Women's rights

[Tselis]

They aren't feminists, they don't want equality. They want a penis. I mean that literally. They want to be men, to be viewed as 'superior' in their mind, and they want men to suffer as they feel, in their own demented minds, as they have sufferred. They want to become the miserable bastards that the original feminists rebelled against, because those miserable bastards had power. The ironic thing is that most of them are too stupid to realize this. Being told what to do by a man, or being told what to do by a woman, it's still being led around by the nose. Everyone should be a humanist. We all need to realize that we're all humans and suck/rock to an equal degree.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information but officially most feminism is already about what you defined as "humanism" (freedom from discrimination based on things like sex, gender, religion, etc.)

Even Webster defines feminism as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"

The few feminist figures who advocate female supremacy are marginal and are considered to be extremists.

The feminists must be much nicer in your area than in mine.

 

[BRex21]

So no, I'm not comfortable with "argle bargle feminazi!" arguments, because a lot of what women and women's organizations have to say about violence against women is most probably 100% true. As you point out, violence against men is also an extremely serious problem, and perhaps I've been too quick to minimize it in my own mind. The existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other, and the fact some women gleefully engage in misandry doesn't make misogyny cute or appropriate, as some people in this thread seem to believe.

There was a thread in here a while back about some guy groping his unconscious female friend without her consent, which is legally sexual abuse and ethically abhorrent. Half the posters were of the "bah, big deal, he was drunk" variety, a few presumed she was probably into it, and at least one said she was a ***** who had probably lead him on for years and got what was coming to her. So casual misogyny? A real thing.

I read that thread, there was also people saying that it was legally rape, which it simply isn't, and a vast majority who agreed it was horrible. This is the difference between our arguments. The vast majority of people support the womans side of that argument, whereas talking about male abuse usually garners a much more hostile reaction and complete denial of fact and any sort of political progress has been slowed to a glacial pace. The escapist is actually quite open to this, many people point out that there are huge double standards between men and women, again a large body still laughs.

I provided a list of hundreds of studies showing how serious the issue is and how our current system ignores men, you're right but this in no way stops violence at the hands of men from being an issue, of course I never said that and neither did anyone else here. What I said was that womens groups, often acting as lobby groups, work to downplay the issue.
I googled "campus rape support male victims" the first college that has a support program for men is Stanford. But wait! http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/male.shtml before it talks about ACTUAL resources for male victims, and again this is the male victims pace, it has a short blurb and links to tell men "don't support rape" there links to resources are dotted with bullshit like "empowers male youth and the institutions that serve them to work as allies with women in preventing rape and other forms of men's violence. Through awareness-to-action education and community organizing, we promote gender equity and build men's capacity to be strong without being violent." it has "Ten Things Men Can Do to Prevent Gender Violence" which is entirely based on the idea that men are violent and women are hapless victims. It does eventually admit that "Yes, men can be victimized." but only after walls of text essentially blaming the person, im going to presume here that the target audience is male victims, who is suffering the abuse. This isn't uncommon, i don't have anything against Stanford in particular, it just happened to be first on the list.

 

[BRex21]

Historically women have opened shelters for women of their own initiative.

MEN HAVE HELPED AND FULLY SUPPORTED the opening of womans shelters both through personal contributions and tax dollars.

hat WOMEN HAVE HELPED AND FULLY SUPPORTED the opening of men's shelters at least through tax dollars

Okay, first off i thought it was pretty obvious why I said that, I was not denying that women helped start mens shelters particularly since in the same post I brought up the founder of the Mankind initiative, who happens to be a woman, I recommended reading some of her works, obviously im not denying womens support in the mens rights movement. but Evidencebased was denying mens support in the womens rights movement.

And tell me, should that men's shelter be forced to open its doors to women? Be stripped of its funding?

Ideally i think the two should remain separate, Domestic violence often has a reciprocal aspect and mixing the genders could potentially cause more problems. HOWEVER would you argue that if this was applied universally it wouldn't DRASTICALLY improve services for men?

since what I'm dredging up on Google indicates that the funding goes to victims of domestic abuse

Erin Pizzey, the woman whose name i have been shouting throughout this thread has started two organizations to shelter victims of domestic abuse. Refuge and The ManKind initiative. Refuge houses women, when it was founded in 1971 it receved grants of £10,000 (according to her book Prone to violence). on the flipside ManKind is not elegable for public funds. Across the pond, as you said the funding goes to victims of domestic abuse. This is because shelters are required by law to use that money to house both men and women. Heres what I want you to do find ANY shelter in your state and check there website if they take men. or heck post em here and ill sift through there site.[/quote]

The fact that you set up men's and women's shelters as competing with each other is rather telling. And don't just say that women's shelters dismiss men's abuse and exaggerate women's abuse and then think you shouldn't have to prove that.

First thing, google domestic violence. Now tell me how many things popped up with the heading Violence Against Women, this is a major problem with branding if Domestic violence is synonymous with violence against women, In the USA all measures to prevent domestic violence have been labled this way in The Violence Against Women Act, which only uses men as examples of batterers and women as examples of victims.
A little ways down I came across this page http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/viol_intro.html , Most of the information is blatantly untrue. For example, this site says that domestic violence is the leading cause of ER visits for women age 15-44. according to the USA CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5017a4.htm car accidents beat violent crime altogether for women (647,396 compared to 1,736,193) now for fairness sake I want to point out that since it may be hard to tell what acts of violence are domestic at times i have included all acts of violence in the former statistic, whereas i only included occupants of automobiles in the second, so if someone was hit by a car while walking or on a bike or motorcycle they aren't included. Now im sure you can use the No True Scotsman argument on this, but these "facts" are repeated over and over and far too many people grow to believe them.
Do I have to prove that dollars are finite and that providing extra funding to one group often leads to cuts to another? Because i guess, Christina Sommers paper does that

Should an organization devoted to raising money for prostate cancer research and awareness set aside a portion of that money for breast cancer?

No but they should have to at the very least treat cancers in there chosen field, how would you feel if a womens shelter started turning away anyone black? An organization that recieves taxpayer money cant discriminate like that. why is a mans life with breast cancer invariably not worth treating. There actions were obviously wrong and in fact illegal yet its still common practice.

And why is it "especially" the fault of feminists and not, say, the privileged few men you say are in charge of the patriarchy and benefiting from it?

Because the few who are benefiting are simply passive while the feminists who shout things like "Domenstic violence harms more women than anything else in america" actively hurt the cause, they fight for things like the VAWA, Thats the Violence Against Women Act, that currently lables domestic violence in America as something a man does to a woman, it successfully eliminates due process in any allegations of abuse, physical or sexual on campus all in order to shore up the numbers of convictions.
Women can falsely inflate the rates of this for personal gain and yet I hear few objections by feminists http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4413:beeman-gets-five-years-probation-in-embezzlement-case&catid=74:judicial-watch&Itemid=100. or hey, look up where that 1 in 4 statistic comes from, sure more than half the people. Hell its considered a major reason that rape centers cant get enough funding in lower income areas http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html.
I blame feminists for this because they harbour these extremists and often rally behind them.

If you feel that there should be more crisis centres for men, for example, you should found one, work for one, donate to one, not complain that the feminists aren't doing it for you.[/quote]
This may come as a shock to you but I do donate! I do volunteer! In fact i moderate some forums specifically for male victims (we don't exclude women by the way) Most of what i do is delete comments as to why male rape does not count. Its actually probably the reason i'm so testy about this.
I don't expect feminists to do these things for me, I expect them to stop spreading lies in order to further their agenda.

 

[gazumped]

Yes, yes, I'm going to mention the cartoon because I'm an illustrator and found it really interesting because even though I'm sure the girl who drew it did just want to draw a pretty sheep and I like to give her the benefit of the doubt, the lack of thought behind making feminists so docile was just a bad move. On the comments on that image people were saying they'd rather be the wolf. Which suggests most people got a misandrist vibe from it rather than a misogynist one, though?

INTERESTING FACT that I wanted to mention because people were arguing about the connotations of pink...
originally it was PINK IS FOR BOYS, BLUE IS FOR GIRLS. Pink was supposed to be aggressive and powerful, as it's just a version of red. Blue was seen as more serene and docile, and linked to the Virgin Mary. The colours were switched over around the time of WW2, possibly because Nazi's labled 'sissy' homosexuals with the colour. Another theory is that because women had to do mens' jobs and the ball got rolling for feminism, they started wearing the male colour of pink, and so the colours got switched so that women couldn't use their claim over pink to assure equal footing with men.
http://static.colourlovers.com/uploads/2008/10/100-years-of-pink.gif
So pink is only now seen as soft and passive because people decided it's a woman's colour, linking it with women gave the colour that connotation because that was the view of women at the time, the colour was not picked to give women that connotation.

Well, I thought it was pretty interesting...

Why should I care about womens rights when I am a guy? Have no interest in their suffering, or even how they make less than a guy. Even though you might find that cruel, most guy think it as well, just don't have the balls to say it.

A lot of racial majorities don't really care about racial equality, a lot of rich people don't really care about helping the poor, a lot of healthy people don't really care about the struggles of the disabled, most of them don't bother stating it, just let people who actually give a crap about others get on with it.

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, of course, but you also wouldn't hit a guy unless in self defence... I hope?

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Personally no, but I think it's still more acceptable to lash out and punch a guy who's just being an extremely offensive asshole, whereas I think most guys would limit themselves to calling a woman out on her actions even if angered.

Also, you can grab a guy and bundle him out of a place, but do that to a woman who's decided she's going to cause the maximum amount of trouble and she can decide you put your hands on her in a sexual way. There's no reason a guy can't do the same thing, but I don't think it's taken as seriously.

In the same way that sexual abuse by women and domestic violence by women on men is not taken as seriously.

Thinking on those lines, maybe it is time for chivalry to be buried, even tho I firmly believe it's intent is a pure one, not one of keeping anyone down. Women seem to have gained the equal rights to be shitty to the opposite sex, and ,I stress I only mean in some areas, in some ways perhaps it's swung too far, in the way that it's fairly acceptable to make fun of men's intellect, sexual prowess, and other failures, whereas in the opposite direction it's seen as sexist abuse.

It's a highly complex issue however, and even simplifying it down to real basics, look at advertising, the man of the house is a borderline idiot, only able to function because his darling wife is there to wipe his butt and feed him, however, these ads are normally for household products and aimed at women, as women are seen as the cleaners of the home.

Managing to be sexist to everyone in one go, impressive stuff

 

[Tselis]

Historically women have opened shelters for women of their own initiative.

MEN HAVE HELPED AND FULLY SUPPORTED the opening of womans shelters both through personal contributions and tax dollars.

hat WOMEN HAVE HELPED AND FULLY SUPPORTED the opening of men's shelters at least through tax dollars

Okay, first off i thought it was pretty obvious why I said that, I was not denying that women helped start mens shelters particularly since in the same post I brought up the founder of the Mankind initiative, who happens to be a woman, I recommended reading some of her works, obviously im not denying womens support in the mens rights movement. but Evidencebased was denying mens support in the womens rights movement.

And tell me, should that men's shelter be forced to open its doors to women? Be stripped of its funding?

Ideally i think the two should remain separate, Domestic violence often has a reciprocal aspect and mixing the genders could potentially cause more problems. HOWEVER would you argue that if this was applied universally it wouldn't DRASTICALLY improve services for men?

since what I'm dredging up on Google indicates that the funding goes to victims of domestic abuse

Erin Pizzey, the woman whose name i have been shouting throughout this thread has started two organizations to shelter victims of domestic abuse. Refuge and The ManKind initiative. Refuge houses women, when it was founded in 1971 it receved grants of £10,000 (according to her book Prone to violence). on the flipside ManKind is not elegable for public funds. Across the pond, as you said the funding goes to victims of domestic abuse. This is because shelters are required by law to use that money to house both men and women. Heres what I want you to do find ANY shelter in your state and check there website if they take men. or heck post em here and ill sift through there site.

The fact that you set up men's and women's shelters as competing with each other is rather telling. And don't just say that women's shelters dismiss men's abuse and exaggerate women's abuse and then think you shouldn't have to prove that.

First thing, google domestic violence. Now tell me how many things popped up with the heading Violence Against Women, this is a major problem with branding if Domestic violence is synonymous with violence against women, In the USA all measures to prevent domestic violence have been labled this way in The Violence Against Women Act, which only uses men as examples of batterers and women as examples of victims.
A little ways down I came across this page http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/viol_intro.html , Most of the information is blatantly untrue. For example, this site says that domestic violence is the leading cause of ER visits for women age 15-44. according to the USA CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5017a4.htm car accidents beat violent crime altogether for women (647,396 compared to 1,736,193) now for fairness sake I want to point out that since it may be hard to tell what acts of violence are domestic at times i have included all acts of violence in the former statistic, whereas i only included occupants of automobiles in the second, so if someone was hit by a car while walking or on a bike or motorcycle they aren't included. Now im sure you can use the No True Scotsman argument on this, but these "facts" are repeated over and over and far too many people grow to believe them.
Do I have to prove that dollars are finite and that providing extra funding to one group often leads to cuts to another? Because i guess, Christina Sommers paper does that

Should an organization devoted to raising money for prostate cancer research and awareness set aside a portion of that money for breast cancer?

No but they should have to at the very least treat cancers in there chosen field, how would you feel if a womens shelter started turning away anyone black? An organization that recieves taxpayer money cant discriminate like that. why is a mans life with breast cancer invariably not worth treating. There actions were obviously wrong and in fact illegal yet its still common practice.

And why is it "especially" the fault of feminists and not, say, the privileged few men you say are in charge of the patriarchy and benefiting from it?

Because the few who are benefiting are simply passive while the feminists who shout things like "Domenstic violence harms more women than anything else in america" actively hurt the cause, they fight for things like the VAWA, Thats the Violence Against Women Act, that currently lables domestic violence in America as something a man does to a woman, it successfully eliminates due process in any allegations of abuse, physical or sexual on campus all in order to shore up the numbers of convictions.
Women can falsely inflate the rates of this for personal gain and yet I hear few objections by feminists http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4413:beeman-gets-five-years-probation-in-embezzlement-case&catid=74:judicial-watch&Itemid=100. or hey, look up where that 1 in 4 statistic comes from, sure more than half the people. Hell its considered a major reason that rape centers cant get enough funding in lower income areas http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html.
I blame feminists for this because they harbour these extremists and often rally behind them.

If you feel that there should be more crisis centres for men, for example, you should found one, work for one, donate to one, not complain that the feminists aren't doing it for you.[/quote]
This may come as a shock to you but I do donate! I do volunteer! In fact i moderate some forums specifically for male victims (we don't exclude women by the way) Most of what i do is delete comments as to why male rape does not count. Its actually probably the reason i'm so testy about this.
I don't expect feminists to do these things for me, I expect them to stop spreading lies in order to further their agenda.[/quote]

BRex21 - my new hero.

 

[Loner Jo Jo]

I'm confused. Are you saying that picture is misogynist?

Yeah, basically..

The "good (passive) woman"/"bad (aggressive) woman" dichotomy has plagued popular discussion about feminism since it's very inception. The image you've just used is a perfect example.

Beyond the fact that it's just basic neurotic rabbling.

Or it could simply be a reference to the "wolf in sheep's clothing" metaphor? Honestly, the sheep could be in reference to a man and the wolf a woman or vice versa and it would still make sense.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

First, I think a lot of people saying very reasonable, yet unpopular things get lumped into the group with "an axe to grind". And we're still a long way from reasoanble parity, so people should have an axe to grind. The whole "I don't mind feminists as long as they're not obnoxious and don't shove it in my face" bit is, more than anything else, a really unfortunate way of trying (knowingly or not) to hold back the people who are actually trying to make progress. It's like saying "I don't mind if you want to have a mixed-race marriage at home, but I don't want to see it and I don't want you to talk about it". If no one grinds any axes, nothing ever changes.

That said, there are certainly people who are, at least in my opinion, misguided about the aims of the equality movement and the means to achieve its goals.

The door thing is a good example of a situation much trickier than people suppose. On the one hand, I would feel awkward being called out for this, but that's because I hold doors open for everyone regardless of gender. It's just a nice thing to do. However, I think the people who hold doors open specifically for women and think they're being "chivalrous" are indeed a problem. I think that people read too much into the action itself, but there's very little you can offer in the way of argument against the fact that it's connected to a larger system that promotes a very unhealthy view of femininity. Additionally, I think it promotes a very unhealthy view of masculinity. Most of these things aren't just problems that affect women.

 

[alandavidson]

Feminism is a pretty broad term these days. Generally, it now tends to refer to women who believe that all men are evil and need to be crushed, which was never the point of the women's rights movement.

Basically, we're all equal, but we're all different. There's nothing bad about that, nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's a very good thing that men and women are different down to the way that we think.

Maybe I see things too simply.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Yes, yes, I'm going to mention the cartoon because I'm an illustrator and found it really interesting because even though I'm sure the girl who drew it did just want to draw a pretty sheep and I like to give her the benefit of the doubt, the lack of thought behind making feminists so docile was just a bad move. On the comments on that image people were saying they'd rather be the wolf. Which suggests most people got a misandrist vibe from it rather than a misogynist one, though?

I hate to dredge up the debate from the first few pages, but I really think you've read too much into the picture. As I see it, the only reason the feminist is a sheep is so that the artist could demonstrate 'a wolf in sheep's clothing', a well-known phrase to describe someone pretending to be something they're not. In this case, a misandrist pretending to be a feminist.

To reiterate: the cartoon is not suggesting that women should be sheep.

 

[gazumped]

Yes, yes, I'm going to mention the cartoon because I'm an illustrator and found it really interesting because even though I'm sure the girl who drew it did just want to draw a pretty sheep and I like to give her the benefit of the doubt, the lack of thought behind making feminists so docile was just a bad move. On the comments on that image people were saying they'd rather be the wolf. Which suggests most people got a misandrist vibe from it rather than a misogynist one, though?

I hate to dredge up the debate from the first few pages, but I really think you've read too much into the picture. As I see it, the only reason the feminist is a sheep is so that the artist could demonstrate 'a wolf in sheep's clothing', a well-known phrase to describe someone pretending to be something they're not. In this case, a misandrist pretending to be a feminist.

To reiterate: the cartoon is not suggesting that women should be sheep.

No, yeah, I know. All I mean is that the way she drew it makes being the wolf look more appealing than being the sheep.

EDIT: What I mean is, I'm not reading into it at all, this was my very basic reaction to looking at it. And apparently that of those who commented on it as well.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Yes, yes, I'm going to mention the cartoon because I'm an illustrator and found it really interesting because even though I'm sure the girl who drew it did just want to draw a pretty sheep and I like to give her the benefit of the doubt, the lack of thought behind making feminists so docile was just a bad move. On the comments on that image people were saying they'd rather be the wolf. Which suggests most people got a misandrist vibe from it rather than a misogynist one, though?

I hate to dredge up the debate from the first few pages, but I really think you've read too much into the picture. As I see it, the only reason the feminist is a sheep is so that the artist could demonstrate 'a wolf in sheep's clothing', a well-known phrase to describe someone pretending to be something they're not. In this case, a misandrist pretending to be a feminist.

To reiterate: the cartoon is not suggesting that women should be sheep.

No, yeah, I know. All I mean is that the way she drew it makes being the wolf look more appealing than being the sheep.

As in the wolf looks better, or people didn't want to be sheep? Or because they agreed more with what the wolf was saying?

 

[gazumped]

Yes, yes, I'm going to mention the cartoon because I'm an illustrator and found it really interesting because even though I'm sure the girl who drew it did just want to draw a pretty sheep and I like to give her the benefit of the doubt, the lack of thought behind making feminists so docile was just a bad move. On the comments on that image people were saying they'd rather be the wolf. Which suggests most people got a misandrist vibe from it rather than a misogynist one, though?

I hate to dredge up the debate from the first few pages, but I really think you've read too much into the picture. As I see it, the only reason the feminist is a sheep is so that the artist could demonstrate 'a wolf in sheep's clothing', a well-known phrase to describe someone pretending to be something they're not. In this case, a misandrist pretending to be a feminist.

To reiterate: the cartoon is not suggesting that women should be sheep.

No, yeah, I know. All I mean is that the way she drew it makes being the wolf look more appealing than being the sheep.

As in the wolf looks better, or people didn't want to be sheep? Or because they agreed more with what the wolf was saying?

Because the sheep looks dopey and pathetic and the wolf looks evil but at least like it's not going to get pushed around. If the illustrator had attempted to make the sheep not a summary of every cutesy girly cliche people would be able to sympathise/empathise more with its position as the feminist that's getting a bad name.
I mean, it's very cute, but a lot of feminists (even proper ones that wouldn't approve of the wolf's views) would prefer not to be represented as kinda stoopid lookin'.

 

[gazumped]

As in the wolf looks better, or people didn't want to be sheep? Or because they agreed more with what the wolf was saying?

A simpler way to put it is: It seems silly that they've portrayed a group that believes in gender equality and the strength of women as dopey and ultra-stereotyped feminine.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Yes, yes, I'm going to mention the cartoon because I'm an illustrator and found it really interesting because even though I'm sure the girl who drew it did just want to draw a pretty sheep and I like to give her the benefit of the doubt, the lack of thought behind making feminists so docile was just a bad move. On the comments on that image people were saying they'd rather be the wolf. Which suggests most people got a misandrist vibe from it rather than a misogynist one, though?

I hate to dredge up the debate from the first few pages, but I really think you've read too much into the picture. As I see it, the only reason the feminist is a sheep is so that the artist could demonstrate 'a wolf in sheep's clothing', a well-known phrase to describe someone pretending to be something they're not. In this case, a misandrist pretending to be a feminist.

To reiterate: the cartoon is not suggesting that women should be sheep.

No, yeah, I know. All I mean is that the way she drew it makes being the wolf look more appealing than being the sheep.

As in the wolf looks better, or people didn't want to be sheep? Or because they agreed more with what the wolf was saying?

Because the sheep looks dopey and pathetic and the wolf looks evil but at least like it's not going to get pushed around. If the illustrator had attempted to make the sheep not a summary of every cutesy girly cliche people would be able to sympathise/empathise more with its position as the feminist that's getting a bad name.
I mean, it's very cute, but a lot of feminists (even proper ones that wouldn't approve of the wolf's views) would prefer not to be represented as kinda stoopid lookin'.

OK, I can understand that some of the features of the sheep are...unfortunate, given the subject matter. But I think the message is clear enough, without any deeper, misogynistic implications.

I certainly think that the arguments from early in the thread were wholly unnecessary and over the top.

 

[gazumped]

OK, I can understand that some of the features of the sheep are...unfortunate, given the subject matter. But I think the message is clear enough, without any deeper, misogynistic implications.

I certainly think that the arguments from early in the thread were wholly unnecessary and over the top.

Indeed, I'll be quite interested to see if/what the artist responds to the Escapist who posted on her DeviantArt about this thread. I assume something along the lines of "Whoa, chill out, guys!"

 

[Sandwichboy]

The problems of lack of support structure for the areas that society fails men is NOT the fault of feminism. Feminism is not bringing us down or holding us back, WE are every time we buy into bullshit stereotypes of masculinity that encourage us to feel shame over needing any sort of emotional support structure.Women have emotional support structures because they're taught throughout their lives that they can and should communicate amongst their friends and family what crises they're working through, but we don't. We're just supposed to "man up." THAT crap is toxic and the reason that men don't report when they're raped, why we feel such shame when we can't magically deal with everything ourselves, and why statistically we're three times more likely to take our own lives than women are when suffering a serious crisis or depression. THAT needs to change.

Do feminists have an agenda to support women? Of course they do, and with good reason. When it comes to the professional world, and victims of domestic violence, they ARE still suffering when they shouldn't be. But they're not the reason for our own problems. That's Marc Lepine thinking right there, and that shit is dangerous.

 

[Sandwichboy]

Yes, yes, I'm going to mention the cartoon because I'm an illustrator and found it really interesting because even though I'm sure the girl who drew it did just want to draw a pretty sheep and I like to give her the benefit of the doubt, the lack of thought behind making feminists so docile was just a bad move. On the comments on that image people were saying they'd rather be the wolf. Which suggests most people got a misandrist vibe from it rather than a misogynist one, though?

I hate to dredge up the debate from the first few pages, but I really think you've read too much into the picture. As I see it, the only reason the feminist is a sheep is so that the artist could demonstrate 'a wolf in sheep's clothing', a well-known phrase to describe someone pretending to be something they're not. In this case, a misandrist pretending to be a feminist.

To reiterate: the cartoon is not suggesting that women should be sheep.

This really really is the last thing I'm going to say on this damned cartoon as I was happy that I thought we'd moved past it.

It's obvious what the intent of the image is. But for some people it's also obvious that the artist didn't think about the potential implications of some of the choices she made with the illustration. That's it. No one is wrong here. If you think it's funny and not at all sexist, cool. If you think it's in questionable taste because of an unintended interpretation, that's cool too. That's how art works.

 

[Project_Omega]

Before I start, I am a guy and also not in the least sexist but do you think the feminists of today have more of a bad reputation than they did a hundred years ago? I mean before women had a right to vote they worked through blood, sweat and tears to get equality and now you have some women who insult you for kindly opening the door for them. This has rarely happened to me but post opinions, experiences etc on feminism.

Dude, if you ever wanna get laid you better be quiet...

Its better that way... Trust me...

 

[funguy2121]

And your sister responded by "beating the shit out of her," which is either something that you felt was a cool way to end a B.S. story or a truly extreme reaction on your sister's part. The woman you describe as an "extreme" feminist doesn't come out looking like the extreme one in this situation at all.

I can say, with hand on heart, that having my sister fighting is not my idea of a "cool" way to end a story.

She's never been the most placid of women even when we were kids, I say kids I was a kid she was coming up to her teens when I was born (she's 12 years older than me) and i'm 31 now so that was my 40 (at the time) year old sister scrapping in the middle of the pub.

Nope, not my idea of a "cool" way to end a tale.

I do understand my sisters reasoning if not the end result. She's been married for 20 years so think she's entitled to have her husband treat her to a night out without someone basically calling her a prostitute for allowing her husband to pay for her drinks on her birthday.

Then again if thats "buying someones love" i'll make sure to tell my own wife I can never again buy her a present or take her out because it's demeaning to her as a woman.

Apologies. I just read my own post and I kind of come off as a jackass. It's just that I see a lot of posts on here that sound like adolescents bragging about the time they totally kicked this guy's ass or totally killed somebody.

Now you've provided thorough context so I see that the feminist in your story was overboard. Clearly there's a very big difference between your sister's situation and my mother's. Personally, I don't mind spending money on a woman, but I don't spend a lot up front because there are a lot of opportunistic gold diggers out there and there are also guys who can afford to spend a lot more than me anyway, so if that's what she wants, she's gonna leave soon enough anyway.