Women's rights

[BloatedGuppy]

People can have a subjective opinion on anything, it doesn't mean there is any evidence to back said opinion up.

Yeah I know. People can have an opinion on anything, but other people's opinions are wrong.

We're discussing a piece of "art". It is fundamentally subjective. That you can't, or won't, understand that because you NEED to win an argument on the internet makes it utterly pointless to continue with this. So I give up. You win. You are the big winner. Well done. It's not subjective at all, and you were right all along.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It wasn't a direct flouting of Godwins law. I wasn't comparing feminism to nazism. I was saying that just because someone was a nut doesn't remove their influence.

...By comparing a "feminist" to a nazi. Hrm.

 

[b3nn3tt]

The way I see it, as long as people divide themselves as feminists or masculinists there will always be conflict. People on both sides tend to only see the 'injustices' that are inherent to their own sex, when what should be happening is people seeking to resolves problems that affect people.

Yes, women have in hard in some areas, yes men have it hard in some areas. How about everyone put aside their sexism hats and actually work together to resolve something?

Of course, this is hugely unlikely to happen, but one can always dream.

 

[Hagi]

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.

My perspective is that this picture is referring to the Wolf in Sheep's clothing idiom. To which you agreed.

I'm not making any other claims. I'm only disputing yours. Saying a picture doesn't mean something isn't a claim to prove. By that logic I'd also have to prove that the picture wasn't referring to space dragons, ice-cream or quantum-mechanics.

This entire thread is anecdotal. If you want to dispute my claim that this picture is referring to the Wolf in Sheep's clothing idiom then I concur, I can't prove that it does. I don't have the statistical backing to make that claim, I made it because I thought it obvious and as long as nobody disputes it, it stands. But if you dispute it, then sure it's not certain it's referring to that either.

In that case the picture is meaningless. However you earlier agreed that it does refer to that idiom so that's not a problem, nobody is disputing that it's referring to that idiom.

A lot of people are disputing that this picture is misogynistic and you're providing only anecdotal evidence to counter that. That's not enough.

And as long as you continue to provide only anecdotal evidence I'll call you silly. Because that's one thing silly people do, they think their own point of view is representative for a larger group without any backing that this is the case.

 

[Gigano]

Individual human rights is where it's at.

Whatever biological group you belong to is utterly irrelevant in regard to what equal rights and responsibilities you should enjoy as an adult of legal age and full mental maturity.

Anyway, anything that does not curtail its extremist elements will lose sympathy; as it very well should, for a true devotion to equality and justice means being equally strict and active against those who'd transgress in favour of oneself. When nothing is done, it can only be surmised that they're only devoted to their own benefit.

 

[gallaetha_matt]

This five page debate about the cartoon is like Alien vs Predator. No matter who wins, everybody loses.

Also it's shit.

Still, like the AvP movie. It made me laugh; in the same way that I laughed at The Room .

But well done, serfs. Your well intentioned cavorting has amused your king. Here is a pittance...

... now put on this dress. DO IT!

I must admit though, when I first saw the cartoon I thought 'Pink Sheep? Really? Pink?' but then I immediately stopped giving a shit. Come on guys, agree to disagree already. Would it help if I told you that I see both sides of the argument and that you all make some valid points?

I'm also really enjoying these threads. They always go the same way. Somebody says how much feminism/misandry pisses them off, they then fail to cite any examples or quotes and just post some assinine bullshit like 'why isn't okay for me to hit women when it's okay for me to hit a man?' or 'I was holding a door open for this woman and she yelled at me for it!' They'll then go on to judge an entire gender based on the actions of a few women while simultaneously pouring scorn on misandrists, never once will they realise the irony.

Have a great day

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Someone seeking equality for women is a feminist.

Someone who thinks they're better for being a woman (interchangeable with any race, religion etc)is a SUPREMACIST.

We need not tarnish the good name of one by confusing it with the other.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

And as long as you continue to provide only anecdotal evidence I'll call you silly. Because that's one thing silly people do, they think their own point of view is representative for a larger group without any backing that this is the case.

When did I say my point of view was representative for a larger group?

I said there's room to interpret the picture as misogynist. I can. Cat did. Whether it's anecdotal or not is irrelevant. The question was whether the possibility for that interpretation was there, or whether the problem was an adult human being didn't know what "idiom" meant, even though they'd already plainly demonstrated that they did. The argument was never which one of our opinions was "THE TRUTH", since it's been aptly demonstrated in this thread that Abandon4093 is the sole arbiter of truth, and if he ever says anything even faintly ridiculous the problem doesn't lie with him, it's with other people being pedantic.

People over analyse art all the time.

All that is really there is what the artist intended. Just because it's 'art' and not some factoid doesn't give you free reign to read what you want into it.

Also, nice of you to just skip everything else I said. You seemed to be working under the assumption that I didn't believe in misogyny or something equally ludicrous. Simply reading my actual discussion with cat for context would have put that notion to bed many, many moons ago.

Art is free to be analyzed. At which point has it been OVER analyzed? Oh shit, I know when that point is reached. It's the point where you no longer agree with the conclusions formed, right? See? I'm learning.

I'm sorry I skipped past your stream of insults and justifications and accusations of pendatry. I figured you'd just be happier if I acknowledged your authority on this subject and moved along.

 

[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?

Do they have to occupy the same position in each movement to have the same effect? Where does it say that? I was just pointing out that because someone was a nutcase doesn't moot the effect they had on the movement. If you want me to bring up someone who wasn't the leader or initiator but was still of their rocker and had an effect on the movement. How about Himler or Mengele?

Both work just as well, but because they're not as famous, I risk people not knowing who they are.

Again, is pedantry the only ammunition you people have?

"Do they have to occupy the same position in each movement to have the same effect?"
How is this even a question? Gee, do leaders of a movement have the same effect on a movement as some minor member of? Let's all give serious thought to this. Or do you mean "the same effect" on your argument? Gee, is the leader of a movement based on that leader's ideas the same as a minor figure in a highly heterogenous movement? Would two people in two very different roles in two very different movements make for an appropriate comparison? Oh, and did you give any consideration as to what leaping immediately from "feminist" to "nazi" might say about your thought process and what you think of the former?

And as for "I was just pointing out that because someone was a nutcase doesn't moot the effect they had on the movement," why did you feel the need to choose nazis? Every time?

And you're correct! I wouldn't know who "Himler" is

Also, and just a thought here, you could not compare feminism to nazism. Just, you know, a suggestion. Pick a less melodramatic example, something that people can take seriousl.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It wasn't a direct flouting of Godwins law. I wasn't comparing feminism to nazism. I was saying that just because someone was a nut doesn't remove their influence.

...By comparing a "feminist" to a nazi. Hrm.

Again, you either completely misunderstand the parallel or you're pretending to misunderstand it for effect.

It wasn't a comparison to Nazism. But how much of an effect each individual lunatic had on their movement. The Nazism is irrelevant. I'm only using it because it's hard for people to argue that they weren't lunatics and that they still had an effect.

Just like there were many crazy misandrists who had an effect on feminism.

If this isn't clear to you after that explanation, you need to go sit in a corner and feel ashamed.

So what you're saying, then, is that nazism was just a completely innocent pro-German movement that was hijacked by some nutcase who claimed to identify as one of them...ooookay then.

Or are you saying that feminism is an inherently oppressive group dedicated to killing millions of people in a war of extermination and that Solanos is representative of them?

Because Hitler is representative of nazism, not some bizarre crazy who latched onto them. Bit of a difference.

 

[Feralbreed]

Basically, feminism was cool 40 years ago when these bitches were first pushing the idea through and actually changing opinions and shit.

Now it just fucking sucks, feminisms goals are achieved, there's nothing left, now it's just a tumor in society that eats away from everyone's happiness, both men and women.

Just look at how even the mass media has been cleverly turned against men in recent decades. Back in the 30's and 50's men were these douchebag gentlemen that frankly my dear couldn't give a damn. Now women on men violence and all around ballbusting is considered comedy gold. And it's not fucking funny when I have to live through this bullshit decade as a guy.

But oh, I won't complain. Because men aren't allowed to complain.

 

[Imperium9990]

Your mistaking Misandrinism for Feminism

 

[Hagi]

And as long as you continue to provide only anecdotal evidence I'll call you silly. Because that's one thing silly people do, they think their own point of view is representative for a larger group without any backing that this is the case.

When did I say my point of view was representative for a larger group?

I said there's room to interpret the picture as misogynist. I can. Cat did. Whether it's anecdotal or not is irrelevant. The question was whether the possibility for that interpretation was there, or whether the problem was an adult human being didn't know what "idiom" meant, even though they'd already plainly demonstrated that they did. The argument was never which one of our opinions was "THE TRUTH", since it's been aptly demonstrated in this thread that Abandon4093 is the sole arbiter of truth, and if he ever says anything even faintly ridiculous the problem doesn't lie with him, it's with other people being pedantic.

And as I already said earlier: of course it can be interpreted as misogynistic. It's a picture, it can be interpreted as whatever you want. I can interpret it as a direct grievous insult to the noble heritage of sheep...

That doesn't mean you actually have a valid point when complaining about it and judging it. That picture isn't horrible and evil and insulting. It's just a picture, no moral charge. It's neutral. As I said countless times: it's just a cartoon.

Once you have more then anecdotal evidence you can attach a moral charge to that picture, not before.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It wasn't a direct flouting of Godwins law. I wasn't comparing feminism to nazism. I was saying that just because someone was a nut doesn't remove their influence.

...By comparing a "feminist" to a nazi. Hrm.

Again, you either completely misunderstand the parallel or you're pretending to misunderstand it for effect.

It wasn't a comparison to Nazism. But how much of an effect each individual lunatic had on their movement. The Nazism is irrelevant. I'm only using it because it's hard for people to argue that they weren't lunatics and that they still had an effect.

Just like there were many crazy misandrists who had an effect on feminism.

If this isn't clear to you after that explanation, you need to go sit in a corner and feel ashamed.

So what you're saying, then, is that nazism was just a completely innocent pro-German movement that was hijacked by some nutcase who claimed to identify as one of them...ooookay then.

Or are you saying that feminism is an inherently oppressive group dedicated to killing millions of people in a war of extermination and that Solanos is representative of them?

Because Hitler is representative of nazism, not some bizarre crazy who latched onto them. Bit of a difference.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Go back and read what I said. Anyone with reading comprehension above that of a toddler would not have made that conclusion.

That's the only way that your "parallels" are parallel. But please explain to me how your parallel works otherwise. And why, for your example, you leapt immediately to "nazism"?

 

[KirbyKrackle]

And as long as you continue to provide only anecdotal evidence I'll call you silly. Because that's one thing silly people do, they think their own point of view is representative for a larger group without any backing that this is the case.

When did I say my point of view was representative for a larger group?

I said there's room to interpret the picture as misogynist. I can. Cat did. Whether it's anecdotal or not is irrelevant. The question was whether the possibility for that interpretation was there, or whether the problem was an adult human being didn't know what "idiom" meant, even though they'd already plainly demonstrated that they did. The argument was never which one of our opinions was "THE TRUTH", since it's been aptly demonstrated in this thread that Abandon4093 is the sole arbiter of truth, and if he ever says anything even faintly ridiculous the problem doesn't lie with him, it's with other people being pedantic.

And as I already said earlier: of course it can be interpreted as misogynistic. It's a picture, it can be interpreted as whatever you want. I can interpret it as a direct grievous insult to the noble heritage of sheep...

That doesn't mean you actually have a valid point when complaining about it and judging it. That picture isn't horrible and evil and insulting. It's just a picture, no moral charge. It's neutral. As I said countless times: it's just a cartoon.

Once you have more then anecdotal evidence you can attach a moral charge to that picture, not before.

Where did you learn that pictures are neutral? Why does the media matter to the message? Are you saying that if it was a novel it would be mysoginistic? Why is it "just" a cartoon? Can cartoons not contain sexist messages? If so, why not?

Also, what do you have besides anecdotal evidence that the cartoon is anything other than poorly thought out, stupid, and sexist? What do you consider other than anecdotal evidence?