) screw over feminists.

As for the sheeps relationship to the wolf, the wolf is disguising as a sheep in order to infiltrate the herd and eat them all.

The relationship between the reader and the sheep? The reader reflects on the comics meaning I guess?

And here's the point, you're right on something, misandrists aren't rampant within the feminist community, but people think they are. That's why you get people who hate feminism, that's why you get people who rage about feminists (see that thread about the Dead Island code for examples of this) because they think they all hate men.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

And here's the point, you're right on something, misandrists aren't rampant within the feminist community, but people think they are. That's why you get people who hate feminism, that's why you get people who rage about feminists (see that thread about the Dead Island code for examples of this) because they think they all hate men.

That pretty much sums up the comic, yeah. Your interpretation might work if the wolf was holding a dead sheep, instead of a pair of testicles. "Oh noooooooo! The feminists! They're after our balllllllllllllllllls."

 

[Hagi]

I'm not defending the cartoon, and it certainly isn't my cartoon. I'm defending it's position as just a cartoon.

It doesn't have to be smart, it's not a philosophical essay. Stop treating it as such.
It doesn't have to be politically correct, it's not a serious statement. Stop treating it as such.
It doesn't have to be enjoyable to everyone, it's not the pinnacle of entertainment. Stop treating it as such.

It's just a cartoon. Let it be just a cartoon. Nothing serious. Nothing to go crazy over. Nothing to be offended by. Nothing to see as misogynistic or whatever. Because it's just a cartoon.

So what if it's stupid and exaggerated? What's the problem? It's just a cartoon.

You need to take a position and maintain it. Otherwise you're just trolling, and it's exhausting.

You've suggested it is a political cartoon, back when you thought that the concept of "political cartoons" was beyond the ken of us lowly forum goers. Political cartoons are meant to illustrate a political stance or world view. The cartoons themselves are frequently hyperbolic, presumably on the assumption that everyone viewing them is a simpleton and needs a road map to understand political commentary. So is this a political cartoon or not? Now that it is no longer convenient to argue that it is, it seems not. It seems it's JUST A CARTOON.

Did you draw the cartoon? Do you know if it's meant to be a "serious statement"? Are you familiar with concepts such as "casual racism"? Do you think racist/sexist/hateful commentary is alright as long as it's "in good fun" or "just a cartoon"? When is not alright? Do you, personally, decide when the cutoff point is for that, because you're such an easygoing and objective guy? I mean, you know what an IDIOM is. That's higher learnin', right there.

Why is it "nothing to be offended by"? At which point can something safely be deemed offensive? When you deem it offensive? Are you an authority on these matters? The arguments for why it is offensive have been fairly detailed. Your argument for why it is not seems to boil down to "It's just a cartoon", and I'm honestly not certain why you think that's any kind of argument at all. Are only particular mediums capable of being racist, or sexist? Can a song be racist? But not a poem? Is a poster or a flag capable of being offensive? What about a piece of graffiti, or a saying, or a word?

I know you're now maneuvering yourself into the position of the "super relaxed dude who doesn't understand what all the fuss is about", but surely you have an opinion on these things? If you can take a break from being super chill, and taking hits on your bong, to talk to all of us INCREDIBLY OUTRAGED people, who are like, LOSING OUR MINDS, here on the internet, because we disagree with you on a talking point.

A political cartoon is a cartoon. It's a sub-group. If I talk about cartoons I'm automatically also talking about political cartoons.

Again, you're treating it as some philosophical essay. It's not. It can't ever address all the points you're raising because it's a simple picture.

If it was a serious point it wouldn't be done in the format of a cartoon. It would be done in the format of a paper or essay.

Different mediums and genres have different strengths and weakness and should be judged accordingly. A cartoon should not be judged like an essay or paper. They're different things.

A cartoon will always have multiple meanings. That's the nature of pictures. But it's ridiculous to judge them by their most offensive possible interpretation instead of by their most obvious interpretation (unless, obviously, those are the same).

We know that the picture is trying to get the wolf in sheep's clothing idiom across. That's too blindingly obvious to ignore. We don't know if the sheep is pink and placid because of an exaggeration of feminism and sheepishness or because the author thinks all women should be placid submissive princesses dressed in pink.

The reasonable thing to do would be to judge a picture on it's obvious meaning and not all it's possible interpretations. If we start going by that logic we won't be able to attach any meaning to pictures at all any more because any of them might mean just about anything.

A picture can, of course, be racist or sexist. But that doesn't mean that it's immediately racist or sexist as soon as someone somewhere thinks of a single possible interpretation that sees it as such.

The most glaringly obvious interpretation, the wolf in sheep's clothing idiom, isn't sexist. The interpretation that this picture is misogynistic due to the sheep being pink and placid is far from obvious. As such this picture shouldn't be treated as sexist.

Everything can be interpreted as sexist, racist or whatever. That doesn't mean everything is sexist.

 

[orangeban]

And here's the point, you're right on something, misandrists aren't rampant within the feminist community, but people think they are. That's why you get people who hate feminism, that's why you get people who rage about feminists (see that thread about the Dead Island code for examples of this) because they think they all hate men.

That pretty much sums up the comic, yeah. Your interpretation might work if the wolf was holding a dead sheep, instead of a pair of testicles. "Oh noooooooo! The feminists! They're after our balllllllllllllllllls."

What? No, the wolf isn't a feminist, that's the point of the comic. The wolf (who is only pretending to be a feminist) is holding a pair of balls because it's a misandrist, and clutching a pair of balls is a good way to show that (in a stylised, cartoony, hyperbolic manner)

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's impossible to debate because it's correct. You're thinking zebras when you hear hoofbeats. Is it not much more logical to assume horses?

There are incredibly simple, non-hostile reason for everything that could be construed as misogynistic in that comic/poster whatever.

In other words, you're reading into it what doesn't exist. You're finding fault where there is none.

And seriously, you ignore the other ones? Cat asked for one. I gave many.

Your presumption here with that fool analogy is that misogyny is some rarefied beast that exists only in very specific parts of the world, and not at all here in North America. Which is patently ridiculous. So no, it is not "correct". It is your interpretation, based on your existing confirmation biases, which appear to be that angry, man-hating, testicle hunting lunatics have infiltrated the sweet pink ranks of feminism and are after your scrotum.

You are correct, however, that there are several ways to look at that comic. One of which is clearly "misogynist". I humbly submit that there has been far more evidence presented to support it being misogynist than to support the alternative. However, since I'm not a self-aggrandizing asshat, I won't immediately pronounce that my opinion is "correct" and beyond debate.

Why would I need to address each in turn? You made an incredibly ridiculous reference to a notorious serial killer in a conversation about misandry and feminism. You should be embarrassed. At some point during typing that out you must have paused and thought "This is a truly ludicrous example". Yet you carried on anyway. Maybe the cat jumped up at that exact moment and broke your line of thought, I don't know, but somehow that got into your post, and made you look like a lunatic.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A cartoon will always have multiple meanings. That's the nature of pictures. But it's ridiculous to judge them by their most offensive possible interpretation instead of by their most obvious interpretation (unless, obviously, those are the same).

For me, and for cat, those are the same. For you, they might be different. The issue here isn't whether you're right, or I'm right, because we're viewing something for which interpretation is fundamentally subjective. We can argue all day along about whether we like it or hate it, or whether it's clever or stupid. The issue is that cat had a reaction to it, and I had a reaction to it, and there was plenty of evidence to support that reaction to it, and the argument seems to be that having that reaction to it is stupid/wrong/over the top/etc/etc/etc.

So, what's it gonna be? Is it subjective, and there's multiple ways to view it, and cat's perspective and my perspective are as valid as any other? Or is subjectivity a myth, and there's one RIGHT way to view it, and that's the way YOU view it, or the way ABANDON4093 views it, because misogyny is a myth, and shit like this is always 100% innocent?