>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.
>You didn't give us your opinion, David. That's kind of a cop out.
>lol How 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.
>Thag, do you actually find the cartoon funny? I'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.And 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?This 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 exampleshttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n6_v11/ai_16664939/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20296389http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/8128180/penis-burner-guilty
>David Futrelle wrote:"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.
>Yeah, 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.") Obviously 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.This 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. It'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." MIGHT 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?" What 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.Getting 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.
>Huh. I don't remember calling it "hate speech." I think I remember calling it an "old, dumb, sexist cartoon. It's drawn well, though."
>"What about that wording is supposed to be so revealing?"Leave it to you to see ONLY the misogyny in that cartoon.
>And 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.Random BrotherBTWYou still haven't told me why Glenn Sacks and the False Rape Society are on your enemies list.
>@ ThagThis 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.Random 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.Huh? 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. That'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: "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 JusticeBureau of Justice StatisticsSeptember 2004, NCJ 200988Edited by David P. Farrington, Patrick A. Langan, and Michael Tonryhttp://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:http://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