The cartoon attacked men for talking in ways that women aren’t attacked for doing. They were attacked for daring to speak up for themselves against sexist attacks. It upheld a sexist double-standard, pure and simple. Men and women should be held to the same standard. To declare than men are all privileged and therefore can be held to a different standard is sexism and it’s wrong. Privilege should be replaced with equality, not with a new privilege.
The thing where he’s overeager to jump in at the slightest hint of sexist attack (panel five) was fair game though. But the overall cartoon’s tone was “men should just shut up and let women attack them because it’s only fair since women are owed that.”
I think we got past that when we discussed the series of events. I think we are now talking about transgender issues more generally. I am pretty sure that the transgender male is even less likely to be interested in my flacid urinating penis than a gay man. Something approaching 100% of gay men are attracted to men, I think the percentage of transgender men who are attracted to men is probably something less than half, maybe a lot less (just guessing).
Well, I appreciate that. I don’t know if I could hold my shit together as well as you do but I guess your job makes it necessary. So on to the questions that are going to get me crucified:
As you might have guessed my concerns are mostly about pre-pubescent transgender kids. I am also concerned about the use of hormone blockers to extend this period of pre-pubescence rather than let nature take its course.
First the easy one (because it deals with older kids), we know that hormone blockers are perfectly safe (at least physically) and have been used in young children for many years to delay puberty in kids who enter puberty when they are too young. Is the problem with puberty that it creates biological changes that are hard to reverse later in life if the kid does turn out to be transgender or is the problem with OTHER kids who fuck with them? Does puberty ever “straighten” a kid out? Do they ever grow tits and realize, “shit, I’m a girl, I always have been” If a kid is sitting on the fence, then couldn’t puberty knock them to the biologically consistent side?
The tougher one for me is transgender pre-pubescents. How malleable is gender identity at this age? Can you provide “nurture” to push towards biologically consistent gender? I realize that some will see this as anti-transgender bigotry and accuse me of trying to pray the gay away, but considering that transgender people seem to consider being transgender a bit of a curse, why can’t we try to de-stigmatize it while also trying to push kids towards their biological gender? Or is that what we already do?
I don’t know if I can ever become comfortable with transgenderism in really young kids unless it is CLEARLY in the best interests of the child and I am not so sure that is true, at least not yet.
The cartoonist practically cuts up the intended message of the 'toon into little bitty bites, chews them into a paste and force feeds the reader like a momma bird. And yet that message eluded you.
He’s missing it because he hasn’t yet realized it’s mocking him - or maybe he has and he’s trying to deflect. It’s not mocking all men, it’s not mocking “men who want equal respect” or “men who are unfairly treated”; it’s mocking those men who think that any slight to their feelings is a more grievous offense than any real and material discrimination or harassment done to others, and thus overreact to any such perceived slight.
If he really got the same amount of respect women generally get from men, he would never stop crying.
You prove my point here. The idea that women have a right to attack men in their quest to stop attacks on women is wrong. Even if it’s a lesser attack. No, you can’t go around saying “men are pigs” just because you are paid less than men or whatever. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t justify small sexism against men because you’ve suffered bigger sexism against women. It’s not only wrong, and hypocritical, it’s going to backfire.
This isn’t about “generally.” Every man is a specific human being, just like every woman. He is not guilty of the crimes of other men and shouldn’t be punished for them. To say so is sexism, and it’s wrong.
No, I got the message. It’s a bullshit message. See how that works?
You’re so smug and assured in your opinions that you’re convinced that anyone who disagrees must not get it, rather than simply disagreeing.
Bunch of smug, self-assured people here who can’t handle their widdle opinions being questioned in the slightest, even by someone who agrees with their greater goal. That’s no how it works in the real world.
And if it is clever, I will laugh at it. I am self-aware enough to recognize my own foibles. If it is not clever I will ignore it, as life is too short to take umbrage at every misguided cartoonist out there.
Look at what the cartoon is actually mocking. “Not-All-Man” is a character who responds to women complaining about men in aggregate. That’s what he does. He doesn’t try to make things better, he doesn’t fight actual injustice, all he does is complain about the kind of off-hand “I hate it when men…” kind of statement, thus redirecting the topic from “This awful thing is happening” to “It’s not my fault”. That’s the problem here - that men are taking subjects like rape, harassment, and the like, and turning them into a personal reassurance party - “Hey, that stuff’s bad, but at least I don’t do it. #NotAllMen.” Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you think “Not all men” is a reasonable or sensible response to a discussion on rape culture, then you are part of the problem.
Was that in the comic? At all? Remember, the character of Not-All-Man is being mocked. There’s no evidence to support the idea that what he’s complaining about constitutes an “attack”. In fact, the context implies the opposite!
Funnily enough, you prove **my **point beautifully. You are spectacularly misreading the cartoon in order to construe it in a way that paints you as the “real victim” here. Nobody in the cartoon or in this thread said “men are pigs” and yet here you are, bewailing the terrible insults being inflicted upon you. I repeat - poor you. Life must be so hard.
Furthermore, here you also are demanding that we address the “small sexism” that affects you, while simultaneously telling women (who are frequently the victim of MASSIVE sexism) that things they say that offend you could “backfire” against them - which is a nifty way of preemptively blaming the victims. I’d say what you were committing was sexism in itself but it’s really just the petty, petulant, selfish tantrum of a spoiled child screaming “It’s not fair!”.
My advice: learn that it’s not all about you, bub. A disturbingly large percentage of the male population are sexist jerks (or worse). If you’re not one of them, good for you, but stop whining when women point this out.
Using language that blames all men for the actions of some is wrong - and it is part of the problem. If you cannot discuss the issue of sexism without using sexism, you are part of the problem.
I am not obligated to do anything about what other men do. I do it because I believe in justice, but not because of any guilt on my part. And when someone tries to guilt me, it turns me off and I am inclined not to help them. You don’t have to use sexist language to end sexism.
No, I’m not equating small offenses with larger ones. But small offenses matter. Language matters. It is, to use a recently popularized term, micro-aggression.
But the thing is, the cartoon makes no sense. It’s not the role of devil’s advocate to simply point out something is wrong. That’s an angel on your shoulder, not a devil.
