Women's rights

[Hagi]

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.

Yay! You might be getting close to understanding the meaning of the world "hyperbole"!

Just hang in there, you'll get it eventually.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Just hang in there, you'll get it eventually.

I'll try to explain this to you one more time.

The cartoon is not biting.
The cartoon is not interesting.
Hyperbole and exaggeration employed to a useless end become useless.
The cartoon is stupid. It is a stupid, stupid cartoon.

REASONABLE PEOPLE KNOW THIS.

With time, if you hang in there, you'll get it eventually. You'll see how stupid the cartoon is, you'll feel stupid for liking it, and you'll feel stupid for ardently defending it as though it were the last good hill to die on.

There is such a thing as bad art.

Congratulations, you've found some.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

I disagree with female superiority, agree with equality. However, I was raised to believe in basic chivalry; don't hit women & children and be polite to women & children. Is chivalry still considered sexist? I can't keep track, I don't think it is.

 

[Whateveralot]

Snip

Strangely, I don't think that this "hipocracy" is the answer, let alone that woman are to blame for that. I think men shouldn't solve their problems without hitting each other either. In fact, this is forbidden by law.

 

[Hagi]

Just hang in there, you'll get it eventually.

I'll try to explain this to you one more time.

The cartoon is not biting.

You're offended by it, that means it's biting.

The cartoon is not interesting.

Which is why you're discussing it so intensely?

Hyperbole and exaggeration employed to a useless end become useless.

It gets the point across. Even you admitted to getting the point of the idiom. It works.

The cartoon is stupid. It is a stupid, stupid cartoon.

Pick up a newspaper sometime. Most of them have 'stupid' cartoons like this one in them.

REASONABLE PEOPLE KNOW THIS.

With time, if you hang in there, you'll get it eventually. You'll see how stupid the cartoon is, you'll feel stupid for liking it, and you'll feel stupid for ardently defending it as though it were the last good hill to die on.

There is such a thing as bad art.

Congratulations, you've found some.

Stop taking it so seriously. It's just a cartoon. It's not the last hill to die on. It's not a grave insult to you personally. It's just a cartoon. Nothing more, nothing less. Just a cartoon.

 

[cynicalsaint1]

I think a big part of the problem is that the vocal minority of man-hating feminazis have ruined feminism for everyone. They tend to make the most noise because crazy people just tend to be noisy for some reason, and then as an effect everyone else is afraid to call themselves a "feminist" out of fear of being lumped in with the crazy ones. So time goes on and more and more the crazy ones become the definition, because no one but the crazy man-haters want to call themselves "feminist".

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

 

[Oracle144]

I think there are a couple things going on here. (And I'm not going to bother with the use of the wolf/sheep idiom because I think evilthecat and bloatedguppy have done a fine job summarizing the issues with it, but the back and forth argument isn't making any headway)

There are misandrists out there who masquerade as feminists. But there are also misogynists out there who, when confronted with a feminist argument they disagree with, say "Oh, that person is just a man-hater pretending to be a feminist".

So it's just a big pool of messy semantics and labels and people getting offended and what have you. Feminism is messy. Sexism is messy. And it seems impossible to discuss it without people getting all up in arms about it.

I think that we live in a sexist culture. When I point out the inherent sexism in certain aspects of our culture, I'm not hating on men. I'm not blaming men (And I'm pretty sure most other feminists aren't blaming men either). People are sexist, regardless of gender, because of the culture we were raised in.

I think we're doing a better job today than we have been in the past, but there's still a long way to go.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You're offended by it, that means it's biting.

I've stated repeatedly that the cartoon is offensive because it is A) stupid and B) misogynistic. "Biting" implies that it is "incisive", which implies that it is intelligently analytical. It is nothing of the sort. It is possible to be offended by things that are moronic, as opposed to thought provoking.

Which is why you're discussing it so intensely?

I invite you to go back and visit the point at which I entered this thread. I've been far less interested in the existence of your hilariously stupid cartoon than I have been in your ridiculous obstinance in the cause of defending it. I have recently come to review my decision to discuss this with you and attempt to change your mind as deeply stupid on my part, as your repeated baiting is making it clear that you are trolling the discussion as opposed to contributing to it.

It gets the point across. Even you admitted to getting the point of the idiom. It works.

Whether or not it "works" depends on what the point of it was. If the point of it was to enrage the viewer because of how obnoxious and pointless it was, then I guess a stirring victory can be claimed on the part of the artist. Some people seem to get a great deal of enjoyment out of causing distress simply through doing and saying unbelievably stupid things. Bully to them, I suppose. Everyone has to be good at something.

At this point, I don't see that there's a lot of point to continuing a discussion of this. I honestly believed you were being either deliberately obtuse, or honestly couldn't divine how that cartoon might be interpreted as misogynist. Since then you've attempted to educate the forum on such lofty and elusive concepts as "hyperbole" and "idioms" and "political cartoons" as though they have up until now evaded all but the keenest minds, so I'm forced to conclude that you're either arguing for the sake of arguing because you think arguing is funny, or that you're deeply stupid. Whichever the case, there's not much point in carrying on. Enjoy your "biting" cartoons. You might enjoy Family Circus. It's in newspapers.

 

[Kekkles]

I don't believe sexism to be an actual thing, since probably 80% of all women don't think in the way you've said. It's more personality problems, over-self-importance and a sense of delusion of grandeur. People need to level out and realise that no one person is better than another. EVEN "SEXISTS"!

 

[Hagi]

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?

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

It's called hyperbole. It's a rhetorical device that uses exaggeration to create a strong impression.

Seeing how you're going on with this it may have succeeded a bit too well.

 

[orangeban]

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.

It's an incredibly simple cartoon.

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

The sheep represents a feminist who is saying what feminists believe in (equality)

The wolf (misandrist) is pretending to be a sheep (feminist) by wearing it's clothing. However, what it says and how it is represented reveal it to be a misandrist.

To people who have never seen a real sheep (feminist) they might mistake this wolf in sheeps clothing (misandrist) for a real sheep (feminist)

It's an incredibly simple cartoon.

 

[finalguy]

to be honest, i feel that the cartoon does sum up the populous view of feminism.
to be clear i think the sheeple in the world, the unwashed masses as it were, think 95% of femists are hippy-dippy sweet girl power cuties, and the other 5% are militant super bull dykes(and before anyone says this has nothing to do with lesbianism, if a woman hates men, more then likely she likes girls). so i feel the cartoon DOES go past the normal meaning of the idiom. i feel it states more by using a small PINK smiling sheep, and a much larger vicious smiling wolf was a nutsack in HER hand. the idiom is beware the wolf in sheeps clothing, i believe that the cartoon unintentionally is saying "society believes feminism is a trap, that really ALL feminists are the wolf"

 

[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.

 

[finalguy]

LOL anyone else notice OP is suspended now.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Valerie Solanos: Because encouraging male gendercide for the creation of an all female society isn't sexism... at all.

1) You've spelt her name wrong.
2) She's not a feminist and never claimed to be.

Andrea Dworkin: Because accusing men of rape because they watch porn is all fine and dandy.

She didn't do that.

Don't quote people out of context.

Aileen Wuornos: Because killing men who had sex with you because your a prostitute is just self defence. (admitedly she was probably just crazy)

Not familiar with her. Did she claim to be a feminist?

Gloria Allred: Pretty clearly a misandrist.

So what? Did she say that women are worth more than men? It's not the same thing.

You missed out Mary Daly, who is a feminist, is openly and explicitly misandrist, and is actually a very nasty piece of work, but who also never said that men are inferior.

Don't quote other people out of context to try and make it sound like they said that when they didn't.

 

[Madara XIII]

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.