Categories
drama evil women paul elam pics

>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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

62 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Coldfire
9 years ago

>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.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>harassPronunciation: hə-ˈras; ˈher-əs, ˈha-rəsFunction: transitive verba : exhaust, fatigueb (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conducthttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary-tb/harass

Coldfire
9 years ago

>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.

John Dias
9 years ago

>Re: 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.However, 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.

Anonymous
9 years ago

>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."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. 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?

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Anonymous: "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. FosheeJournal of Interpersonal Violence (2004)http://www.dvstats.org/pdf/arriaga_2004.pdf

Anonymous
9 years ago

>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.

Anonymous
9 years ago

>dias:"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?"Because 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.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Anonymous:"Because that isnt the majority of cases."Women are only in the majority of victims in terms of their 2-1 injury rate. But in terms of attacks, female perpetrators attack their male intimate with at least the same frequently as male perpetrators who attack female victims, and this is according to more than 30 years of sociological research. [1] [2]But let's just take a relatively recent study. In 2007, researchers from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed data from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. There were 11,370 respondents to the study, and they provided information about both their level of perpetration and victimization from intimate partner violence. Almost 24 percent of all relationships had some violence, some of it inflicted unilaterally (50.3%) and some of it inflicted mutually (49.7%). Of the unilaterally-inflicted intimate partner violence, women were the perpetrators in more than 70 percent of the cases. Unilateral violence is the prime distinguishing characteristic of battering. But what about the respondents who reported mutually-inflicted violence? The study revealed that within that group, the women were almost twice as likely than the men to attack their partners. [3]In light of this evidence [1] [2], and the hundreds of other studies that have been conducted since 1978 by experts in the field, subject to peer review and published in respected academic journals, the ads were profoundly misandrist. A large portion of these studies contained nationally representative samples, unlike crime reports which are not representative nor reliable (imagine a study in which it was possible that you or your partner could be arrested based upon your answers to the questions; this is the environment in which crime reports collect their data, hence they are not reliable and therefore not generalizable to the public at large).Sources:1. References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated BibliographyEdited by Martin S. Fiebert"This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000."http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm2. DVStats.orghttp://www.dvstats.org/3. "Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence"by Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD; Tadesse Haileyesus, MS; Monica Swahn, PhD; and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD.May 2007, Vol 97, No. 5American Journal of Public Healthhttp://www.dvstats.org/pdf/Reciprocal%20violence%20AJPH.pdf

John Dias
9 years ago

>Whoops, typo:Wrote: "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"

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>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.

Coldfire
9 years ago

>Enjoy having your libeling ass pwnt.