Women's rights

[KirbyKrackle]

Now if this entire thread was railing you might have a point. But it's just you and cat. That's a pretty clear sign you're overreacting.

We don't judge the effect of subjective material by singular anecdotal accounts. We judge it's effect by the numbers (and no, numbers is not the same as the majority). Two people whining isn't enough to form a misunderstood minority. That's just two people being silly.

Actually, you can count me in on team "why would anyone think this picture was a good idea?"

And I'm curious, what are the "numbers" necessary to judge subjective material? When will there be enough people to form a misunderstood minority?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I never said that they were, although their intial motis operndi was to fight for women.

The initial motis operndi of misandry was to "fight for women", was it?

I'm English, well done. You just made yourself look like an ignorant troll. Broaden your understanding of etymology. It's lacking.

Pft. Fair enough.

Whether or not she was crazy doesn't detract from the fact that she was a feminist. Which was my point. I only brought it up because she was a bit mad. You need to get a grasp of basic logic my friend. You're failing hard.

How on earth was she a feminist? Feminism is the belief that men and women are equal. Killing a score of men because you have deep seated issues with them does not permit inclusion in that demographic. She became a "feminist celebrity" because of the rapes and abuse she was purported to have suffered prior to her killing spree. So she's a good example of how A can lead to B. She is not, however, an example of a celebrated feminist thinker, or a misandrist disguised as a feminist. She is/was a serial killer. Shall we make a list of male serial killers who killed exclusively women? Pro tip: There will be more than one.

Your point, you failed to make it!

We're both perfectly aware that the only points you're prepared to recognize are your own, or those which support them.

 

[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.

You sir are awesome. I wish I had something to really add to this thread, but the constant bickering between the misinterpretation of a cartoon has left me head desking to the point of a negative IQ.

I really do believe what you say is true, however it'll take some serious time before we can make such progress.

The real problem we have is that each gender still judges each other by the lowest point of the spectrum. And that a number of each gender actually duplicate the stereotypical roles - successfully.

There are some thug men and housecleaning women who are very happy, successful and socially aware with their lives. Equally there's some engineer gals and fashion designer blokes.

We can judge trends by gender - but until that's seen as something other than sexist, then we aren't going to make headway - mainly because biologically we ARE different.

And if you're going to start giving out rights, I'd say that respect as a human being should come first - because there's still not enough of that around.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

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?

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Here's a link to the original picture, with ample space for you to quiz her about her misogynist tendencies or lack thereof.

http://humon.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=216#/d2yrljn

 

[ShadowKatt]

I've never had the pleasure of encountering an extreme feminist.

I think they do more harm than good. I know one used to drink in my sisters local until she got into a heated debate with my sister over her letting my brother in law pay for everything (it was my sisters birthday, he took her out for a drink) so my sister beat the shit out of her.

Thats as close as i've come to one.

Thats about as close as i'd like to ever get.

Oh hold on, I tell a lie.

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.

I wasn't a rape supporter before. Now I am. Thank you for that.

Honestly, at this point in my life I've had about enough of the name calling and snide insults, especially when it comes to feminism. It doesn't matter what I do, I'm always the bad guy, literally. I'm always the BAD GUY. And there's no changing that. There's no mitigating it, there's no atoning for it, there's no fixing it or solving it. I am what I am because of the genetics of my birth and the only way I can be a better man is to be a dead man.

So really, it's like a dog that's been kicked one too many times. It bites back because it has nothing left to lose and because it may as well be what it's being punished for. So I'm now a rapist. If I'm gonna do the time anyway, I may as well do the crime. And feminism makes the world a better place.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I wasn't a rape supporter before. Now I am. Thank you for that.

Honestly, at this point in my life I've had about enough of the name calling and snide insults, especially when it comes to feminism. It doesn't matter what I do, I'm always the bad guy, literally. I'm always the BAD GUY. And there's no changing that. There's no mitigating it, there's no atoning for it, there's no fixing it or solving it. I am what I am because of the genetics of my birth and the only way I can be a better man is to be a dead man.

So really, it's like a dog that's been kicked one too many times. It bites back because it has nothing left to lose and because it may as well be what it's being punished for. So I'm now a rapist. If I'm gonna do the time anyway, I may as well do the crime. And feminism makes the world a better place.

Eh. Eve's Daughter wasn't calling you a "rapist". She was implying that all men are passive supporters of rape culture, and thus passive enablers of rape. Presuming for a second that you support the concept of rape culture to begin with, she picked a particularly incendiary and obnoxious way to go about making her point.

What bugs me about her blog isn't her radical feminism, it's the fact she proactively shuts down ANY debate about ANY of her presumptions, creating an atmosphere in which she is the final authority on all things and cannot be questioned. She's a preacher, and that is her church, and she preaches solely to the converted. To anyone else, she's a bully and a pedant. And it's a shame, because the people she actually NEEDS to reach and educate are the very people she's turning into lifelong enemies with her antics.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It was nice of you to make room for the possibility that she was *possibly* crazy.

Whether or not she was crazy doesn't detract from the fact that she was a feminist. Which was my point. I only brought it up because she was a bit mad. Valerie Solanos was more than likely off her fucking rocker. She called for the gendercide of all males and tried to assassinate Andy Warhole. Doesn't mean she isn't a valid candidate for my point. Just like bringing up Hitler in a debate about why Nazism is wring wouldn't be uncalled for because he was clearly a fucking loon. You need to get a grasp of basic logic my friend. You're failing hard.

Anyone have that "feminism: just like invading Poland" image? Maybe you oughta tone down the sophistry, O Melodramatic One, before you start getting accused of overreacting. Your comparison is so, so bad on several levels.

 

[kickyourass]

I've never encountered any 'feminist' who flip their shit over men opening a door for them, but I fully plan to slam said door in the harpy's face if I ever do.
However such women are in fact NOT feminists, they are sexist douche-bags who either A: think that just because their women they won't get called on their sexist douche-baggery (Which is false, I call out sexism no matter who's doing it), or B: are too spineless to just own up to the fact that their sexist douche-bags and try to use feminism as a shield (kinda like similar douche-bags who use 'political correctness' as a sheild for their own douche-baggery).

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

No, I'm saying that because feminism was represented as a pink sheep, you don't automatically assume misogyny. At least if you're a rational human being you don't. From an artistic perspective. Colour is used as a subtle way to convey a detail that would otherwise have to be explained. Pink being synonymous with women is not a misogynist suppression technique. It's simply a way to tell the viewer that [insert whatever here] is female.

The fact the sheep is bleating about feminism wouldn't have been clear enough, eh? You're aware, too, that feminism and misandry are not uniquely female traits? Still, it's a good thing we had the pink there to remind us the sheep was female. What about the insipid, winsome look on its face? Oh right, that was to remind us it was a fucking sheep. There weren't, after all, any other available visual clues to aid us in that regard.

Where did he ever say that? Ignoring the fact that I don't think there are many misandrists that are men, his point was that pink signified that the sheep (ie: the actual feminist) is female. Now if you said "it's not just women who are fond of pink" you might not have betrayed that your pulling at straws.

Bhuuuuull fucking shit.

Maybe if you completely misunderstand how artists approach things such as colourisation and characterisation. I however, don't.

Yes yes, we've heard this before. YOUR perspective is the RIGHT perspective. You understand colorization! And characterization! Although not how to spell them, lamentably.

He didn't say his perspective was right, he said he understood what colour may symbolise in an image. Also; characterisation, colourisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences Just because how you spell it is acceptable, it doesn't make every other way incorrect. Of course, maybe you just assume your perspective is always right (see what I did there, taking statements out of context isn't nice is it).

Because it wasn't a stretch. She claimed to be a feminist. She was just another man hater. The theme... she a fits!

And I actually stated at the end of her little sumary (maybe she was just crazy.)

It was nice of you to make room for the possibility that she was *possibly* crazy.

He said maybe she was just crazy. Again, you've taken his statement out of context.

People like you are why I think feminism needs a complete overhaul. Off with the archaic rhetoric. Bring in the new set of people. People willing to admit gender bias on both ends of the spectrum and who don't go out intentionally looking for something to find fault in. Because a picture presented feminism as a pink sheep, and you don't like pink thefore it's sexism. And Teh mahyn is tryna oppress y'all with colour n such!

I'm sure feminists everywhere are super excited about your progressive ideas for pushing their movement forward. Be careful though. Some of them are misandrists in disguise! They're gonna cut off your balls!

I'm not even going to touch on this; suffice to say that it's clear absolutely nothing is getting through your thick skull.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

I think this picture sums it up:

Yeah.. because noone could construe that imagery as misogynist.

The picture implies that the sheep is a real feminist and the "wolf in sheep's clothing" are the loud, obnoxious man-haters who aren't often mistaken for feminists. I'm not sure how you could misinterpret that.

I don't think anyone's interpreted it as anything else. However, it comes with plenty of other meanings associated with it, which others have already elaborated on, including but not limited to the decision to use that analogy in the first place.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You know pefectly well what I meant, pedantry isn't an indicator of wit.

Well, no I don't. I said misandry and feminism weren't uniquely female traits. You said their initial modus operandi was to fight for women. How the hell am I supposed to deduce from this that wasn't what you meant?

She repeatedly claimed to be a feminist. And said her actions were a reaction to the patriarchal society which suppressed her and allowed her to be raped. She was a misandrist posing as a feminist. Exactly what I was pointing out.

Claiming to be a feminist and being a feminist are not the same thing. And she claimed to be a feminist as part of a legal defense in which she was trying to evade the death penalty for all the serial killing that she did. It's just a terrible analogy, and I wish you'd owe up to it. You're trying to argue a point using the most outrageous and sketchy examples.

It was nothing to do with her just killing men but her reasons for doing it. And you're right, there will be lots of misogynistic serial killers. Really doesn't moot my point though.

Nor is it meant to. Nor does the existence of misandry moot the existence of misogyny, or mean anyone reacting to the existence of it is "over-reacting" or "being silly".

Also, I edited a bit into that initial quote, but you quoted me before it came through. Just expanding on my point.

I'm just glad I wasn't the first one to invoke Godwin's Law.

Was that a self analysis? Sure as hell sounded like one.

That would be a brilliant riposte if you had any concept of what it was I was arguing. I'm saying there's room for a misogynistic interpretation of that picture. You're saying there's not. My perspective allows for subjective appraisal. Yours suggests there is only one right way to view it. Your way.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'm back to my favourite piece of lazy summing up of a topic.

I think women should get equal pay and rights, yet, I'm still against hitting women, and I still open doors for women. Does that make me sexist or more feminist?

An easy test to find out: Do you believe hitting women is wrong because they're women or because hitting people is wrong? Do you hold doors open for men too?

Tricky, I tend to mainly do it for women, tho if there's a man who needs some help, carrying a lot for example, I'll do it. I'd think that it's more I'd look strange, holding a door for a man, whereas it's still reasonably accepted to do it for a woman. I'm also more likely to do it for older people, I'm not lurking around holding doors for every woman that passes.

As for the hitting, I was just brought up' you don't hit girls', I could change that rule if I was attacked, but only in self defence I believe.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It was nice of you to make room for the possibility that she was *possibly* crazy.

Whether or not she was crazy doesn't detract from the fact that she was a feminist. Which was my point. I only brought it up because she was a bit mad. Valerie Solanos was more than likely off her fucking rocker. She called for the gendercide of all males and tried to assassinate Andy Warhole. Doesn't mean she isn't a valid candidate for my point. Just like bringing up Hitler in a debate about why Nazism is wring wouldn't be uncalled for because he was clearly a fucking loon. You need to get a grasp of basic logic my friend. You're failing hard.

Anyone have that "feminism: just like invading Poland" image? Maybe you oughta tone down the sophistry, O Melodramatic One, before you start getting accused of overreacting. Your comparison is so, so bad on several levels.

Not really, it was a perfectly adequate parallel. I simply chose Hitler because it's impossible to argue that he isn't part of the context of nazism.

I think you need to re-read what I said. Because you took it the wrong way.

Hitler was the leader of the nazis, and nazism was based on his ideals. Are you saying that feminism is based on the ideals of Solanos and led by Solanos? If not, why bring him up when you could have used other, more appropriate examples? You're in no position to lecture others on using basic logic in discussions if you can't make better comparisons. Please make a comparison that is not apples-to-oranges in its nature. I mean really. Hitler. Could you pick a more melodramatic example?

 

[Hagi]

Of course it's subjective. But you should be aware of your own subjectivity. You attach the meaning of misogyny to the picture, it's not inherent in the picture itself. Don't blame it on the picture. Blame it on yourself.

The ability to interpret the picture in different ways is not "inherent in the picture itself"? So we're back to "there's no such thing as subjectivity", and that there's one right way to view that thing, and it's your way?

Now if this entire thread was railing you might have a point. But it's just you and cat. That's a pretty clear sign you're overreacting.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Two people whining isn't enough to form a misunderstood minority. That's just two people being silly.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

"Misogyny" wasn't a concept invented by me and cat for the purposes of this thread. You do understand that, yes?

That picture? It's just pixels. That's all that's inherent to the picture. A few pixels, bits of data.

Everything else? Your interpretation. That's you, not the picture.

Now of course, there's such a thing as culture. Which is partly a shared interpretation of things. If something is interpreted the same way by many people then it can be considered a shared interpretation. You mistake this for an appeal of popularity, it is not. It need not be a majority or mainstream. It just means that it isn't purely anecdotal. Because just like popularity is a fallacy, anecdotal evidence is as well.

A few people in a single internet thread? That's anecdotal evidence. You can't judge purely on anecdotal evidence. And I'm not talking about misogyny, I'm talking about you linking misogyny to this picture.

There's purely anecdotal evidence supporting your claim that this picture is misogynistic. Anecdotal evidence says absolutely nothing about the subject matter, it only says something about the person making it.

Until you can prove that your viewpoint is representative in a statistically significant way you're just making unfounded claims based on anecdotal evidence. That's only saying something about yourself, it's not saying anything about this picture.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

That picture? It's just pixels. That's all that's inherent to the picture. A few pixels, bits of data.

Everything else? Your interpretation. That's you, not the picture.

Now of course, there's such a thing as culture. Which is partly a shared interpretation of things. If something is interpreted the same way by many people then it can be considered a shared interpretation. You mistake this for an appeal of popularity, it is not. It need not be a majority or mainstream. It just means that it isn't purely anecdotal. Because just like popularity is a fallacy, anecdotal evidence is as well.

A few people in a single internet thread? That's anecdotal evidence. You can't judge purely on anecdotal evidence. And I'm not talking about misogyny, I'm talking about you linking misogyny to this picture.

There's purely anecdotal evidence supporting your claim that this picture is misogynistic. Anecdotal evidence says absolutely nothing about the subject matter, it only says something about the person making it.

Until you can prove that your viewpoint is representative in a statistically significant way you're just making unfounded claims based on anecdotal evidence. That's only saying something about yourself, it's not saying anything about this picture.

Not one post ago you were suggesting that the reactions of the people in this thread were sufficient to demonstrate that A) your perspective was valid and B) I, and anyone who shared my perspective, where "whining" and "just being silly". You cannot then turn around and dismiss the thread in its entirety as purely anecdotal. I appreciate your constant gear shifting and evasions and recognize the effort that goes into them, but what's the point?

I agree that my reaction does say something about me. I humbly suggest it says I'm familiar enough with casual misogyny to know it when I see it.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

I'm back to my favourite piece of lazy summing up of a topic.

I think women should get equal pay and rights, yet, I'm still against hitting women, and I still open doors for women. Does that make me sexist or more feminist?

An easy test to find out: Do you believe hitting women is wrong because they're women or because hitting people is wrong? Do you hold doors open for men too?

Tricky, I tend to mainly do it for women, tho if there's a man who needs some help, carrying a lot for example, I'll do it. I'd think that it's more I'd look strange, holding a door for a man, whereas it's still reasonably accepted to do it for a woman. I'm also more likely to do it for older people, I'm not lurking around holding doors for every woman that passes.

As for the hitting, I was just brought up' you don't hit girls', I could change that rule if I was attacked, but only in self defence I believe.

Well, obviously I'm in no position to make set-in-stone pronouncements, but I think it's important that you demonstrate that you're trying to treat women equally to men and not set them up in some separate special category for treatment.