Women's rights

[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.

 

[thefrizzlefry]

Okay, I'm tired of having to make this point, so, if you ever actually take one of my posts to heart, please let it be this one.
"Feminism" is a bit of a misnomer: by attempting to take down the masculinist and patriarchal standards that have dominated society for so long, they are taking down the double standards on both sides of the gender line. The entire point is to allow women to be as strong as they please, and men as meek as they please. People who twist feminism into an anti-man, very anti-sex type of ideology are completely missing the point.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Secondly when "feminists" like bloatedguppy choose to ignore these issues they stand behind the people who use feminism to support man hating.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, nelly. Whoa.

When did I "ignore" anything? You and Sillybear provided some links and studies, and I admitted I stood corrected. Now suddenly I'm ignoring facts and propping up misandrists?

Really, life's a treat. I laugh at a Dickwolves joke, and I'm perpetuating rape culture. I tell a story about an uncle who was falsely accused of rape, and I'm intimating that all rape accusations are false and get slammed as a misogynist. I take some time to try and appreciate the other side of the fence, and I have people up my ass about how I'm a misandrist disguised as a feminist and I'm "ignoring female on male abuse".

So, you know, I appreciate your zeal, but kindly back the hell off with the assumptions about what I go through life believing. You've heard me argue about one cartoon on one thread on one forum. I don't claim to be the final authority on anything, and I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong about something.

 

[aei_haruko]

considering I'm doing loic in geometery right now, lets look at it rationally, and have an intellgent discourse:
given: 1 holding a door for soembody is nice
2 being nice is a good thing in moderation
therefore:
holding doors open for people is good
feminist logic:
somehow by holding this door open you view me as a lower person:
flaw, there is no reason to view me as a lower person for holding a door open for you.
I like people who are not in my face, if you are a femminist, great, hope that works out, but lets look at a pretty funny guy ( i 4got his name, no has link)
" the reason women get lower pay is because they get to live in a crisis. You always hear on a cruise ship " in the even of an emergency, women and children go to the life rafts first" You get the chance to live while my ass is drowning, thats why u get less money. Or in a hostage situation it's always " let the women and children go' welll excuuuuuuse me, I happen to like staying alive as much as the next gal does, why does she get to leave? "
I liked it, and that is why i like the role of men and women as it is right now. Woemn and men get equal representaion, equal oppratunities at jobs, and the right to do as they please. Lets just have people have equal rights, and move on

 

[Sandwichboy]

You are mistaken. An opinion on something as subjective as the arts is and always will be inherently personal, and therefor cannot be factually wrong. You're free to disagree with it and think me weird for having particular opinion, but you have no right to tell me it's wrong. IN YOUR OPINION the reasons that have been listed for this dissenting opinion are unconvincing. To you. You're entitled to that opinion, but so is everyone else. I may not agree with your viewpoint, but I will defend to my last breath your right to have and voice one without being belittled. All I ask is the same in return. It's not much.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

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.

I believe you missed the post where bloatedguppy did indeed concede with your arguments. I'm not sure why you believe that feminist organizations have some sort of responsibility to men. While destabilizing the patriarchy is ultimately helpful to men in many ways, it's a bit like asking an organization dedicated to fighting poverty "well what about the rich people?" Or demanding that the GLBT movement set aside time to help those heterosexuals harmed by the heteronormative aspect of patriarchal society. While they may, it's not really their purview. Should an organization devoted to raising money for prostate cancer research and awareness set aside a portion of that money for breast cancer?

As for this: "what does it say about the equality that feminists have fought so hard for?" It means that equality has not yet been reached and needs to continue to be fought for. 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?

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.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Every piece of art has a specific meaning. interpretations of this meaning can be more and less correct than others.

Says who? More frequently, as with the works of Shakespeare, for example, a work of art is pretty much defined by the multiplicities and complexities and ambiguities of its meanings.

Artistic criticism and interpretation needs adequate evidence to back it up. Otherwise it's simply a gut response.

That's fine, but it does not require the creator to interpret the evidence for you, nor does it preclude multiple meanings.

 

[BRex21]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, nelly. Whoa.

When did I "ignore" anything? You and Sillybear provided some links and studies, and I admitted I stood corrected. Now suddenly I'm ignoring facts and propping up misandrists?

Yes, you are. In in all fairness you did admit you were wrong, i did not see that before i started my post. Perhaps you really were ignorant of this and I can give you the benefit of the doubt. This is however something that has been shown in hundreds if not thousands of studies dating back at least to the 70's and its something society by and large chooses to ignore. You stood up and said something easily disprovable and I assumed malice.
Of course this could always go back to the wolf in sheep's clothing argument. Who told you that male on female violence is simply the most common? This myth has been used by womens shelters throughout the USA in order to justify violating the requirement that they serve both genders equally or lose government funding. It enables women to abuse there partners and penalizes men for being victims. Womens organizations do this in the name of equality.

 

[cdstephens]

It seems hypocritical that women are fighting for equal rights but not for equal draft in America, but that's just me. It just seems like a substantial minority (or perhaps majority, I have not had the displeasure of meeting radical feminists face to face) wish to dispell with traditional gender constrictions on women but not the benefits. A lot of the time for example, it's considered expected for a man to buy a woman dinner, as if the woman is entitled.

On a side note, does anything else find it odd that colleges put men and women in separate categories and take roughly the same amount from each gender pool? Is there any reasoning for this, since many many colleges in America have coed dorms?

 

[KirbyKrackle]

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.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a truly clear communication of work.

People view work with their own preconceived notions. And that floods the interpretation of the work for them. No matter how well articulated a piece may be. People are going to draw conclusions that were never intended to be there.

Interestingly, you hit on one of the reasons that a creator's stated intent can't be trusted: they are viewing their work with their own preconceived notions, just as anyone else does. People drawing conclusion that the author did not intend are not a problem, so long as they are based on the work itself.

Now about hidden prejudices. That does present something of a problem. Because no matter how true that statement is, it basically gives people free reign to simply say. X proves that you actually think that Y is Z.

A lot of artists do accidentally communicate their own suppressed prejudices through their work. But equally. A lot of what people conclude as a prejudice are nothing more than unfortunate accidents or simply people over analysing again.

There really isn't a clear answer to this. But is still believe that an artist holds final decision over what their work means.

Fortunately, there is a way of hemming in this meaning run riot, and that's the object itself. Disagreements over interpretation are a point for fruitful debate and trying to end it with "oh but the author didn't say so" is just an attempt to try avoiding coming up with an actual counter-argument. Face it, the author's dead.

PS: You're also ignoring the small problem that creators can lie. Sometimes they're just kind of stupid and thoughtless. Sometimes they can't see the forest for the trees. They are not the bearers of incontrovertible truth.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

There really isn't a clear answer to this. But is still believe that an artist holds final decision over what their work means.

I would make the distinction that the artist holds final decision on what they intended their work to mean.

 

[Evidencebased]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, nelly. Whoa.

When did I "ignore" anything? You and Sillybear provided some links and studies, and I admitted I stood corrected. Now suddenly I'm ignoring facts and propping up misandrists?

Yes, you are. In in all fairness you did admit you were wrong, i did not see that before i started my post. Perhaps you really were ignorant of this and I can give you the benefit of the doubt. This is however something that has been shown in hundreds if not thousands of studies dating back at least to the 70's and its something society by and large chooses to ignore. You stood up and said something easily disprovable and I assumed malice.
Of course this could always go back to the wolf in sheep's clothing argument. Who told you that male on female violence is simply the most common? This myth has been used by womens shelters throughout the USA in order to justify violating the requirement that they serve both genders equally or lose government funding. It enables women to abuse there partners and penalizes men for being victims. Womens organizations do this in the name of equality.

Historically women have opened shelters for women of their own initiative. Feminists are not stopping men from opening shelters, it's just that their hands are full trying to help female victims and many men refuse to believe that men can be abused, and so those men do not set up shelters on their own. So don't blame feminists for the lack of men's shelters, blame those sexist men. If guys wanted to set up shelters of their own (rather than try to claim space in women's shelters, which are already short on resources) the vast majority of feminists would be perfectly happy about that.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

It seems hypocritical that women are fighting for equal rights but not for equal draft in America

Seeing as conscription was abolished 36 years ago, what would be the point of that?

 

[cdstephens]

It seems hypocritical that women are fighting for equal rights but not for equal draft in America

Seeing as conscription was abolished 36 years ago, what would be the point of that?

All 18 year old males in America are complied to register with the Selective Service System, such that if the draft were to be reinstated we would have a pool of people to draw from. Failure to comply can result in loss of federal financial aid for college, loss of federal employment, and the person can be subject to a fine of 250,000 dollars.

Women fought against this compliance in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981 and won.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

There really isn't a clear answer to this. But is still believe that an artist holds final decision over what their work means.

I would make the distinction that the artist holds final decision on what they intended their work to mean.

Heh, I like it!

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Of course this could always go back to the wolf in sheep's clothing argument. Who told you that male on female violence is simply the most common? This myth has been used by womens shelters throughout the USA in order to justify violating the requirement that they serve both genders equally or lose government funding. It enables women to abuse there partners and penalizes men for being victims. Womens organizations do this in the name of equality.

Who told me? My own anecdotal experience told me. My first girlfriend was molested my her next door neighbor. My second girlfriend was molested and beaten by her step father, and later raped as an adult. My third girlfriend? Also raped, this time as a teenager. My sister was beaten and choked by her live in boyfriend. My current girlfriend was date raped, her best friend raped.

Clearly, this is anecdotal experience. And obviously, I may know a lot of men who have had terrible things happen to them that have simply chosen never to tell me because of societal pressures. But I've had a lot of women who were and are very dear to me tearfully confess some truly atrocious shit, and after you've heard enough of it's not hard to believe tossed off statistics regarding the rate of violence against women.

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.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It seems hypocritical that women are fighting for equal rights but not for equal draft in America

Seeing as conscription was abolished 36 years ago, what would be the point of that?

All 18 year old males in America are complied to register with the Selective Service System, such that if the draft were to be reinstated we would have a pool of people to draw from. Failure to comply can result in loss of federal financial aid for college, loss of federal employment, and the person can be subject to a fine of 250,000 dollars.

Women fought against this compliance in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981 and won.

A few seconds with google indicates that women had very little to do with the decision, as it was ultimately made by the male-majority Congress and Supreme Court apparently based on an unwillingness to put women in combat roles.

Also, what is this monolithic "women", all of whom think the same way? Would it not be more likely that women are all individuals, and that some women might have wanted the draft and some didn't, some were feminists and some were not?

 

[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.

 

[BRex21]

Historically women have opened shelters for women of their own initiative. Feminists are not stopping men from opening shelters, it's just that their hands are full trying to help female victims and many men refuse to believe that men can be abused, and so those men do not set up shelters on their own. So don't blame feminists for the lack of men's shelters, blame those sexist men. If guys wanted to set up shelters of their own (rather than try to claim space in women's shelters, which are already short on resources) the vast majority of feminists would be perfectly happy about that.

My concern is more to do with the federal funding. Across the western world womens shelters receive tax dollars. In the USA they are required BY LAW to admit men if they take those tax dollar. They don't, they can get away with this by marginalizing the issues of violence against men and exaggerating the issues of violence against women. By doing this they do disservice to everyone, yet maintain popular appeal. I would also like to point out that historically MEN HAVE HELPED AND FULLY SUPPORTED the opening of womans shelters both through personal contributions and tax dollars.
Men's shelters have had no such luck and require private donations, donations that are nearly impossible to campaign for particularly when you are fighting larger better funded organizations that try to paint men unilaterally as the abusers. In fact as I previously pointed out women who stand up and say that women can be violent often face death threats, again i recommend reading the later works of Erin Pizzey.

Seeing as conscription was abolished 36 years ago, what would be the point of that?

The draft is still very much alive and well if it is deemed necessary. For this reason there was a very large scare early on after 9/11 that the draft would be re-instated. George W Bush had to get up and publicly reassure people that this wouldn't be the case.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Historically women have opened shelters for women of their own initiative. Feminists are not stopping men from opening shelters, it's just that their hands are full trying to help female victims and many men refuse to believe that men can be abused, and so those men do not set up shelters on their own. So don't blame feminists for the lack of men's shelters, blame those sexist men. If guys wanted to set up shelters of their own (rather than try to claim space in women's shelters, which are already short on resources) the vast majority of feminists would be perfectly happy about that.

My concern is more to do with the federal funding. Across the western world womens shelters receive tax dollars. In the USA they are required BY LAW to admit men if they take those tax dollar. They don't, they can get away with this by marginalizing the issues of violence against men and exaggerating the issues of violence against women. By doing this they do disservice to everyone, yet maintain popular appeal. I would also like to point out that historically MEN HAVE HELPED AND FULLY SUPPORTED the opening of womans shelters both through personal contributions and tax dollars.
Men's shelters have had no such luck and require private donations, donations that are nearly impossible to campaign for particularly when you are fighting larger better funded organizations that try to paint men unilaterally as the abusers. In fact as I previously pointed out women who stand up and say that women can be violent often face death threats, again i recommend reading the later works of Erin Pizzey.

Seeing as conscription was abolished 36 years ago, what would be the point of that?

The draft is still very much alive and well if it is deemed necessary. For this reason there was a very large scare early on after 9/11 that the draft would be re-instated. George W Bush had to get up and publicly reassure people that this wouldn't be the case.

As you were very good about providing backing for your assertions earlier, I expect the same now, especially since what I'm dredging up on Google indicates that the funding goes to victims of domestic abuse, no gender mentioned, and at least one article mentions federal funding being expected by a men's shelter. It would seem, in that case, that WOMEN HAVE HELPED AND FULLY SUPPORTED the opening of men's shelters at least through tax dollars, one might assume personal contributions as well.

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

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.

Oh, and it's a bit weird that you remain focused on organizations for women being the cause of men's problems and not the small circle of men you believe are in charge of and benefiting from patriarchal institutions.