So Facebook has been making some tweaks to some of its graphics. The company recently changed its already unexciting logo to one that is … even less exciting, but apparently easier to read on mobile devices.
But it’s what Facebook has done to its “friends” icon that has one lady MRA up in arms.
In a post yesterday, A Voice for Men’s still-banned-on-Twitter “Social Media Director,” known as JudgyBitch, declared Facebook’s “Feminist designers” to be “as shitty at designing as they are at equality” and offered them a virtual middle-finger in the style of Facebook’s iconic thumbs up icon.
So what has JudgyBitch in a snit this time? Well, a few months ago, Facebook design manager Caitlin Winner was struck by the fact that the site’s “friends” icon depicted the silhouette of a woman standing behind a larger man. This didn’t sit right with her. In a Medium post explaining the new graphics, she wrote
As a woman, educated at a women’s college, it was hard not to read into the symbolism of the current icon; the woman was quite literally in the shadow of the man, she was not in a position to lean in.
My first idea was to draw a double silhouette, two people of equal sizes without a hard line indicating who was in front. Dozens of iterations later, I abandoned this approach after failing to make an icon that didn’t look like a two headed mythical beast. I placed the lady, slightly smaller, in front of the man.
She also removed the silly spike in the man’s hair and gave the woman a cuter ‘do as well. (Scroll back up to see the old and new icons side by side.)
Facebook quietly rolled out the new icons, as well as several other icons Winner had tweaked (including an androgynous figure that can be read as male or female or neither). But not everywhere just yet: while the new icons seem to have made it into the mobile app, the old icons remain on the site’s web version. No one seemed to have even noticed the change until Winner posted her explanation earlier this week. The reaction has been mostly positive.
But to JudgyBitch, the fact that the woman is now in front of the man is yet more proof that feminism isn’t about equality at all, but female supremacy.
I honestly think a good number of women who call themselves feminists have swallowed the lie that feminism is simply about equality between men and women …
Hire a woman’s who went to a woman’s college if you want to see real feminism is action. …
Facebook is not making a business decision – our demographic skews heavily female, so we have changed our friends icon to reflect that – they are making an ideological one: men’s proper place is in women’s shadow.
Well, if you ignore the fact that the figures are now the same size, and simply look like two people standing close together.
JB also posted an assortment of generic icons of men and women to show that Facebook could have depicted a man and a woman together without one being in front of the other, or without the two looking like a two-headed monster.
Here’s one of her examples of icon equality in action:
You may have noticed that the man is in front of the woman. JB evidently didn’t.
Hey, the Men’s Rights movement needs a steady supply of phony outrages to keep itself going, and JB has provided it with yet another one.
H/T — @TakedownMRAs
Or else she was the mother of Scott Summers.
katz,
http://media.giphy.com/media/z9vfsBStvS9lC/giphy_s.gif
Waw-waw-waaaaw
🙂
@weirwoodtreehugger
Holy shit is right, those court transcripts are hair raising. The judge is a sanctimonious authoritarian monster. Yikes, those poor kids.
Honestly, anything other than the at-a-distance-could-easily-be-a-buttplug old ‘female friend’ default picture icon is most welcome.
@Mad Cow
Have you studied criminology or researched this subject yourself? I’d love to see your many sources.
@mad Cow:
A) No. This is horrible. A woman having an abortion is not her “rejecting parental rights”. It’s her not going through a medical condition known as pregnancy. Both the parents can decide to “reject parental rights” after the baby is born by means putting the baby up for adoption. And both have a say in that.
B and C) They really depend. The laws are more about what the court sees as best for the children. So if you want to say guys get disadvantaged for the sake of children. Well, you can join an anti-kid group.
Ummm! This paternity right that they harp on about, I get the feeling it translates to, free, on demand and the other parties made to participate.
I get the feeling it’s the same as me having the right to own a car.
So if the results of this paternity test aren’t what they want, do they want the follow on right to ignore the results of the right that they demanded in the first place.
I get the feeling that the MRA-ers haven’t really thought through every aspect of what they expect a right to be. Like who shoulders the cost of it?
I’m sure there is some very convoluted screed somewhere in the manosphere setting out all their demands on this.
It doesn’t really sound a right to me.
Like most of their shit.
“Plus, if they actually were on the same page as their hated enemies about anything their whole hateful ideology might collapse under the weight of cognitive dissonance. The whole idea is “men good, women bad” and it doesn’t really have room for more nuance than that. Issues that actually matter would be outside these simplistic boundaries.” —-So true CJ
That case of the judge jailing the children for not wanting to see their father is horrendous. If the judge thinks the mother is guilty of alienating the children against their father she should take it up with her, not punish the children. I read a bit about this case and it does sound complicated, apparently the mother took all the children to Israel before returning to The States. I’d need to know more before making my mind up about the parents. However I will say that judge is a disgrace.
KL-
This reminds me of the study they did studying the idea that women talk more than men and how they found that in actuality, if left alone the man not only talked more than the woman, but that if the scientists forced the pair to speak the same amount, both the man and the woman viewed the woman dominating.
Basically that equality is viewed as oppressed group dominance when people are used to seeing dominant group supremacy.
And that pretty much describes the entire MRA and their reason for existence. They were used to a certain level of dominance promised to them by history and culture and are now viewing tiny steps towards equality as women suddenly taking over because they are so used to seeing an unfair patriarchal society as “equal” or at least “normal”.
kirbywarp-
I see this a lot in regressive groups, where they will throw up an argument or smokescreen that they couldn’t give less of a fuck about and let the progressive groups try and honestly argue with the merits of that idea while they use their actual driving ideas (mostly spite or anger at equality measures) drive their movement forward.
It’s basically a neat way to completely sidestep having an actual debate surrounding the real attitudes and issues while also letting your movement become more legitimized by the magic of both sides do it. Cause if people see all these people pushing back against a hate movement, but they seem to be focused on these faux arguments, it makes it look like the hate group has an argument somewhere or is coming from a well-reasoned place rather than a reactionary place.
And it works over and over, which is why hate groups use it so much. It’s why those who intentionally fly a flag of white supremacy throw out arguments about “heritage”. Why segregationists tried to argue about “states rights”. How anti-queer organizations tried to adopt a pose of being for civil unions when marriage was nigh. How anti-women’s reproductive rights activists make claims to caring so much for life while eagerly supporting a host of other policies that encourage death. How gamergate throws out “ethics in gaming journalism”. How the tea parties were just about government size and taxes or pretty much any use of the phrase “think of the children” that is used unironically.
And the reason it works is that progressive groups, groups fighting for rights in general want to engage with the world in good faith, want to assume sincerity on the part of those opposed to them and have a wealth of empathy, so will happily try and engage these points and reason with what they want to view as principled opposition.
And the regressive movements laugh and laugh, because not only couldn’t they give a fuck about the issues they claim are driving them, it also has the benefit of shifting the topic of discussion away from what is driving the regressive movement and actual entrenched beliefs driving people belonging to it.
So people will fuss about ethics issues and therefore not devote as much time to deconstructing the entitlement that drives a harassment movement or will try and argue around claims of caring about life and teh babiez and not discuss as much about the idea that women’s sexualities are men’s property and hatred of sex or how legal ethical medical procedures are being limited owing to one group’s belief that they should have the right to religious supremacy.
It’s smoke and mirrors, so of course MRAs are going to try and pull it with their made-up outrages of the day, because its a lot more comfortable for them than if people were to analyze the assumptions and entitlements driving this angry and violent resentment of the existence of women.
Yup. Since they’re smokescreens, true believers end up running face first into the overwhelming indifference of the movement as a whole. Cause they really couldn’t give a fuck about any of it outside of its utility in arguing that they are disadvantaged in some way and therefore no more rights for women should happen and actually we should roll back rights, because that’s what they care about.
weirwoodtreehugger-
Yup, forced-birth and forced-abortion are two sides of the same coin, both based in the idea that a woman and anything inside of her is the property of a man to do with as he sees fit.
Moocow-
This actually makes me wonder on a tangent about how that 4chan structure where caring about something or being sincere or into consistency is the evilest thing ever and where the expectation is that your past arguments will be ignored when and how you want them to actually stunts the emotional range of those that get wrapped up in it.
Cause I can see it as an easy way to avoid dealing with creating oneself and actually examining one’s beliefs and values and baggage and it certainly does seem to privilege the well, privileged as it encourages mindless disingenuous repetition of distraction arguments in lieu of actual conversation and definitely rewards casual bigotry as “lol, trollin’ “.
I don’t know, I could be drifting into internet psychologist territory here.
Oh hell no, The Mad Cow. You’re not coming to this thread as well with your “I’m not an MRA, I’m just sealioning questions and the MRM is totally the same as feminism and LALALA CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALA”
Stop attempting to give MRM the benefit of the doubt. Read more on this blog what the Massive Reeking Assholes stand for before embarrassing yourself as their personal missionary.
Oh, wait, you already have. You don’t seriously see anything wrong with their ridiculous ideas for “equality for men.” You read them, you type them, but you are not able to perceive that they are not only complete bullshit, but that a lot of them are intended to give abusive men more power over women.
Here I go again, expecting you to read or understand anything that doesn’t fit into your MRA-worldview. Fucking bye.
I’m sorry, yes, Portal minifigs are awesome. Doctor Who minifigs are awesome.
I just … got shocked that I couldn’t play them without a significant additional cash outlay, and going to the store. And what if no stores in the area stock them? I guess there’s Amazon.
And it doesn’t have to be progressive groups or issues under discussion, it’s basically anything evidence based.
Just look at all the argy-bargy over smoking and control of tobacco products and smoking activity. When it had been perfectly obvious to absolutely everybody for decades that smoking made people sick, the advocates retreated to positions based on freedom of choice and similar crapitude to defend advertising. Even now they’re still fighting — spending 10s of millions of $$$ in the process — to resist the expansion of plain packaging and defending the right to advertise where it’s still allowed. Because they really don’t care that smoking kills people. (Similar arguments about asbestos actually.)
Same shit with climate change. How many of the people who are now solemnly wagging their fingers and telling us we shouldn’t spend any money on renewable technology while there are still starving children/ squalid slums/ poor subsistence farmers in the world? This is the major Plan B position they’re taking up in larger numbers now that there’s even more evidence piling up that we need to take action sooner rather than later.
Tell them that it’s cheaper to house the homeless than to pay the medical+ policing+ court+ servicing costs of trying to keep them alive while they’re homeless and they’ll fuss and bluster and wax lyrical about people not being spoon fed by a nanny state or some other excuse for not taking the best and cheapest option which also happens to be the most (apparently) generous choice. (It’s not real generosity when the whole objective is to save money in my view, but I’ll take that any day ahead of people setting water spray on people sleeping out on freezing nights.)
These people basically don’t want to change anything about ideas that they adopted when they were 15 to 25 years old and they’ll resist multiple Mt Everest sized piles of evidence to defend the position they don’t want to reconsider. Even if it’s a strictly technical scientific or engineering matter that doesn’t have any real moral or emotional or “progressive” content except what they themselves attach to it.
I wondered….
So I just did a re-look at my run-through on Mad Cow’s list. Of the proposals (many of which were mashed together, and which I broke apart because I reject attempts to make me either disagree or agree with a host of different issues at once):
3 got a fairly unequivocal ‘Yes”–DV shelters and services for men being the most clear-cut of things that genuinely need addressing.
3 more were at least in the ballpark, but in need of refinement (such as the call for a blanket ban on male circumcision–it sorta failed to recognize that there ARE medically-necessitated circumcisions pre-18).
4 were just so full of WTF’ery that they were pretty much impossible to address. Part of the problem was the use of jargon that only makes sense if you’re a regular reader of AVfM in the first place, which I refuse to become because I don’t want to grow even more cynical.
And a full dozen were utterly rejected. Despite being worded oh-so-carefully, every last one was specifically designed to make it harder for women, in particular more difficult to leave an abusive partner or seek redress for rape. That’s your ‘movement’, Mad Cow–a movement of men who want to rape and beat women without consequence. FUCK THAT SHIT.
People, it’s been several threads I’ve been meaning to tell you:
You (in general) are so well-spoken when I am in a discussion where I want to explain related concepts, I keep wanting to quote you. I’d feel silly quoting a comment thread, but damn you say things more eloquently than I ever could!
Another problem with banning circumcision is the religious aspect. Whether we’re for or against cosmetic circumcision (I’m personally against it), it’s still a huge part of Jewish tradition, and a ban on religious circumcision would feel like the French ban on burqas. Really, it’s really something to discuss with Jewish groups, not random feminists on the Internet.
Also, at this point, I’m 95% sure the Jewish connection is why MRAs hate it so much.
@scott
As I pointed out, I’m kind of surprised that they don’t like this considering that the new icons can be interpreted in ways that are wholly in line with the MRA worldview / ethos.
In the old icon, the man was in no position to really do anything super MRAish, but the new guy looks like he’s standing right over her shoulder … perfect position to oogle her body or grab something or just breath loudly and creep her the hell out … all favorite MRA pastimes from what I can tell.
Really, it all depends on how you picture their faces or what you think their hands are doing. I could draw faces on that new one that make it look like she is boldly leading the way and he is sheepishly following … or that he is trying to look down her top and she is looking like she wants to get the hell away.
Apropos of nothing, I’m just gonna leave this here.
http://m.imgur.com/r/justneckbeardthings/WEqcLc9
The anti-circ movement is really anti-Semitic and there’s a generous dollop of Islamophobia in there too.
Case in point the anti-circumcision cartoon Foreskin Man
http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/made/30031e0e49eb3602/monstermohelscissors_475_320_c1.jpg
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/no2panel20-monster-mohel-yerik-and-jorah.jpg
I meant comic. Not cartoon.
There’s the solution, the human being.
@ SFHC
I’m very wary of the argument that just because something is religious or cultural people not of those religions or cultures should not be able to intervene. It’s too reminiscent of the attitude that used to prevail about DV (“It’s not our place to get involved, leave it to the people concerned” etc.
I know sometimes people will latch onto a proper concern for ulterior motives, but that doesn’t negate the original issue.
We had an appalling episode here where people in power stood by and allowed over 2,000 girls to be raped. People who tried to do something about it were dismissed as Islamophobic and had their careers threatened. The scary thing is that it’s well known that that one incident was not isolated but even now people trying to press for investigations into the other instances face the same accusations.
Similarly with the concern over FGM. After years of having to power to prosecute, the CPS brought the first prosecution against a doctor who performed a life saving operation. Obviously he was acquitted in minutes. The CPS won’t prosecute the people who actually carry out or facilitate FGM. I can see an argument that they don’t want to break up families but the “we must respect different sensibilities” justification is a bit nauseating.
Women who are being abused for religious and cultural reasons are being abused by the men who hold the power in those institutions. If we leave things to be sorted ‘internally’ that might never happen.
[Having said all that, I don’t see the problem with male circumcision, none of my Jewish mates seem to mind. Complex isn’t it?]