Women's rights

[KirbyKrackle]

@BloatedGuppy & Evilthecat: Much as I agree with most of what you're saying, diving into personal attacks doesn't help move a discussion along. ESPECIALLY not on the internet.

But...but...isn't that what the internet is here for? WITHOUT PERSONAL ATTACKS WHAT DO WE HAVE?!

Pictures of funny cats?

 

[bruggs]

The only thing that tarnishes the view of feminism more than feminist supremacists is

a) Feminists denying such people exist and insinuating that men make them up to discredit feminism.

b) Feminists going 'no true scotsman' on the issue and choosing a definition of feminism to deliberately exclude those people once their existence is shown, then acting like men are ignorant for viewing people who identify as feminists as feminists instead of going by a certain feminist's own rigid personal definition.

c) Feminists blaming everyone else for associating supremacists with them instead of blaming the supremacists for associating with them.


It makes feminists look deceptive, willfully ignorant of wrongdoing within their own group, lacking accountability, and overly eager to blame men.

Yes. This. Very much this.

Not at all helped by the fact that people with, "crazy" views always make for the best news.

It's never, "Peaceful feminist protest considered, 'huge success' by organisation founder, Mary Smith. Mary, in her 4th month of maternity leave, decided to take the time off after a long discussion with her partner, after which she was sure she wanted to care for her child before resuming her career, and did not feel pressured into the role because of her gender"

Nope, it's always, "Self-proclaimed feminist makes battle armour out of the manhoods of ex-boyfriends. Goes on a spree. Kills four men and frightens a cat."

And yes, I'm trying to inject a teeny bit of levity into what I think is a brilliant discussion.

 

[Sandwichboy]

For a start, that artists entire gallery is cutesy and overtly characterised. Everything she draws/paints/whatever is overly cute and 'feminine'. She isn't being sexist when she does it, it's just her style.

I don't even particularity like the bloody comic. But to claim it as misogyny is just stupid.

Using traits that people will immediately pick up on =/= enforcing gender bias.

Pink is a colour synonymous with women. An artist has used that colour to characterise her sheep as a feminist. How is this inherently good or bad? How is colour association in this instance, a bad thing?

It's just another instance of people reading too much into something. Finding fault with it because you want to find fault.

It's perfectly alright to say 'I don't think that represents feminism in a light that I agree with'. It's not okay to say 'That's misogynistic because I don't like it.' Which is basically what cat and bloated's arguments amounted to.

Those stereotyped can and do frequently reinforce their own stereotypes consciously or otherwise. I'm not saying it's wrong for her to have made the colour choices she did, or that it's a bad thing at all, just that it had implications for some beyond what you think she intended. Again, implying that this all boils down to "people reading too much into something" is writing off the argument as invalid based upon a belief that this person is just unreasonable and irrational, so clearly their opinion is invalid. Wanting to find fault with something is not how it works. If something is offensive to you and you hit a trigger for it, you can't NOT see it. And as I just re-read the first few pages of the thread, I don't see that as being what their argument was about at all, but if that's what you read into their commentary then it certainly explains a great deal about the direction and tenor of the rest of the thread.

Edit: Summary: Saying "if you just understood ____ more, you'd see why your opinion is wrong" is NOT the correct response to this problem.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Also, this, as evidenced by the fact that so many women are being represented by a few overly aggressive feminists.

If generalizing feminists as man-haters is bad and dishonest

Wouldn't generalizing feminists as not being man-haters be just as bad and dishonest?

Either way you're characterizing the population based on a subset rather than the whole. Which part is more predominant can't be truthfully commented on without solid statistical evidence so words like "only a few" and "rare" are baseless.

It's only bad and dishonest insomuch as it's a bad and often dishonest idea to generalize about feminism in general. It's waaaayy to heterogeneous for that.

 

[BRex21]

I think there's a pretty easily witnessed cultural phenomenon where female on male violence is made light of, as opposed to male on female violence, which is (at least officially) frowned upon. This is, most likely, because the latter is epidemic, and the former relatively rare.

Of course you ignore the wealth of scientific study saying otherwise in favour of your own personal views, just like an enlightened feminist.
Here is a study from Harvard saying exactly the opposite.
http://www.patientedu.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d
and here is a press release with pie charts
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full
Here is a list of a few hundred studies breaking down the numbers, you can look up individual ones if you like, but the researchers broke it down and said that almost all studies showed women were at least as aggressive if not more so.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
and here is a different study finding women more often the aggressors
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/97/5/941
If you're still not convinced i suggest you read some of Erin Pizzey's work, a woman who founded some of the first women's shelters and who found that many of the women there were just as violent as the men they left. She was kicked out of her feminist organizations and subjected to death threats for saying this.

Its kind of the way our local car insurance monopoly does not record statistics on when there anti-theft devices fail, that way they can say there are no recorded examples. If you blindfold yourself and ignore it then it isn't a problem anymore is it?

 

[Sandwichboy]

There isn't a problem. There is just a few people over analysing things. The picture can only convey what the artist intended. When someone finds meaning that was never intentional, it usually means they've looked to hard or have approached it with the wrong mindset.

That type of behaviour is writhe in the art and literary world.

Usually it amounts to nothing but a bit of pretentious worbeling. But sometimes it can defame and hurt the artists who's works are being taken completely out of context. Simply because it is art does not mean you can read whatever you want into it.

I know that's how it's often being taught at school. And poetry especially, is being taught as if there is no wrong answer. And that any interpretation is welcome. But it's way to easy to twist an interpretation, of anything, to make it seem dangerous or prejudice.

Put a bit more concisely. Simply because someone was offended, it doesn't mean they should have been. The artists intent trumps our reaction as far as I'm concerned.

And my involvement in the second half of the threat took a turn for the worst about half way through my conversation with Bloated and Kirby. Both of whom decided that twisting meanings was a valid form of debate.

There's a few things I literally can't stand. Pedants and the disingenuous rank quite highly on that short list.

Yes, actually, it does. That's the POINT of art. It's a conversation using a language full of words that mean different things to everyone. You don't get to tell someone that they're wrong to be offended by something or wrong to interpret something subjective in a way you disagree with. That's their opinion and it's just as valid as yours is. This is the line of thinking that created the word "hysterical"; "I believe that a womans uterus is causing her to act irrationally, therefor I can simply write her argument and opinions off as being irrational and not worth my time." Extreme example, but you get my point. I'm agreeing that your viewpoint is perfectly valid even though I totally disagree with it, why is it so hard for you to reciprocate? What gives you the right to call my opinion stupid and wrong?

And as I said, yes, that chunk of the thread in pages 4-6 is...embarrassing all around.

Edit: I have a screening to get to, but I think I've made my point. Please stop justifying my misanthropy, all of you? Please?

 

[SillyBear]

I think there's a pretty easily witnessed cultural phenomenon where female on male violence is made light of, as opposed to male on female violence, which is (at least officially) frowned upon. This is, most likely, because the latter is epidemic, and the former relatively rare.

And this is exactly my point. Female on male violence is not relatively rare at all. I'm sorry, but even to say that it is shows a huge lag between reality and society.

My father has been a police officer for 10 years and a huge portion of the domestic abuse calls he faces are actually committed by women. But hey, let's not let anecdotal evidence suffice here.

In most Western countries, over 40% of all domestic abuse cases have male victims. This is not "relatively rare" at all, it's a huge problem and it's very real. Especially when you take into account the refuge and outreach help centres in town. In England and Wales alone there are seven and a half thousand refuge centres for female victims of domestic abuse. For men there are sixty.

Women are also more likely to be arrested for domestic abuse than men are. Three times more likely actually. According to Professor Marianne Hester of the University of Bristol. Men are more likely to abuse, but women are more likely to use weapons and end up in the slammer. They are also more likely to commit serious harm.

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-34.htm#pgfId-1353321

You can't sweep this under the rug. I'm sick to death of it. You can't call this "relatively rare" because that is the exact sort of anti-male bullshit that society feeds off. Also, most male victims of domestic abuse do not even seek help, because of the lack of support and acceptance.

Your rhetoric reveals why. So yeah, I have a huge problem with you saying it's rare and only giving it a passing comment. It's not.

I suspect it's also at least partly due to culturally accepted gender roles that presume men are burly and stoic and women are flimsy and meek, making the concept of female on male violence comical.

Yes, the same kind of societal views that have lead you to believe it's rare for men to be abused.

I think one thing that's important to remember is the absolutely staggering number of women who have, at some point in their life, been beaten, raped, or molested by a man. I don't think that excuses rampant misandry, but it does explain why some women might entertain...complicated relationships with their opposite gender.

Well they're they are fucking idiots. I'm a black, and most of my other black friends have at some point in our lives been seriously discriminated against by white people. Now if I were to get on TV and start laughing at white people being mutilated, I'd have a huge chance of going down for hate speech and I'd be kicked off the television. The excuse of "Oh, but ____ have abused me in the past!" doesn't fly for anyone else. Why should it fly for women?

This is a problem and I'm sick and tired of seeing it be swept under the rug. It's usually my fellow females who do the sweeping (lol) though.

 

[finalguy]

ugh this thread is getting so far off topic and bogged down in opinion and semantics, we will soon be debating what the definition if IS is.
the 2 arguments mainly break down into psychology vs sociology(the self vs the the societal template)
so i oppose that we just make a new thread with a poll and the image(but i will not since im tired and wouldn't wanted to be accused of bias for the answers)to see if its widely believed to be innocent/sexist/misogynistic/empowering,etc. that way everyone can have there own opinion(self) and we can see if its a majority opinion(social template).

 

[KirbyKrackle]

I think there's a pretty easily witnessed cultural phenomenon where female on male violence is made light of, as opposed to male on female violence, which is (at least officially) frowned upon. This is, most likely, because the latter is epidemic, and the former relatively rare.

Of course you ignore the wealth of scientific study saying otherwise in favour of your own personal views, just like an enlightened feminist.
Here is a study from Harvard saying exactly the opposite.
http://www.patientedu.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d
and here is a press release with pie charts
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full
Here is a list of a few hundred studies breaking down the numbers, you can look up individual ones if you like, but the researchers broke it down and said that almost all studies showed women were at least as aggressive if not more so.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
and here is a different study finding women more often the aggressors
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/97/5/941
If you're still not convinced i suggest you read some of Erin Pizzey's work, a woman who founded some of the first women's shelters and who found that many of the women there were just as violent as the men they left. She was kicked out of her feminist organizations and subjected to death threats for saying this.

Its kind of the way our local car insurance monopoly does not record statistics on when there anti-theft devices fail, that way they can say there are no recorded examples. If you blindfold yourself and ignore it then it isn't a problem anymore is it?

I agree! The patriarchal society that has for centuries promoted the idea that men are naturally violent and aggressive, women are naturally passive an non-violent, is truly shameful, as seen by its tendency to promote sad situations such as these (and worse, decrease the chance that men will report receiving abuse). All the more reason for promoting equality of the sexes and abandoning many of these gender norms. They are harmful to both men and women.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

For a start, that artists entire gallery is cutesy and overtly characterised. Everything she draws/paints/whatever is overly cute and 'feminine'. She isn't being sexist when she does it, it's just her style.

I don't even particularity like the bloody comic. But to claim it as misogyny is just stupid.

Using traits that people will immediately pick up on =/= enforcing gender bias.

Pink is a colour synonymous with women. An artist has used that colour to characterise her sheep as a feminist. How is this inherently good or bad? How is colour association in this instance, a bad thing?

It's just another instance of people reading too much into something. Finding fault with it because you want to find fault.

It's perfectly alright to say 'I don't think that represents feminism in a light that I agree with'. It's not okay to say 'That's misogynistic because I don't like it.' Which is basically what cat and bloated's arguments amounted to.

Those stereotyped can and do frequently reinforce their own stereotypes consciously or otherwise. I'm not saying it's wrong for her to have made the colour choices she did, or that it's a bad thing at all, just that it had implications for some beyond what you think she intended. Again, implying that this all boils down to "people reading too much into something" is writing off the argument as invalid based upon a belief that this person is just unreasonable and irrational, so clearly their opinion is invalid. Wanting to find fault with something is not how it works. If something is offensive to you and you hit a trigger for it, you can't NOT see it. And as I just re-read the first few pages of the thread, I don't see that as being what their argument was about at all, but if that's what you read into their commentary then it certainly explains a great deal about the direction and tenor of the rest of the thread.

Edit: Summary: Saying "if you just understood ____ more, you'd see why your opinion is wrong" is NOT the correct response to this problem.

There isn't a problem. There is just a few people over analysing things. The picture can only convey what the artist intended. When someone finds meaning that was never intentional, it usually means they've looked too hard or have approached it with the wrong mindset.

That type of behaviour is writhe in the art and literary world.

Usually it amounts to nothing but a bit of pretentious worbeling. But sometimes it can defame and hurt the artists who's works are being taken completely out of context. Simply because it is art does not mean you can read whatever you want into it.

I know that's how it's often being taught at school. And poetry especially, is being taught as if there is no wrong answer. And that any interpretation is welcome. But it's way to easy to twist an interpretation, of anything, to make it seem dangerous or prejudice.

Put a bit more concisely. Simply because someone was offended, it doesn't mean they should have been. The artists intent trumps our reaction as far as I'm concerned.

Authorial intent trumping reader response is an interesting opinion that, you'll be interested to learn, is a product of art and literary criticism. You are correct in noting that it's viewed somewhat quaintly these days, but I'm not sure where you get this "no wrong answer" thing about poetry, even in postmodernist thought. First,there are many, many different schools of criticism, so it's natural that they do not all come to the same conclusion regarding the analysis of literature. Second, I'm curious to know which schools teach "any interpretation is welcome". From what I'm familiar with, all interpretation must be backed by evidence from the text or art piece itself. Third, judging an artistic work is always subjective, thus depending on the subject. While we're all "subject" to contemporary thoughts and ideologies, we are also individuals, so there's generally some variance. F

Also, any piece of media can communicate a message that the author or artist did not intend. For example, Plato wrote piece decrying the use of writing (writing is bad because it makes people stupid and forgetful). However, his work communicated an unintended message (writing is good because it means your thoughts can be spread to other people who aren't in the immediate vicinity) that kind of undermined his argument. Kind of a lot. Many works are also filled with the prejudices and beliefs that their creators had no idea they held, which is one of the reasons older works can seem quite dated. rankly, I considered a criticism far more valuable when it takes the object itself into account, not the reader's reaction or the author's intent.

Take the comic, for example: The comic is probably just intended to say "oh those nasty misandrists, hijacking the feminist movement". However, the decision even to use the "wolf in sheep's clothing" idiom, as well as the far-from-subtle "pink=female, right?" tends to have certain implications in the cartoon for how it views the feminist movement, aggressive women, and their threat to men.

Finally, you should also beware of twisting an interpretation of a work to try and pretend that there's nothing wrong with it. This can be equally damaging and dangerous.

 

[Ivan Torres]

I KNEW IT, THIS THREAD HAS GONE TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET!

Then again, who didn't see that coming.

Oh well, I'm sure most rational people left the thread a long time ago.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think there's a pretty easily witnessed cultural phenomenon where female on male violence is made light of, as opposed to male on female violence, which is (at least officially) frowned upon. This is, most likely, because the latter is epidemic, and the former relatively rare.

And this is exactly my point. Female on male violence is not relatively rare at all. I'm sorry, but even to say that it is shows a huge lag between reality and society.

My father has been a police officer for 10 years and a huge portion of the domestic abuse calls he faces are actually committed by women. But hey, let's not let anecdotal evidence suffice here.

In most Western countries, over 40% of all domestic abuse cases have male victims. This is not "relatively rare" at all, it's a huge problem and it's very real. Especially when you take into account the refuge and outreach help centres in town. In England and Wales alone there are seven and a half thousand refuge centres for female victims of domestic abuse. For men there are sixty.

Women are also more likely to be arrested for domestic abuse than men are. Three times more likely actually. According to Professor Marianne Hester of the University of Bristol. Men are more likely to abuse, but women are more likely to use weapons and end up in the slammer. They are also more likely to commit serious harm.

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-34.htm#pgfId-1353321

You can't sweep this under the rug. I'm sick to death of it. You can't call this "relatively rare" because that is the exact sort of anti-male bullshit that society feeds off. Also, most male victims of domestic abuse do not even seek help, because of the lack of support and acceptance.

Your rhetoric reveals why. So yeah, I have a huge problem with you saying it's rare and only giving it a passing comment. It's not.

I suspect it's also at least partly due to culturally accepted gender roles that presume men are burly and stoic and women are flimsy and meek, making the concept of female on male violence comical.

Yes, the same kind of societal views that have lead you to believe it's rare for men to be abused.

I think one thing that's important to remember is the absolutely staggering number of women who have, at some point in their life, been beaten, raped, or molested by a man. I don't think that excuses rampant misandry, but it does explain why some women might entertain...complicated relationships with their opposite gender.

Well they're they are fucking idiots. I'm a black, and most of my other black friends have at some point in our lives been seriously discriminated against by white people. Now if I were to get on TV and start laughing at white people being mutilated, I'd have a huge chance of going down for hate speech and I'd be kicked off the television. The excuse of "Oh, but ____ have abused me in the past!" doesn't fly for anyone else. Why should it fly for women?

This is a problem and I'm sick and tired of seeing it be swept under the rug. It's usually my fellow females who do the sweeping (lol) though.

I stand corrected!

 

[Sandwichboy]

There isn't a problem. There is just a few people over analysing things. The picture can only convey what the artist intended. When someone finds meaning that was never intentional, it usually means they've looked to hard or have approached it with the wrong mindset.

That type of behaviour is writhe in the art and literary world.

Usually it amounts to nothing but a bit of pretentious worbeling. But sometimes it can defame and hurt the artists who's works are being taken completely out of context. Simply because it is art does not mean you can read whatever you want into it.

I know that's how it's often being taught at school. And poetry especially, is being taught as if there is no wrong answer. And that any interpretation is welcome. But it's way to easy to twist an interpretation, of anything, to make it seem dangerous or prejudice.

Put a bit more concisely. Simply because someone was offended, it doesn't mean they should have been. The artists intent trumps our reaction as far as I'm concerned.

And my involvement in the second half of the threat took a turn for the worst about half way through my conversation with Bloated and Kirby. Both of whom decided that twisting meanings was a valid form of debate.

There's a few things I literally can't stand. Pedants and the disingenuous rank quite highly on that short list.

Yes, actually, it does. That's the POINT of art. It's a conversation using a language full of words that mean different things to everyone. You don't get to tell someone that they're wrong to be offended by something or wrong to interpret something subjective in a way you disagree with. That's their opinion and it's just as valid as yours is. This is the line of thinking that created the word "hysterical"; "I believe that a womans uterus is causing her to act irrationally, therefor I can simply write her argument and opinions off as being irrational and not worth my time." Extreme example, but you get my point. I'm agreeing that your viewpoint is perfectly valid even though I totally disagree with it, why is it so hard for you to reciprocate? What gives you the right to call my opinion stupid and wrong?

And as I said, yes, that chunk of the thread in pages 4-6 is...embarrassing all around.

Because as an artist I completely disagree with you.

When I do something, I want my intentions to be conveyed. I don't want people making up their own meanings for things and then claiming that it's perfectly valid.

Validity comes with the evidence to support it.

Perhaps I should rephrase. Everyone can have their opinion on a piece of art. But surely you must concede that the artistis intent trumps that. If they say that wasn't what they intended. They have more gravitas than you do.

When an artist creates something and puts it forth into the public domain for analysis, they implicitly hand over control of how the message is received and interpreted. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if people look at your creation in a way you didn't intend them to...tough. It still has that meaning for you, but your opinion of what a creation meant for subjective discourse is as valid as anyone elses. It's an opinion. An opinion that is based on something trying to get an inherently personal reaction so no, the artists opinion only carries as much weight as people give it. Even then that's not the RIGHT opinion, just the popular one. Once more, are you really trying to say that my informed opinion is WRONG because you think I'm making it all up? Cause that IS a problem.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

There isn't a problem. There is just a few people over analysing things. The picture can only convey what the artist intended. When someone finds meaning that was never intentional, it usually means they've looked to hard or have approached it with the wrong mindset.

That type of behaviour is writhe in the art and literary world.

Usually it amounts to nothing but a bit of pretentious worbeling. But sometimes it can defame and hurt the artists who's works are being taken completely out of context. Simply because it is art does not mean you can read whatever you want into it.

I know that's how it's often being taught at school. And poetry especially, is being taught as if there is no wrong answer. And that any interpretation is welcome. But it's way to easy to twist an interpretation, of anything, to make it seem dangerous or prejudice.

Put a bit more concisely. Simply because someone was offended, it doesn't mean they should have been. The artists intent trumps our reaction as far as I'm concerned.

And my involvement in the second half of the threat took a turn for the worst about half way through my conversation with Bloated and Kirby. Both of whom decided that twisting meanings was a valid form of debate.

There's a few things I literally can't stand. Pedants and the disingenuous rank quite highly on that short list.

Yes, actually, it does. That's the POINT of art. It's a conversation using a language full of words that mean different things to everyone. You don't get to tell someone that they're wrong to be offended by something or wrong to interpret something subjective in a way you disagree with. That's their opinion and it's just as valid as yours is. This is the line of thinking that created the word "hysterical"; "I believe that a womans uterus is causing her to act irrationally, therefor I can simply write her argument and opinions off as being irrational and not worth my time." Extreme example, but you get my point. I'm agreeing that your viewpoint is perfectly valid even though I totally disagree with it, why is it so hard for you to reciprocate? What gives you the right to call my opinion stupid and wrong?

And as I said, yes, that chunk of the thread in pages 4-6 is...embarrassing all around.

Because as an artist I completely disagree with you.

When I do something, I want my intentions to be conveyed. I don't want people making up their own meanings for things and then claiming that it's perfectly valid.

Validity comes with the evidence to support it.

Perhaps I should rephrase. Everyone can have their opinion on a piece of art. But surely you must concede that the artistis intent trumps that. If they say that wasn't what they intended. They have more gravitas than you do.

I understand and am sympathetic to your concerns. However, don't forget that the evidence to support validity can come from the object as much or more than from its author. It's perfectly possible to clearly communicate your intent in your work and disambiguate much of the meaning, and, as the creator, it's important to realize that clear communication of your intention and disambiguation of your meaning in your work is your responsibility (at the most basic level, if you draw a cow and do such a poor job of it that everyone sees a cat, that's on you, the artist). You should also realize, however, that you probably carry some prejudiced and biases with you that can seep into your work and which other people will pick up on.

 

[Black Fayte]

Personally, I would prefer the kind of feminists that would go to the extreme rather than the ones who play it half way. I mean yeah they do occasionally become hostile whenever a man tries to do a gentlemanly act, but at least they aren't hippocrites. What I mean is that they are fine and good whenever they get special treatment because of a their gender, but they whine and complain if they ever get the wrong end of the stick. In other words, they like to stick their feet on both sides of the fence which drives any guy insane.

And yes, I admit, I am a sexist person. Any person who isn't bisexual and a crossdresser is one as well. The fact is that nature/god/whatever creates men and women differently, and so long as people treat them as two seperate entities, there will always be sexixm.

 

[Sandwichboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thank you. And to avoid confusion, I'm not talking about schools of art criticism, but the general reaction to the arts by the public. All arts, not just visual.

Edit: this is in reference to krispykrackle. Editing quoted posts on a smartphone is annoying.

 

[BRex21]

I agree! The patriarchal society that has for centuries promoted the idea that men are naturally violent and aggressive, women are naturally passive an non-violent, is truly shameful, as seen by its tendency to promote sad situations such as these (and worse, decrease the chance that men will report receiving abuse). All the more reason for promoting equality of the sexes and abandoning many of these gender norms. They are harmful to both men and women.

I don't so much blame Feminism for these issues, but rather a lack of any sort of real coherent Mens rights presence. I'm aware they exist, but much of it is just inane rambling covering up any real insight. But first feminism, as an organization, isn't helping.
first off the "patriarchy" is never what I have heard feminists call it, any form of patriarchal society we have had has simply forced everyone into roles Men and women, for the benefit of a small group of very specific men. not the subjugation of all women by all men as some claim.

Secondly when "feminists" like bloatedguppy choose to ignore these issues they stand behind the people who use feminism to support man hating.
I want to point out that I have yet to hear any feminist organization stand up against the status quo that SillyBear talked about. What does it say about society when first world countries like Australia and The USA have more Domestic violence centres that cater to Dogs specifically than that will take adult males, and what does it say about the equality that feminists have fought so hard for? There are issues like this in employment, medical care, the justice system, all aspects of our society, and call it whatever you want, everyone in our society has to shoulder some of the blame, especially the feminists who passively support this.

As for the argument about the art, it seems firmly rooted in ignorance. There is an obvious reason to choose sheep, its a common idiom. It only remotely has something to do with the placidity of sheep in that they can be easily killed by wolves, something I pointed out, they share with mountain lions. This is grasping at straws when there is a big easy explanation.
Secondly why is the fact that the woman who drew this pictures art style factored in, she drew everything kinda girly, even her drawing of the heavy from TF2 is babyfaced. It bears no symbolism, its like pointing out that a speech was written with a magic marker and therefore supports ending drug prohibition.
It would also carry more merit if you weren't supporting evil the cat, who has outright said it is misogynistic and that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't know what they're talking about.