Women's rights

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I already used this video today...but I think the point about the cartoon is this;


The pink fluffy nice sheep represents the woman, saying that a 'good' woman is one who is agreeable, attractive and placid.

That is why someone could take offense at that picture. It has nothing to do with idioms.

Women are still oppressed in society today, we get less pay than men and are kept from doing certain jobs. Don't start up with that 'you wouldn't work in a sewer' crap becuase I think anyone would take any job in todays economy... Being labelled as feminazi's as soon as we complain about anything is just a reactionary stance to protect men from having to recognize that there needs to be further changes.

This is strikingly clear in the computer games industry but I think it's getting better.

Men also have a right to complain if they are being mistreated.

We want equality not supremacy.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.

 

[Hagi]

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 them 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.

Because there is no relating idiom of black guys and monkeys. Black guys and monkeys clearly refers to racism and not a well-known idiom.

This clearly is not a reference to submissive women, it's clearly a reference to a very well known idiom.

It uses the tools of any political cartoon: artistic skill, hyperbole and biting humour.

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

You're supposed to be offended, then you're supposed to realize it's just a freaking cartoon and you're supposed to take the relevant point (the idiom) and realize the rest is just hyperbole and biting humour.

Again. It's not a philosophical essay. It's a hyperbolic, humoristic political cartoon.

You're not supposed to base your life's view on it. You're not supposed to treat it as a holy book telling you the world's truth. You're not supposed to take it that seriously.

Reasonable people know this. They know the function of a political cartoon in our society (which is why they got so outraged when people drawing political cartoons about Islam got death threats). Because it's just a freaking cartoon filled with hyperbole and biting humour.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

 

[Rack]

At this stage women completely dominate the media, earn 102c on the dollar, get better pensions, better benefits and better education. If you're STILL a feminist at this point you're completely going beyond any sense of equality and are just trying to get an even fatter slice of the pie.

 

[Verlander]

There is a massive issue where womens rights can conflict with other civil rights, usually religion, but also culture and race rights. That's when it becomes a fairly "right wing" issue.

The thing is, there are people who will continue to fight even when the battle has been won. The original feminist movement came about for legitimate reasons that a lot of women at the time could get behind-namely equality. Now, however, "feminists" have no real battles left. Sure inequality still exists, but nothing organised will get rid of it. Women are as protected by law as men are (some may argue that they're more protected), and so the vast majority of women sink into the real world again, happy that the status quo is now on a level.

The ones who are left fighting? They go looking for fights, such as the rights of women in other cultures, or not being able to make a joke about women, or even that "feminist" who hated men so much, she genuinely claimed that they were all rape supporters (by virtue of being born male). Feminists aren't the only ones who are resorting to this, there has been a huge rise in what I like to call "Christian-baiting", where member of the homosexual community purpousefully set out to see how far they can push someones moral system, knowing that they have the general protection of the law behind them.

To everyone, I say this: the best you're ever going to get is political equality and representation. You will never convince everyone, and you will never change everyone's minds. If this situation shows us one thing, it's that there are massive cunts everywhere, regardless of age, culture, sexuality, gender or race.

 

[MrJKapowey]

I read an article from some feminist that claimed all men support rape.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

Now that is a woman with clear issues.

He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects

Wow, so if I like West Side Story (where a woman is raped during one scene by people who ae on the opposite side) I am a rape supporter...

 

[Wolfhowl the shadow lurker]

a lot of the so called feminists I have met just seem to hate men so I think I have a bad view but I do believe we should all be seen the same male or female I just wish people would stop calling themselves feminists and then hating men it gives them a bad name

 

[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.