EDIT: Apparently my not thinking that this cartoon is hi-larious makes me the "Cartoon Monitor for the Confederacy of Dunces," or so says the often inadvertently hi-larious Paul Elam.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Cartoon of the Day: Tied Down
Remember all those outrageously sexist cartoons that used to fill the pages of our popular periodicals back in the good old days before evil feminism brought its blight upon the world? They're having a sort of second life on the Internet, and apparently some people still find them hi-larious. I found this is on an Indian Men's Rights site, which offered this little bit of commentary: "So so so true..................."
EDIT: Apparently my not thinking that this cartoon is hi-larious makes me the "Cartoon Monitor for the Confederacy of Dunces," or so says the often inadvertently hi-larious Paul Elam.
EDIT: Apparently my not thinking that this cartoon is hi-larious makes me the "Cartoon Monitor for the Confederacy of Dunces," or so says the often inadvertently hi-larious Paul Elam.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You didn't give us your opinion, David. That's kind of a cop out.
ReplyDeletelol
ReplyDeleteHow many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
THAT'S NOT FUNNY!
Huh? My opinion is that it's a old, dumb, sexist cartoon. It's drawn well, though.
ReplyDeleteThag, do you actually find the cartoon funny?
ReplyDeleteI'm not outraged by it. It's just a dumb, unfunny old cartoon.
Well it's still funny in today's media when a woman kicks a guy in the nuts.
ReplyDeleteAnd just in the early 00s there was the "boy's are stupid throw rocks at them" shirt which was supposed to be funny.
Then we can go on with the complaints about the misandrous greeting cards which are supposed to be humorous that the MRM have been complaining about for decades.
Yes, poor poor women
A message that this cartoon points out; you see how this cartoon indicates that she was violent to begin with as it shows her raising the wooden spoon?
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me a lot about male victim murder cases I see today. In many cases, when a woman murders her husband, she can claim that the husband was an abuser for her sickening actions. Even that her claim doesn't have any proof.
But when it's in reverse, such as a male trying to justify murdering his wife because she was abusive, his ass would get no sympathy and he would still get the most severe punishment as possible.
Some examples
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n6_v11/ai_16664939/
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20296389
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/8128180/penis-burner-guilty
David Futrelle wrote:
ReplyDelete"My opinion is that it's a old, dumb, sexist cartoon."
Please elaborate, David. In your opinion, what parts of the cartoon are sexist, how are they sexist, and how is that sexism negatively portraying females vs. negatively portraying males?
Hilarious! Thank's for posting David.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I do think it's funny. I too would like to know what you think is sexist about it - when you just say "it's sexist" you sound like you're just repeating what you've been programmed to say. "Four legs good, two legs bad." (Except in this case, "Vagina good, penis bad.")
ReplyDeleteObviously humour is a little bit subjective, but I find this funny because it has an element of truth to it (as most humour that works does) and because I tend to not take jokes too seriously. Part of what makes a lot of things funny is that someone somewhere is going to find a particular joke offensive - take George Carlin as a good example of that. Sometimes I find him pretty offensive and disagree with his politics quite a bit, as well as his assessment of religion, which I find simplistic and typically leftist, but I still think most of the time he's damn funny - including his piss takes of religion and conservatives. It's called being able to take a joke, that's all.
The fact is, there is a lot of truth in that cartoon, for a lot of men. Not just MRA's, but average guys who love their wives and families, but who also share some of the more universal frustrations in their lives with women.
ReplyDeleteThis is where David and all feminists have been total fails for the last half century.
Humor is, or at least is supposed to be, a common tool for people to let off steam about real problems. There is nothing sinister here, nothing hateful, except in the minds of people like David, who are the real haters.
If men can't even joke about their frustrations with women, how on earth are they ever going to talk about them?
Answer: they can't.
And that is precisely agenda of feminists and manginas. They would love to enforce a world where the very thought that men experience problems with women in relationships is taboo.
And they do that by trying to shame men as sexist, misogynistic, etc. for being honest about their experience.
It is another example of misandry on this site, though I am sure Futrelle would deny it.
It's sexist because it portrays both characters in completely stereotyped ways (wives nag, that's hilarious! violence is justified!). It's negative towards women rather than men because we're supposed to consider the husband's response completely justified.
ReplyDeleteIt's also completely hackneyed, which is the main reason it's not funny. Nagging wife jokes are about as funny as "why did the chicken cross the road" jokes.
I enjoy plenty of offensive humor, but it's got to be at least a tiny bit clever.
"It's negative towards women because we're supposed to consider the husband's response completely justified."
ReplyDeleteMIGHT be a 'fair' point coming from a 'fair' guy.
"It's negative towards women RATHER THAN MEN because we're supposed to consider the husband's response completely justified."
Thanks to David's fruedian slip we know all we need to know about him.
evil, what the fuck are you talking about? I put in that "rather than men" to answer John Diaz's question: "how is that sexism negatively portraying females vs. negatively portraying males?"
ReplyDeleteWhat about that wording is supposed to be so revealing?
And Paul, didn't see your comment before posting my last one. So, this is for you:
Dude, lighten the fuck up. I'm not the Commissar of Humor for the Feminazi Dictatorship. I'm not banning anyone from laughing at women. Contrary to your typically clueless assumptions about me, which as usual have pretty much nothing to do with anything I've actually ever said, I like laughing at women. And men, and cats, and whatever else can be made fun of. I just didn't think this dopey, hackneyed and, yes, sexist cartoon was clever enough to be funny. I put it up on my blog, well, more or less for the hell of it.
You want good nagging-wife humor? This is good nagging-wife humor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qVOazgMep4
The whole scene is funny, but the bit I'm talking about starts about 7 minutes in. If you skip ahead to that point, the setup is: our hero is trying to take a nap on the porch, but, you know, shit happens.
David, you missed your calling as a shape shifter.
ReplyDeleteGetting you to stand behind what you do is like trying to nail Jello to a tree, which is just another way of saying you are full of shit and inconsistent.
You labeled the cartoon as sexist from the start. It was the whole point of the OP. That is an allegation of bigotry and hate. And now you are playing like that really isn't what you are doing, that you really aren't the Commissar of Humor.
But then, after pointing to the cartoon as hate speech, you toss us a link to humor that you find more appropriate as though you can make that decision for others.
Transparent fucking bullshit.
Do you even know why you do anything when you do it? Or do you just do what you do, and then assume people are too stupid to notice the ducks, fades and double backs that you use to make it look like you are something other than what you are?
You run a fucking blog, ranting about all the hate in the MRM, then toss out this cartoon as an example of it, but then say you really don't mind laughing at women, as long as people laugh at what you think is funny, but you really aren't trying to control anyone.
This place just gets lamer by the post.
He knows what he's doing; he's trolling the MRM because he's desperate for some attention.
ReplyDeleteHuh. I don't remember calling it "hate speech." I think I remember calling it an "old, dumb, sexist cartoon. It's drawn well, though."
ReplyDelete"What about that wording is supposed to be so revealing?"
ReplyDeleteLeave it to you to see ONLY the misogyny in that cartoon.
ReplyDeleteAnd Paul, didn't see your comment before posting my last one. So, this is for you:
Dude, lighten the fuck up.
This is pretty ironic, since you're the one who can't take a joke. Paul was explaining a very real function of humour - in that it lets people blow off steam. Everyone gets frustrated in relationships, wives do nag, and this is just a harmless way of expressing frustration. It's not advocating tying someone who irritates to to a train track or "violence is justified" or whatever other claptrap you come up with out of your feminist brainwashing, it's just a cartoon - lighten up!
Again, you're free to find it just not funny, but you posted it because you thought it was sexist, not so much as a comment on comedy or lack thereof, so this is what the argument is about here.
Do you really not see how both parties are portrayed negatively? what about the portrayal of men as lazy brutes who can't keep women happy so they resort to violence? You could argue that too; why choose to only see one side of it? It's not as if either the wife or the husband comes off looking sparkling here. Yeah, we are supposed to sympathize with the husband because it is expressing a husband's frustration - someone else is free to draw something expressing a wife's frustration too if they want - would you have a similar problem with that and call it sexist? I doubt it.
Stereotypes exist for a reason - i.e. they usually contain at least a grain of truth. That's not a popular thing to say, but it's true nonetheless, and it's often the soil out of which genuine humour grows.
That video was lame. he cartoon is 10 times funnier. And take it from me, 95% of wives nag, so it's not a stereotype.
ReplyDeleteRandom Brother
BTW
You still haven't told me why Glenn Sacks and the False Rape Society are on your enemies list.
@ Thag
ReplyDeleteThis is the ironic and often frustrating craziness of the MRA's life. We actually have to explain, TO GROWN MEN, that something like the cartoon in question is not advocating tying women to train tracks to kill them for nagging.
And nothing illustrates the need for the MRM more than this. Common mentality is so mindless, so pervasively misandric, that people like David make a post like this and then seriously challenge people to "show me anything I have written that is misandric."
It's like David Duke saying "What, me racist?"
Yes, that's right, Paul, I lied about my last name, I'm really David Duke.
ReplyDeleteRandom Brother, Glenn Sacks is on the enemies list because he does things like sending his fans to harass a DV shelter.
The False Rape Society is on my enemies list because it actively promotes myths about the prevalence of false rape accusations, and because it posts reactionary garbage like the post I discuss here.
I do support advocacy groups that fight for men (and women) who have been falsely accused or convicted. I have links to several in my sidebar.
Yes, that's right, Paul, I lied about my last name, I'm really David Duke.
ReplyDeleteHuh?
Also, why no answer, David? It's funny how often I get this response of no response from people like you, which pretty much tells me all I need to know. That is, you aren't really here to engage in anything resembling intelligent discussion, or to learn anything, but to make juvenile point-and-laugh posts that add nothing to the world but more flotsam.
Yes, Thag, the man in that cartoon is stereotyped as well. As I said in my first comment responding to you above. But the reader of the comic is, as you note, supposed to identify with the man, and with his frustration, so I think the bulk of the negative stereotyping in the comic is directed at the woman, who is depicted not only as nagging but as ungrateful for being rescued.
ReplyDeleteThat's really way more thought than this dumb cartoon is worth.
If someone did a similar cartoon with the man as the butt of the joke, I'd call that sexist as well. If it were similarly hackneyed, I rather doubt I'd find it funny either.
But, as I said before, it's not hate speech. It's not a big deal. It's just, in my opinion at least, a dumb old comic that sexist in a way that a lot of cartoons in those days were sexist. I thought it was a little funny that a men's rights blog chose to post something that seemed to me to be so lame, so I put it up here.
You and Paul -- especially Paul -- are the ones turning it into a giant issue, by assuming all sorts of things about what I intended by posting it, despite the fact that I made clear from the outset I didn't consider it a big deal. If you think it's funny, well, you think it's funny. I'm not going to lock you in a PC Camp for thinking that. I don't think it's funny. Big deal. I'm not the Commissar of Cartoon Humor.
Playing on stereotypes CAN be funny -- see that WC Fields video I linked to. Somehow I suspect that no one here but Random Brother has bothered to follow the link. Your loss.
David Futrelle wrote:
ReplyDelete"The False Rape Society is on my enemies list because it actively promotes myths about the prevalence of false rape accusations..."
David, what conclusive evidence do you have that most rape accusations are genuine? Did you know that 85 percent of rape allegations in the United States never result in a conviction? Do you have any proof -- not just your suspicions or feelings, but proof -- about why that is? If not, then why do you call it a myth that false accusations of rape are more prevalent than the conventional wisdom would claim?
Source:
Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics
September 2004, NCJ 200988
Edited by David P. Farrington, Patrick A. Langan, and Michael Tonry
http://www.dvstats.org/pdf/rape/farrington-langan-tonry-2004.pdf
Most rape allegations don't result in conviction because rape is very hard to prove, and because police and prosecutors tend to do a crappy job pursuing these cases. The low rate of conviction does note mean the allegations were false. See these articles -- which focus on Britain, where the rate of convictions is especially low -- for more on why this is so:
ReplyDeletehttp://jezebel.com/5011675/the-rape-conviction-rate-in-britain-is-pathetically-low
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052803583.html
And another one:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/31/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy
And one dealing with the US:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/cbsnews_investigates/main5590118.shtml
Obviously the feminists have exclusive access to millions of hidden cameras by which they are able to KNOW that most rape accusations are true.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet they deny their poor sisters the evidence they could use to lock up their violators preferring, for some reason clearly beyond the limited comprehension of MRA's, to only use this vast network of electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering 100% accurate statistics.
And for some OTHER reason, also beyond MRA comprehension, they will also not use this hard evidence to back up those 100% accurate statistics leaving MRA's to erroneously feel they have a point when they most maliciously and most brutally and most misogynistically and most insensitively and most chauvinistically dare to call feminists liars.
David, has it occurred to you that in the cases where the suspect went free, that suspect claimed that he was innocent? He didn't plead out, he didn't confess. He said that he was not guilty, and he ended up going free. How do you prove that a rape allegation in a particular case is genuine when the suspect claims his innocence? How are you so certain?
ReplyDeleteIn 1985, the Air Force allowed a study of its personnel where hundreds of rape accusers were interviewed. 27 percent of them recanted. So here you have the opposite of a person who maintains their innocence; over one-third of the accusers recanted, and not only that, they gave the reasons why they lied.
On the one hand, 85 percent of rape suspects maintains their= innocence and go free. On the other hand, 27 percent of rape accusers voluntarily recanted -- not under compulsion -- and going further, they also explained why they lied.
How do you know that a particular rape suspect is lying? You don't. But don't tell me that 27 percent of those false accusers are lying by recanting their bogus allegations. That wasn't a lie; that recantation is the truth.
Granted, just because a rape suspect goes free doesn't necessarily mean that he was innocent. But then don't say that the False Rape Society is on your list of enemies because they promote the "myth" that false allegations of rape are a serious problem. Saying that false allegations are a "myth" assumes that you have some sort of crystal ball or an all-seeing eye, which you don't. You only have your suspicions and feelings, just like I suspected.
Source:
McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.”
Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.
ISBN 0-444-01144-7
Whoops, correction:
ReplyDeleteWrote: "Over one-third of the accusers recanted..."
Meant: "Over one-fourth of the accusers recanted..."
sexism:
ReplyDeleteof or implying domination of one sex by the other.
So - how exactly is that cartoon sexist?
It shows a domination of men by women?
I forgot. There are many brain-washed people here.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to explain:
1. Why is it up to that man to save that woman in the first place?
Why does he have an obligation to save her?
2. How did she get herself into that predicament to begin with?
Why does he half to "remedy" her situation?
Is it possible that whomever tied her there in the first place might get mad at him - thereby putting him at risk?
Yeah - such sexism indeed...
Frame 3 - I assume HE is paying for the dinner.
Totally sexist.
Frame 4 - Marriage - ah yes - he is signing over half his assets to her - all in the name of what most modern women call "love" ROFLMAO!!
Such blatant sexism.
Frame 4 - I assume he is paying for the wedding.
Again, what sexism.
Frame 5 - she is bossing him around constantly - nagging, yelling - such "Love" thanks to the marriage eh?
Yup, that's sexist alright. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
Frame 6 - the humor - he ties her down to the tracks...
The sexism is aimed towards the man, NOT the woman.
John, the study you cite is the only one to claim false accusations in that range. The only other study to find something close (the Kanin study) has been widely discredited for its problematic methodology. The credible studies out there put the number in the single digits.
ReplyDeleteI have never seen a link to the actual study (McDowell's) on the web. Have you actually read it?
More on the study:
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/04/20/claims-about-mcdowells-research-into-false-rape-allegations-are-not-credible-rp/
Recantations are frequently used by rape victims too traumatized to endure a rape trial as a way to stop their cases going forward. They do not necessarily indicate that they lied when they said they were raped.
You are so gay Fag-trelle
ReplyDeleteDavid, I too have had enormous difficulty in tracking down the McDowell study. I've seen plenty of citations of it, and some research papers allude to it, but it's not clear whether the authors of those citations actually read it themselves. So I tracked down one of the co-authors of that study, Dr. Neil Hibler, and spoke to him over the phone. He is the one who provided me with the ISBN number that I wrote in my comment above. To clarify, in my comment above, I referenced the name of the original publication that published the McDowell/Hibler paper. But the ISBN number is actually of a journal called, "Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach" edited by Robert Hazelwood and and Ann Wolbert Burgess. That journal has gone through several editions, and is now on its fourth. The McDowell paper was published in the first edition, but has been lambasted by feminist critics in subsequent editions. By now, the original McDowell paper has essentially been buried; if you search for the journal ("Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach") on Amazon, the search results only link to the 3rd and 4th editions, neither of which contain the McDowell study. But since Dr. Hibler gave me the ISBN number, I was able to do a more targeted search on Amazon.com. Using the following link, anyone can now purchase a copy:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Practical-Aspects-Rape-Investigation-Multidisciplinary/dp/0444011447/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287434697&sr=8-1
Incidentally, what was illuminating to me was the hostile reaction that Dr. McDowell and Dr. Hibler received in the academic community following the publishing of their paper. Dr. Hibler told me that after they conducted their study, they sent their findings to the FBI. Initially the FBI expressed interest, and the FBI kept a copy of the study's findings on hand. Years later, Dr. Hibler (who continues to work in the Washington, D.C. area, near the FBI headquarters at Quantico, Virginia) visited the FBI building to get a copy of the FBI's analysis of their study. Dr. Hibler told me that he was told by FBI personnel that they no longer had any records of the study. He pressed them on it, though, and lo and behold, after being pressured, they found a PDF of their analysis and sent it to him. Not only did Dr. Hibler run into such stalling by the FBI about their study, but he also told me that he made a couple subsequent visits to them, each time asking for the same thing. And each time, he told me that the mere mention of the McDowell study caused the FBI representative that he spoke with to tense up, eyes steeled, lips pursed. They didn't want to talk about it.
ReplyDeleteAnd so from this information, coupled with the seemingly general unavailability of the McDowell paper on the Web in electronic format, I have started to suspect that the paper has kind of been buried. Maybe not covered up or concealed, but certainly buried. That is disconcerting. Maybe now that we know the ISBN number, the McDowell study can be scanned and put online. At the very least, anyone can now purchase a physical copy. I found a used copy for less than $3.00. Amazon's Kindle edition goes for $79.00.
In any case, David, with the low conviction rate and (in the McDowell and Kanin studies) a significant recantation rate, you shouldn't be running around saying that it is a "myth" that false allegations are a significant problem. They are a significant problem. Certainly they warrant more research. What credible research, if any, have you found on the subject? Were the studies that you have found conducted in a scientific, methodologically sound manner? Or were they just based on conjecture and estimates?
Science is our friend. The lack of inquiry into the phenomenon of false allegations of rape is, to my mind, indicative of a climate of political correctness that has grown more pervasive over the years, obscuring objective scientific inquiry into the subject. What researcher wants to risk being defunded for even asking about the subject (that is, if there is any possibility that the research findings don't jibe with the feminist party line)?
"Glenn Sacks is on the enemies list because he does things like sending his fans to harass a DV shelter."
ReplyDeleteI highly doubt that Glenn Sacks did anything of the sort, but I can't see your supposed evidence because Barry is a pathetic loser who can't pay his server bills.* Maybe I can see the details next month if he finally gets the site back online by then, but I'm not holding my breath.
*For your benefit, that was me ironically mimicking the feminist/gynocentrist meme that men who are not financially successful have failed as human beings.
Coldfire, aren't you here because some dude on a message board suggested you come here and harass me? (Or do I have you confused with someone else?)
ReplyDeleteJohn, thank you for the info on where to find the McDowell paper; I've just purchased a copy of the book from Amazon.
ReplyDeleteI've got a list of a bunch of pieces/papers about false accusations that I will put up fairly soon, and I'll be writing a piece on the subject myself afterwards.
Why I'm here is completely unrelated to the fact that you have no evidence that Glenn Sacks sent people to harass a DV shelter. All you provided is a broken link, which is worthless. Therefore, by making this serious accusation against Glenn Sacks with zero evidence to support it, you are committing libel against him. If you like, you can try to argue in court that your libelous statement was actually ironic and from the POV of someone other than yourself, but I don't think the judge will buy it.
ReplyDelete@David Futrelle:
ReplyDelete"The credible studies out there put the number [of fabricated allegations of rape] in the single digits."
What credible studies are those? Every paper that I have run across which asserts that false allegations of rape are in the single digits is not actually based on a scientifically-sound study, with a sample, subject to peer review and published in a respected academic journal. In my experience, not a single paper that puts false rape allegations in the single digits meets that definition. Instead, those papers trade on the professional status of the person who cites a low figure for false rape allegations. And that person is citing another academic, who in turn was quoting another academic, and on and on. Never do you get to a scientifically-sound study with a representative sample (let alone ANY type of sample).
However, all of those academics had to start citing each other somewhere. And the source is just one single paper written by a feminist (i.e. biased) academic named Susan Brownmiller. Brownmiller published a paper in which she claims to have interviewed a female police officer in New York's NYPD who was part of an anti-rape unit. That officer, Brownmiller says, cited a figure of 2 percent. But Brownmiller has never been able to substantiate that figure with any independent data, neither by the NYPD nor any other source. If such an interview occurred, and/or if the low figure was actually ever cited, to this date it has never been independently confirmed by research. What has happened, however, is that Brownmiller's unsubstantiated claim has been repeatedly cited by academics, who cite each other, until some bogus sense of "consensus" is achieved. But do show me these studies of yours, David. I'd sure like to read them.
Source:
"The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim'"
by E. Greer
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947
http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf
@David Futrelle:
ReplyDelete"Recantations are frequently used by rape victims too traumatized to endure a rape trial as a way to stop their cases going forward. They do not necessarily indicate that they lied when they said they were raped."
The McDowell study didn't just indicate that they recanted. The women who recanted actually cited several different reasons for lying about being raped. That tells me that there is some substance to the notion that they indeed fabricated their allegations from the start.
"Thank you for the info on where to find the McDowell paper."
You're welcome. I look forward to your upcoming review and its resulting discussion in the comments. Let's let the research do the talking (rare as it is).
John --
ReplyDeleteNo time to respond in detail here now, but I will respond, first with citations, then an essay, in posts soon. I'll take a look at that pdf as well; Brownmiller is not the source of the figures I'm talking about.
Coldfire:
Follow these links, then click "text only."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hFLBdJLvuQMJ:www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/12/04/domestic-violence-shelter-targeted-by-anti-feminists-some-of-the-vile-language-and-verbal-abuse-we-took-on-the-phone-was-horrific/+%22glenn+sacks%22+%22family+place%22+alas&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NOYD-mQUFFgJ:www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/12/04/the-family-place-to-mras-instead-of-bashing-womens-organizations-stand-up-and-help-somebody-yourself/+%22glenn+sacks%22+%22family+place%22+alas&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1
ROFLMAO!!!
ReplyDeleteYou're SERIOUSLY claiming that Glenn Sacks asking his fans to contact DART about taking down some highly offensive and misandrist bus ads is equivalent to "sending his fans to harass a DV shelter"? He posts a bunch of contact information for DART but nothing for The Family Place except for the info that The Family Place themselves chose to put in their own ads, which have to be shown in order for his fans to know the subject of their complaints. He says NOTHING about wanting anyone to contact The Family Place in any capacity at all.
If I were Glenn Sacks I would sue you. In fact, I should probably alert him to this libel you are posting so that he can see it and decide for himself what to do about you.
Glenn said: "A sub-group of our protesters who I selected called over 50 of The Family Place’s financial contributors to express our concerns about the ads."
ReplyDeleteHe gets 50 of his fans to repeatedly call donors in an attempt to cut the funding of a DV shelter. That's pretty douchy. He apparently didn't even contact the shelter first to voice his concerns about the ads.
That's still not "harassing a DV shelter", you libelous douchebag.
ReplyDeleteWhy the fuck would he waste his time contacting the shelter after its director already made it crystal clear that she was out to provoke and offend men?
"Family Place Executive Director Paige Flink told Fox News in Dallas that says she designed the ads to provoke, saying 'I hope you are offended.'"
After saying that she DESERVED to have her funding cut, end of story.
ha·rass/həˈras/Verb
ReplyDelete1. Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation
Couldn't resist sharing this from back in the good old days (true) before feminism REALLY DID bring its blight upon the world.
ReplyDeleteYou should consider doing a post about it next.
If you want to argue before a judge that contacting donors and informing them that the recipient of their donations is using the money to put up offensive, misandrist advertisements constitutes "harassing a DV shelter", then be my guest. Did they not teach you ANYTHING in journalism school about avoiding legal liability?
ReplyDeleteColdfire, your ignorance of libel law matches your ignorance of, well, everything else.
ReplyDeletePoor Dave Futrelle! Hate the MRA trolls that come on here and nag like crazy! I think we need to tie them to a railroad track! You in?
ReplyDeleteAlso I suggest a game; we take a shot of liquor every time an MRA uses the word "mangina"
If you are alluding to the "fair comment" defense, I am well-aware of that, but I highly doubt that it works when you have accused someone of such a specific action. If you think you can get away with libeling people, then by all means, keep on doing it. Just don't come crying to me when/if you are sued into bankruptcy and/or become persona non grata with all major media publications.
ReplyDeleteharass
ReplyDeletePronunciation: \hə-ˈras; ˈher-əs, ˈha-rəs\
Function: transitive verb
a : exhaust, fatigue
b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary-tb/harass
Again, forgetful one, you have presented NO EVIDENCE that Glenn Sacks sent ANYONE to directly annoy The Family Place or to engage in ANY KIND of verbal or physical conduct towards them. Contacting donors and informing them of how their donations are being used is NOT harassment.
ReplyDeleteRe: Glenn Sacks, I don't fault him at all for organizing a campaign of supporters to register their protest of a misandrist advertising campaign that demonized male children as future batterers. Is that how any mother or father should think of their son in the present? As a default batterer? A more effective message for the Dallas Transit system would have been to challenge violence by ANY perpetrator, regardless of the perpetrator's sex, and not single out boys rather than girls as batterers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, despite what Glenn may have written about the effectiveness of that campaign, I doubt that it helped any particular male victim of domestic violence in the here-and-now. I also doubt that Glenn's campaign, even if successful, would have had a substantial short-term impact on influencing the public to value boys more highly. Nevertheless, it was completely justified for Glenn to take the stand that he did, and just the act of challenging misandry in this case is extremely valuable to the long term health of the culture.
I also happen to know Glenn personally, and I can tell you that these days he is more focused on raising the money that is required to mount an effective campaign to effect more just policies in family law. He probably would consider a lawsuit to be a distraction, but that's my assumption.
dias:" don't fault him at all for organizing a campaign of supporters to register their protest of a misandrist advertising campaign that demonized male children as future batterers."
ReplyDeleteUh, no thats not at all what the ad demonstrated. The ad simply showed a innocent boy on a billboard that alerted passer-bys about how if a boy stays in an abusive home he is more likely to repeat the behavior and become an abuser himself. NO ONE else but a delusional MRA would see it differently. They also showed a girl with the stat that she's more likely to live in an abusive situation if she lives in an abusive home. You people are grade A douchebags. Then sacks harassed the shelter and got a donor (which alot of shelters rely on donors rather than government since they get so little) to drop their support of the shelter. I would like to run an ad that shows the donor associated with their refusal to support the abuse shelter, "---- Shelley and Mark didnt get the help they need cuz ---- dropped funds after Sacks harassed them into it." Show them abandoning these victims. Which do you think they'd cave to?
@Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"Uh, no thats not at all what the ad demonstrated. The ad simply showed a innocent boy on a billboard that alerted passer-bys about how if a boy stays in an abusive home he is more likely to repeat the behavior and become an abuser himself. NO ONE else but a delusional MRA would see it differently."
No one but a delusional MRA would see it differently? No one at all? There is zero chance that any reasonable person, anywhere, in this vast world, could disagree with your interpretation? See, this is what I mean by a dogmatic ideologue. You personify it; your attitude reaks of pure arrogance and also, I dare say, ignorance. Why single out the boy as the potential abuser, and ignore the possibility that the girl could witness abuse and grow up to be a female perpetrator? The ad was misandrist in my opinion (notice how I recognize the subjectivity of my opinion, unlike you?), and I think that that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for me to draw.
Research shows that children of either sex who witness domestic violence are more likely than other children to grow up to become both perpetrators and/or victims. But the ad only showed the rigid perspective of men being perpetrators, and women being victims. Male pain ignored, female vulnerability at center stage.
Source:
"Adolescent Dating Violence: Do Adolescents Follow in Their Friends’, Or Their Parents’, Footsteps?"
By Ximena B. Arriaga and Vangie A. Foshee
Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2004)
http://www.dvstats.org/pdf/arriaga_2004.pdf
What if the cartoon depicted a black or Jewish man being tied to a set of railroad tracks? Would you call it hate speech then? Or would it just be an old stupid cartoon? Don't want to pull our punches with the racists and anti-semites. That's real bigotry we're talking about.
ReplyDeletedias:"Why single out the boy as the potential abuser, and ignore the possibility that the girl could witness abuse and grow up to be a female perpetrator?"
ReplyDeleteBecause that isnt the majority of cases. That doesnt follow reality and precedent not to mention but these people have a limited budget and have to address the majority not the minority of cases. And sorry, though you happen to disagree with professional psychologists,shelter workers, criminologists and sociologists I suppose your amateur,delusional hack of an interpretation is more sound? You're clearly the one who is the embodiment of ignorance.
Whoops, typo:
ReplyDeleteWrote: "female perpetrators attack their male intimate with at least the same frequently as male perpetrators who attack female victims"
Meant: "female perpetrators attack their male intimate with at least the same frequency as male perpetrators who attack female victims"
Ah, what a perfect opportunity to mention that I will be debating Paul Elam on the subject of domestic violence later this week on his blog. I will address these issues in gory detail.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy having your libeling ass pwnt.
ReplyDelete