Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Discussions about sexism on the internet...
Options
Comments
-
-
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »I really don't think it came across that way. I thought that cartoon was nuts.
Nuts? In what way? Is it just that it went too far and thus wasn't particularly funny or are you genuinely saying there was no element of truth in it?Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »The target women sketches are a much better example of the ridiculous crap women have to put up in the modern world.
I've only seen a few of 'em but they are pretty funny and on the nose alright.
0 -
Nuts? In what way? Is it just that it went too far and thus wasn't particularly funny or are you genuinely saying there was no element of truth in it?
I've only seen a few of 'em but they are pretty funny and on the nose alright.
If you have an element of truth but wrap it up in sexist crap then you don't deserve to be listened to. The comic trys to portray all females as logical and all men as illogical.
If I have a valid point about the affect of over immigration but wrap it in racist crap no one would listen to me.0 -
Nuts? In what way? Is it just that it went too far and thus wasn't particularly funny or are you genuinely saying there was no element of truth in it?
I love satire and satire cartoons/articles etc. I even write this *shameful advertisement* blog.Taking the piss out of male attitudes and Irish attitudes doesn't offend me. Little does. I mean I thought the cartoon in post no.15 was very good.
That cartoon however was just extreme sensationalism. Look at the opening text, the language doesn't imply its a joke as satire normally does.
Then it goes on to create a situation that just isn't realistic. Certainly not to boards. The character posts a blog with no suggestion it is a feminist blog. Just a normal post. It then suggests men ALWAYS respond with a sexual comment and afterwards all other guys back them up.
This very site is proof that last bit is nonsensical. I have thanked many of outlawpete's posts in this thread but out and out disagreed with him on one point on gender issues here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68571659&postcount=144
It is pure shock value thoughtless drivvel. It takes after-hours type comments which are usually parodying themselves and projects them as typical male views.
Element of truth? It takes a very slight element of truth and stretches it to unrealistic and divisive levels, without being satirically clear it was being unrealistic.
You couldn't possibly suggest the general male response to posts by female members on boards is like that. There'd be no female moderators if that were the case.I've only seen a few of 'em but they are pretty funny and on the nose alright.
The wedding one is class if you haven't seen it.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »I have thanked many of outlawpete's posts in this thread but out and out disagreed with him on one point on gender issues here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68571659&postcount=144
Not gonna drag that thread into this one, but just to say that for some reason I did not see that reply at the time, guess I had a lot of posts coming at me and some I missed, sorry
I totally agree with what you said in that post and know many career driven women and was in fact business partners with one woman many years ago and she was very feminine indeed and have other female friends who have and do similar.
You seem to just suggest that I was only talking about being career driven in your post and my point covered much more than that. It was regarding the "overall" effect that I feel feminism has on girls and women today and in the past - in many areas, not just that it makes them more career driven, I see little or nothing wrong with that, along as it is done in a honest and through way, explaining the pros and cons of such decisions.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
OutlawPete wrote: »Include all the smilies you wish, it still won't give your point any more credence.
You posted:
Now, again I ask - can you provide examples of where men have made statements regarding ALL women, that can be comparable to the above.
Much like your finger-in-the ear approach isn't doing you any favours?
In what way comparable? If you mean as an ignorant generalisation taking a negative behaviour or trait exhibited by a minority and using it to decry a whole gender then it's comparable to a lot of things that are said about women.OutlawPete wrote: »Why would that be shocking to me?
Well, by posting the link you appear to be inferring that A) I would care and
would want to read 14 pages to find out something about you.Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:Come on IM implying women get insults comparable to child molesters and rapists is patently ridiculous
So the constant, get your tits out/I'd cum on ...../I'm going to give it you up the @rse/only good for cooking/shrew-like/emotionally unstable/etc, etc is all fun and games but if anyone lol's ach yer all just child molesters/potential rapists/crap fathers or any other negative gender related stereo-type of the worst kind for men then it's suddenly serious stuff? I think I'm starting to understand how this works...0 -
-
-
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »That cartoon however was just extreme sensationalism. Look at the opening text, the language doesn't imply its a joke as satire normally does.
This is interesting, because I thought that the hyperbole in the 'title' panel of the comic did imply it's a joke.
I'll be honest though and admit I didn't really pay that much attention to the text from the blog or really make the connection. I didn't realise that the author of the blog and the comic were the same. Bad me.
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »Then it goes on to create a situation that just isn't realistic. Certainly not to boards. The character posts a blog with no suggestion it is a feminist blog. Just a normal post. It then suggests men ALWAYS respond with a sexual comment and afterwards all other guys back them up.
As I said in an earlier post, the cartoon does leave out the more reasonable responses and the lunatic women responses but again, I assumed on reading the cartoon that that was done for comic effect - exaggeration if you like. It took the many responses which may happen and combined them into one.
I have to disagree though on the 'not realistic'. It may not be an everyday occurence or an exact facsimile of what happens but I and others on this thread have experienced situations similar to the one described. It might not be nice to admit but it does happen.
I've seen women be responded to by 'pics or gtfo' or similar versions of this on many occassions.
I've seeen women being derided has having no sense of humour.
I've seen women shouted down by 'funny' responses, which get less and less funny everytime they're repeated.
I've seen group mentality take over where the boys club get together to put a woman in her place.
I've seen a woman try to raise an issue and have posters bang on about how sexism affects men too, which while true doesn't a) address or b) negate the original point raised.
Now these things might not happen all at the same time, but I'd say there is usually the occurence of more than one.
I'm not claiming that this kind of experience is the sole province of women and sexism though - I imagine in many situations the minority might have a bad experience that isn't seen or felt by the majority. I just think that in this case, I'm part of the minority and therefore am more aware of it.Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »You couldn't possibly suggest the general male response to posts by female members on boards is like that. There'd be no female moderators if that were the case.
No I absolutely wouldn't suggest this. Most of the guys posting, even the ones I completely disagree with are, or seem to be, decent. There is the odd exception but that's life. I don't think that this cartoon is representative of all interaction all the time - as I said, I thought the comedy was in the exaggeration.
What I do think, and I expect to be shouted at for this, is that quite a few guys just do not get it when they are being sexist and when it is pointed out, get defensive. When that happens, you're more likely to see examples of what I listed above.
I'm not hypersensitive. I've said before, I don't identify myself as a feminist in that I don't attach labels to myself. I think it's kind of sad that sexism (both kinds) rears its head so often and tbh I'm getting a little sick of the sound of my own voice (err typing?) on the subject!
0 -
-
If you have an element of truth but wrap it up in sexist crap then you don't deserve to be listened to. The comic trys to portray all females as logical and all men as illogical.
If I have a valid point about the affect of over immigration but wrap it in racist crap no one would listen to me.
Sorry but is that not what a lot of cartoons do?? Show the very thing they are commenting on in an overblown, exaggerated or parodying way?
0 -
-
As I said in an earlier post, the cartoon does leave out the more reasonable responses and the lunatic women responses but again, I assumed on reading the cartoon that that was done for comic effect - exaggeration if you like. It took the many responses which may happen and combined them into one.
not my point at all. A satirical cartoon about male attitudes is under no obligation to give balance. My issue is the ''message'' of the piece is utterly divorced from reality and thus becomes slapstick.I have to disagree though on the 'not realistic'. It may not be an everyday occurence or an exact facsimile of what happens but I and others on this thread have experienced situations similar to the one described. It might not be nice to admit but it does happen.
On boards? You'd swear we were talking about 4chan here.I've seen women be responded to by 'pics or gtfo' or similar versions of this on many occassions.
I've seeen women being derided has having no sense of humour.
I've seen women shouted down by 'funny' responses, which get less and less funny everytime they're repeated.
I've seen group mentality take over where the boys club get together to put a woman in her place.
Now these things might not happen all at the same time, but I'd say there is usually the occurence of more than one.
Well.. welcome to the internet. It is full of keyboard warriors. Though the cartoons message is suggesting this kind of discussion cannot take place. I'd be telling you I want to **** you after you finish the dishes by now.
If anyone says GTFO after any post it is a joke. A parody which to use in an argument like this is disengenuous
All the other things are commonplace throughout boards under different themes. The anti-israel crowd gang up to put a right-winger in his place. The liberal crowd gang up to put an anti-abortion poster in his place.I've seen a woman try to raise an issue and have posters bang on about how sexism affects men too, which while true doesn't a) address or b) negate the original point raised.
Whataboutery is rampant throughout the site. The cartoon we're discussing isn't even addressing this point.I'm not claiming that this kind of experience is the sole province of women and sexism though - I imagine in many situations the minority might have a bad experience that isn't seen or felt by the majority. I just think that in this case, I'm part of the minority and therefore am more aware of it.
We're talking about the cartoon. That's my problem because of its ludicrous premise. Given you're aware this happens to all minorities how can you think it is realistic?No I absolutely wouldn't suggest this. Most of the guys posting, even the ones I completely disagree with are, or seem to be, decent. There is the odd exception but that's life. I don't think that this cartoon is representative of all interaction all the time - as I said, I thought the comedy was in the exaggeration.
The cartoon quite literally is suggesting this.What I do think, and I expect to be shouted at for this, is that quite a few guys just do not get it when they are being sexist and when it is pointed out, get defensive. When that happens, you're more likely to see examples of what I listed above.
I'm not hypersensitive. I've said before, I don't identify myself as a feminist in that I don't attach labels to myself. I think it's kind of sad that sexism (both kinds) rears its head so often and tbh I'm getting a little sick of the sound of my own voice (err typing?) on the subject!
I agree with that. I just do not think the cartoon is an accurate reflection of the reality.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »not my point at all. A satirical cartoon about male attitudes is under no obligation to give balance. My issue is the ''message'' of the piece is utterly divorced from reality and thus becomes slapstick.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't believe it's utterly divorced from reality, I think it's representative of a reality that does happen on occasion.Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »On boards? You'd swear we were talking about 4chan here.
Not necessarily on boards but, as you say we're talking about the cartoon, the cartoon is talking about the internet in general.Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »Well.. welcome to the internet. It is full of keyboard warriors. Though the cartoons message is suggesting this kind of discussion cannot take place. I'd be telling you I want to **** you after you finish the dishes by now.
Thanks for the welcome, I've been here for a while. Again I think it's about interpretation. I saw the cartoon as commenting on what happens, not ALL the time, but frequently enough, when sexism is brought up on the internet. I didn't take it to be literal or true. I took it to be a cartoon which highlighted a certain experience.
Oh and dishwasher ftw
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »If anyone says GTFO after any post it is a joke. A parody which to use in an argument like this is disengenuous.
I wasn't trying to be disengenous. Yes most of the time GTFO is a joke, and most of the time I take it as such. The problem is a that nasty sentiments can be expressed, this can be added and then the whoe statement is 'a joke'. May be rambling off topic a bit here.Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »We're talking about the cartoon. That's my problem because of its ludicrous premise. Given you're aware this happens to all minorities how can you think it is realistic?
I am aware it happens...and I guess this is my main point. That the sort of thing described by the cartoon happens. That's why I see it as being realistic. Again, it is exaggerated and overblown but representative of a real experience - not all experiences, true, but one that is familiar.
It's not like I'm a lone voice on this. A lot of women have said that this is familiar. I guess I don't understand the resistance to accepting this. Do you and others who reject this cartoon utterly think that we are lying? Or oversensitive?
To reiterate, this cartoon does not summarise my whole experience on the internet. What it does to is represent a sequence of events that I HAVE experienced.0 -
-
-
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »no one appears to be reading my posts.
My issue is specifically that it heavily suggests this is typical of 95% of internet discussion with its introductory text. It looks like it was written quickly in anger.
There's text-bites that are typical which is why people are identifying with it but the overall message is cheap dishonest and divisive.
A few minor changes it could be very witty and clever.
Firstly sorry if I was misinterpreting you, but when you stated earlier that you felt the cartoon was 'utterly divorced from reality' I read this as it had absolutely no basis in fact. That the things the cartoon described just don't happen. My point / argument / ridiculously long posts were to argue that they do.
I think this is down to interpretation. I interpreted the first panel, the part where it said, every discussion everywhere etc. as hyperbole and exaggeration to make the point it went on to make. You took it at face value, that it really did mean exactly what it said. Am I getting this right?
I thought the cartoon was being deliberately sexist to highlight sexism - a strategy I have seen used elsewhere. I may have been wrong - it is possible (if extremely rare ).
You may be right, it's possible that it could have been altered and made funnier. I guess it does go to show how easy it is to misread stuff on the net!0 -
-
I thought the cartoon was being deliberately sexist to highlight sexism - a strategy I have seen used elsewhere. I may have been wrong - it is possible (if extremely rare ).
Does that make it acceptable then though? If "political parody" is justification of sexism then why is "humour" not?0 -
Firstly sorry if I was misinterpreting you, but when you stated earlier that you felt the cartoon was 'utterly divorced from reality' I read this as it had absolutely no basis in fact. That the things the cartoon described just don't happen. My point / argument / ridiculously long posts were to argue that they do.
I basically think the notion that this typically happens to female posters on the internet is utterly divorced from reality.I think this is down to interpretation. I interpreted the first panel, the part where it said, every discussion everywhere etc. as hyperbole and exaggeration to make the point it went on to make. You took it at face value, that it really did mean exactly what it said. Am I getting this right?
The thrust and tone of it suggested to me it was trying to argue this is the norm, when we all know it isn't. I think people are identifying with it because it uses text bites. The funny thing is, if that initial text box was changed to ''This is the idiocy a blogger had to deal with when expressing irritation at being sleazed on'' I would have lauded the cartoon as a great piece. It almost seems like that's what it is but someone changed the tone by turning it into a representation of sexism on the internet.I thought the cartoon was being deliberately sexist to highlight sexism - a strategy I have seen used elsewhere. I may have been wrong - it is possible (if extremely rare ).
I'm trying to see it that way but if that were the case I think the writer would have made the females more unreasonable. It just doesn't fit with a lot of the cartoon.Wibbs wrote:I do and will do so again. Like I say it's damned tiresome at this stage
Sorry if that came across cheeky. I do agree with your point.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement