Women's rights

[ItsAChiaotzu]

I think the error is quite obvious in hating something because of its gender
Or am i just overthinking this?

You're underthinking it. Let me elaborate. I hate what society dictates men should be, i.e. loud, self-absorbed dipshits who exist to make sure everybody knows how big and horrifying their penises are. I like to believe modernity has done away with binary gender roles, but just because I believe something doesn't mean it's true. More men need to be like Haggar from Final Fight. That's a may-unn right thur.

Your views differ from mine. Therefore, you are an idiot and a bad person.

There we go, I translated it into English. That's an act of public service right there.

He's not underthinking it in the slightest.

A misandrist is someone who hates men. Not what society dictates men should be. So you're either an idiot for being a misandrist, or an idiot for calling yourself something you're not.

Furthermore, I don't think someone who generalises on the basis of gender can imply anyone else is unreasonable.

 

[Hagi]

A farmer with lots of sheep is able to feed and clothe his family.
A farmer with lots of wolves dies.

Oh my god.. stop digging, and think about it.

Equality Feminist = sheep.
Female Supremacist (whose existence I can assume, because as far as I can see they don't exist as a significant social force) = wolf
Man = ? (in this analogy)

Questioning the application of an idiom doesn't mean I don't understand it. You understand the word 'idiot' yet you might have a problem if I called you one.

There is no man in this analogy.

There's a good person (the sheep) and a bad person who looks like the good person (the wolf in sheep's clothing).

What it means is this:
Feminists (sheep) are good. Misandrists (wolves) are bad. Misandrists (wolves) often pretend to be Feminists (dress up in sheep's clothing).

That's all it means. No more. No less. That's the idiom. It's been around more then long enough to be that defined.

Sheep and wolves have a limited and very defined roles in this idiom. Again, this idiom has been around more then long enough for there to be no ambiguity about those roles.

Just like when I say someone's got a Lion's heart I'm not saying they actually have a lion's heart in their chest. I'm not saying they share any actual characteristics with lions (who really aren't exceptionally brave). I'm saying they're courageous. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[llew]

This is probably going to be said a million times over, but it's not about woman rights, it's about human rights in general. Woman and men are equal. If one disagrees I'm really curious for an explanation.

Of course, there is a scientificly measured difference between the mindset of men and women, and what men and / or women are generally better at then the opposite sex. I don't care. One picks a job they like, one works a job they like, one lives a life they like, one is equal to all other.

*they are not equal because they are not the same, they are not the same because they have a vagina. case closed.*
ok don't quote me on that but its a pretty valid point. i'm all for equal rights and treating people equally but there is a limit, "give a beggar money to buy bread and he will realise he can buy more than bread with said money", one example is one ive heard many times in my town and other towns ive been too "a woman was campaigning for equal rights, so a man came and punched her in the arm, she said *you cant hit me* so the man asked *why?* she replied with *because i'm a girl*" whatever we do to make them equal the question of chivalry will always exist and eventually we will be campaigning for men's rights. honestly im all for giving them equal oppurtunities and the like but i can't think of much that they don't have equal to men, if anything they have privilages with insurance etc. being cheaper for women over men

 

[MGlBlaze]

The only analogy is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Which says what?

I'm not asking because I don't know, I'm asking because I want you to actually look at what you are saying.

Oh for...

The wolf in sheep's clothing idiom is about how someone or something with one agenda or nature can appear to be something else, and how such people and things are dangerous and should be avoided.

The sheep, that is what it appears to be is analogous to a genuine 'feminist' interested in equality.
The wolf in sheep's clothing is the misandrist who's real motivations are hatred of men and believe that women should be superior, and dresses up as a sheep (i.e. claims to be a feminist) to throw people off.

That is the meaning behind the picture, and any reasonable person could see it. It's just drawn in an immediately visually recognisable way. I suggest you follow your own advice and take a look at what you're saying.

Edit; fixed a typo.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Equalitsm would work just as well and wouldn't be able to be hijacked by misandrists and people with ulterior motives.

Ugh..

Almost every field of study, social theory or standpoint of the last 200 years has claimed to be 'equally' positioned in terms of gender, either by explicitly stating such or by ignoring gender as a category of analysis.

The problem is that simply pretending that people can interact on a level playing field without accounting for the axes on which they are differentially positioned does not leave them equal, because they still positioned on those axes. You cannot adjust the social weighting of those axes if you refuse to acknowledge that they exist.

Why 'feminism'? Because 'woman' has always been the marked category within the gender system which generally treats specific types of male experience as default or universal. This does not mean that only women have problems or are subject to oppression, there are other axes on which men are oppressed (though generally by other men) and if you'd actually read any contemporary feminist scholarship or literature you would realize that few writers in the field are unaware of this.

So tell me, in you vastly superior understanding of feminism. How is someone saying 'women are better than men' not intentionally agressive and sexist.

I wouldn't know. I can't think of a feminist who ever has.

Someone pretending to be part of a group that wants equality yet highjacking it for their own means.

So where are these people? Give me one name?

There is no man in this analogy.

..right.

So what is the danger here, why am I expected to care?

(The idiom wouldn't be used if it didn't have a rhetorical function)

 

[Hagi]

Yeah... you're probably right...

It's just hard to understand how someone from the UK can be that ignorant of such a well-known idiom. I could understand someone from say Japan not knowing it, surprised but still understanding. But the UK?

Stuff like this comes up in primary schools, television shows, casual conversation and basically everywhere all the time. It's like not knowing what a grapefruit is....

The level of discourse in here is usually pretty high, for the internet. I find it astonishing that the presumption is that he doesn't understand the idiom, and not that the use of the idiom in these circumstances is the problem.

He doesn't understand the idiom.

It doesn't refer to any characteristics of sheep, because it isn't talking about literal sheep. It's talking about figurative sheep, simply put: good things.

It doesn't refer to any characteristics of wolves, because it isn't talking about literal wolves. It's talking about figurative wolves, simply put: bad things.

An idiom is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made.

The definition of an idiom isn't related to the literal meaning of the word of which it is made (such as sheep and wolf).
The definition of an idiom is related to the common use of that expression.

 

[Hagi]

There is no man in this analogy.

..right.

So what is the danger here?

That people who don't understand what an idiom is completely derail a thread?

 

[Terminal Blue]

The definition of an idiom isn't related to the literal meaning of the word of which it is made (such as sheep and wolf).
The definition of an idiom is related to the common use of that expression.

Semiotic analysis.

Learn to do it.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I think the error is quite obvious in hating something because of its gender
Or am i just overthinking this?

You're underthinking it. Let me elaborate. I hate what society dictates men should be, i.e. loud, self-absorbed dipshits who exist to make sure everybody knows how big and horrifying their penises are. I like to believe modernity has done away with binary gender roles, but just because I believe something doesn't mean it's true. More men need to be like Haggar from Final Fight. That's a may-unn right thur.

As a guy, that royally pisses me off too. However, don't make the mistake of assuming all guys are like that and hating men in general for it. The problem with misandry is that it doesn't mean hating on male stereotypes but all men entirely because they are in fact male. This is prejudice and ignorance at it's "finest" (<- sarcasm). The MLP:FiM community is almost entirely compromised of 15 - 35 year old males who are a massive subversion to the typical male and who make love and tolerance their motto, yet by definition a misadrist (or however one would say it) still hates them because they have a penis, not because of who they are on a personal level. No matter how you look at that, that's fucked up and completely ignorant bullshit.

Btw will a mod remove one of these threads? I've noticed at least two of this exact same thread by the exact same person made on the exact same day. Doesn't that qualify as spam or something?

 

[Hagi]

The definition of an idiom isn't related to the literal meaning of the word of which it is made (such as sheep and wolf).
The definition of an idiom is related to the common use of that expression.

Semiotic analysis.

Learn to do it.

Anyone can see that clearly this is referring to the wolf in sheep's clothing idiom.
If they think it somehow refers to literal sheep and literal wolves they wouldn't understand the picture anyway.

Knowing that it's referring to figurative sheep and wolves anyone reasonable will not interpret it as literal sheep and wolves, unless they're obtuse and looking to be offended.

Idioms such as these are part of the English language. Don't blame others if you don't know that language, blame yourself.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

That people who don't understand what an idiom is completely derail a thread?

OH FFS.

You can't POSSIBLY be this dense.

Look at the picture. Look at it.

Look at the wolf. Look how the features of the wolf are clearly feminized. Look how the wolf is holding a MAN'S TESTICLES, DRIPPING BLOOD. Now look at the sheep. The PINK SHEEP, with docile, gentle features that are also clearly feminized.

Seriously, I hate this. I don't want to be pushed into a situation where I'd defending knee-jerk, hysterical over-reactions in the field of gender politics, because god knows we've got enough of that to go around and then some already. But you cannot POSSIBLY tell me that you're utterly blind to where someone might construe that picture as misogynist. It's fucking cartoonishly over the top. What would do it for you? Should she have a man's severed penis dangling from her teeth as well? At that point, would the picture no longer be too subtle for you to get where the problem is?

THIS is supposed to be a bold statement about misandry? I'm completely embarrassed on behalf of my gender, seriously.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Idioms such as these are part of the English language. Don't blame others if you don't know that language, blame yourself.

I'll repeat myself again. The idiom has a rhetorical function. What is that function? Why has it been used in this context? Why did someone think it would be persuasive in this context?

You can't use something to make a point because it will carry implicit meaning and then deny that meaning exists.

You have said the words 'good' and 'bad' yourself. You have elaborated on the meaning of the idiom yourself by talking about farming, now you want to pretend all that is meaningless? I understand the fucking idiom, I also understand that someone thought it would be persuasive to draw a picture of a placid faced pink sheep and a she-wolf holding a fucking scrotum. Why did they think that, because there is an established body of meaning to the idiom which can be referenced in its use.

Having a problem with the way that meaning is used does not mean I don't understand what an idiom is. Now grow up and stop accusing other people of not understanding something you clearly don't fully understand yourself.

But you cannot POSSIBLY tell me that you're utterly blind to where someone might construe that picture as misogynist.

I know you're not necessarily agreeing with me, but thank you, seriously..

 

[Hagi]

It's fucking cartoonishly over the top.

Kind of you to notice.

Do you think Bambi is an accurate representation of forest life as well?

 

[Dexiro]

The problem is that Feminism has come to mean "Female Superiority" in a lot of cases.

A lot of Feminists don't seem to realise that to become truly equal then they're going to have to lose some rights too, and men are going to gain some.

To be honest we need to change the term, Feminist and Masculist are essentially the same thing but fool people into thinking that the problem is one sided. For some ridiculous reason Feminist is coined as meaning "equality" and Masculist is coined as "male superiority", there's something else I disagree with.

 

[Lawyer105]

Personally, I don't think that there are ANY such thing as "human rights" let alone "women's rights". I'm firmly of the opinion that what you have are privileges earned by fulfilling associated responsibilities. You want the privilege of not having your stuff stolen by thugs, you fulfil your responsibility not to steal other peoples stuff. And so on.

While I totally agree that women's privileges were, for a long time, suppressed by men, now that they've claimed them, they need to fulfil the responsibilities associated. You want to be treated with politeness (however we finally define it), you treat other people with politeness. Yelling at some dude because he opened a door, or gave up his seat, is a perfect example of NOT fulfilling your responsibilities. If you don't think it's appropriate, by all means... decline. But just because he was trying to be polite, and you didn't like it, doesn't mean you should be rude.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Kind of you to notice.

Do you think Bambi is an accurate representation of forest life as well?

Is Bambi meant to be a statement on gender politics and misandry? Do you think it's constructive and/or artistically meritorious and/or subtle to boil down a philosophical or political movement to a couple of broadly drawn and hugely sexist cartoons? To reduce a complex viewpoint to a couple of easily batted down straw men?

Yeah you're right, this is a BRILLIANT use of idiom to illustrate a world view, in that it makes the artist look like a juvenile, misogynistic idiot. Maybe there wouldn't be so many scary misandrists running around with a hunger for testicles if we didn't make ourselves so absurdly easy to hate.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I know you're not necessarily agreeing with me, but thank you, seriously..

I think you're inhumanly patient, to be honest. I've naught but respect.

 

[Hagi]

Idioms such as these are part of the English language. Don't blame others if you don't know that language, blame yourself.

I'll repeat myself again. The idiom has a rhetorical function. What is that function? Why has it been used in this context? Why did someone think it would be persuasive in this context?

You can't use something to make a point because it will carry implicit meaning and then deny that meaning exists.

You have said the words 'good' and 'bad' yourself. You have elaborated on the meaning of the idiom yourself by talking about farming, now you want to pretend all that is meaningless? I understand the fucking idiom, I also understand that someone thought it would be persuasive to draw a picture of a placid faced pink sheep and a she-wolf holding a fucking scrotum. Why did they think that, because there is an established body of meaning to the idiom which can be referenced in its use.

Having a problem with the way that meaning is used does not mean I don't understand what an idiom is. Now grow up and stop accusing other people of not understanding something you clearly don't fully understand yourself.

Sigh....

It's a cartoon. It exaggerates relevant properties. That's what cartoons do, that's the art-style.

It's a cartoon about feminists, so clearly the feminine properties are exaggerated.
It's a cartoon of a sheep, so clearly it's sheepish properties (such as placidness) are exaggerated.
It's a cartoon about misandrists, so clearly the misandrist properties (the scrotum) are exaggerated.
It's a cartoon about wolves, so clearly it's wolfish properties are exaggerated.

Stop looking so far into things, you're adding all that meaning. Nobody else. If you look hard enough to be offended you'll find something every single time, not because the rest of the world are such offensive ass-holes but because you yourself are just acting obtuse.

 

[Hagi]

To reduce a complex viewpoint to a couple of easily batted down straw men?

An editorial cartoon, also known as a political cartoon, is an illustration containing a commentary that usually relates to current events or personalities.

They typically combine artistic skill, hyperbole and biting humour in order to question authority and draw attention to corruption and other social ills.[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_cartoon[/footnote]

That's what political cartoons do.....

It's a cartoon. It's not a philosophical essay. It's just a cartoon.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Does feminism get more of a bad rap now then when it was illegal and stamped out by anyone in power? No. It might have some culturally negative connotations but for the most part people support feminism as opposed to 100 years ago.