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
There’s plenty of intactivism that doesn’t do the anti-semite thing. There are also Jewish anti-circ groups.
There are also plenty of people who will CALL you an anti-semite if you don’t believe that “tradition” justifies cutting infant genitals.
That cartoon is pretty bullshit, though
It’s hateful and I don’t think they’re bothering to disguise it much. The guy who’s supposed to be a rabbi? Has claws.
And the art is stiff and awkward and has to resort to speed lines to achieve any sense of action.
If I had a son I wouldn’t get him circumcised I don’t think. I agree with the bodily autonomy argument against it. But intactivists are pretty much the worst. If they’re not bigoted against Jews and Muslims (and many aren’t) they’re comparing circumcision to FGM. Like with MRAs, people talk about how their are moderates but I can never seem to find them. If they exist, they’re definitely a minority.
I also see many of them tell circumcised men who are just fine with being circumcised that they’re wrong and are actually damaged. Kind of undermines the bodily integrity argument when they’re telling someone how he’s supposed to feel about his own body.
This is a really serious problem for Native American women in Latin America.
On one hand, laws protecting original cultures are very much needed, and on the other, it is used by unscrupulous people to justify the abuse of women already present in those cultures.
My opinion is, people should be allowed to protect their cultures from western assimilation, but all people should be given the chance to opt out, especially those belonging to groups at more risk of violence (women, children, disabled, any kind of outcast really).
It is something extremely difficult to pull off successfully, but I’m convinced it’s the way to go.
@ Luz
I see your point but why should the onus be on the victims?
That’s like saying ‘Hey, if you don’t like the rape culture on campus you don’t have to go to college’.
There’s also the practical point that you can’t just separate someone from their community. There may be a need for someone to say, go into a refuge, but then what? Do they ever get to see their friends again? Do they have to move to an area where they’re the only person from their heritage? Do we create new ghettos for all the escapees?
How about we make the abusers be the ones to change their lifestyles?
@Alan
There’s a huge difference between things like DV, rape and FGM, which are all forms of sexual/sexist violence, and circumcision, which is pointless and against the bodily autonomy of the baby but generally safe. They’re apples and oranges.
I dunno, I guess I just feel like it’s not my place; I have some weird hang-ups when it comes to sticking my nose into other people’s religious/personal freedom left over from years of fighting for LGBT+ rights. If it doesn’t affect me and doesn’t hurt anybody else, my opinion shouldn’t matter. Even trying to word this post makes me I feel like I’m… Whatever the “Nonreligious woman sticking her nose into things that only affect Jewish men” equivalent of mansplaining is.
Bleh, I shouldn’t have brought this up, sorry everyone.
Gentilesplaning?
@ SFHC
Oh I totally agree with you about the difference between male circumcision and FGM etc. Sorry, I thought you were saying that people should never intervene when there’s a cultural/religious angle.
The male circumcision thing is funny though. I can see the argument that you shouldn’t do anything permanent to a baby; bodily autonomy and all that. But it’s just not something that I give two hoots about. Like I say none of my Jewish mates are bothered.
Now of course, people will argue that many women accept FGM, and indeed are the ones who arrange for their daughters to undergo the procedure. But I do see that as different. And it’s not just that FGM is far worse as a procedure. I feel there’s a coercion on the women that just isn’t there on Jewish (or Muslim) men. I wonder what my views would be if FGM was something that women could opt for at 18? I’m very much a bodily autonomy person (pro euthanasia, smoke if you want etc.) but would I feel people should be allowed to make that choice?
I’d probably come down on ‘yes’ but in the same vein I don’t think we should outlaw burkas but I’m not convinced it really *is* a free choice to wear one.
@ SFHC
Gay Goy Gal Gabs Glans? 🙂
You’ve raised an interesting point in good faith; can’t see a problem with that.
Most, but not all, intactivists will also deny the few legitimate benefits of circumcision (cancer risk reduction, less risk of UTIs, etc.) and often like to SEEK OUT and scream at men with terrible phimosis who elected to get circumcised. Telling them stuff like they’re being scammed by…somebody…,that sex will never feel good again and they really should’ve just tried Special Cream X (regardless if the person actually did try that or not).
Well, number one, I am sure most men with phimosis who have it bad enough to get elective circumcision would prefer sex without the foreskin to sex that literally rips it.
I’ve heard some things and…yeah. Sex is basically impossible in some cases.
Number two, almost all of the studies that claim to show decreased sensation either use questionable measures, or followed adult circumcision subjects for a whopping three to six months after the surgery and/or had the subjects self report. Definitely not enough time for full sensitivity to regain itself and self reports can really easily be biased. Not to mention, you’ll have a hard time getting accurate self reports of “how were your blood sugars these past couple of months” even from a diabetic who checks and records their blood sugars several times every day!
In reality, sex with and without foreskin is certainly different, but the sensations seem to be roughly comparable – not to mention that it doesn’t even matter if terrible pain is preventing you from feeling anything at all – and the risk/benefit scale can be summed up as “meh, do what you want”.
The reality is if a man wants to get HIMSELF circumcised for whatever reason, it’s pretty much his call and, barring he’s one of the few who experiences complications, he’ll be roughly just as well off as he was when he had his foreskin (or better if he had a habit of catching UTIs or had phimosis).
They definitely are on the right side against infant circumcision or societal pressure toward getting circumcised, but often spend way more time thinking it’s equivalent to FGM and yelling at and discrediting people who were positively affected by elective circumcision (or those who were circumcised as an infant and IMO correctly don’t think that it really falls to the level of “mutilation”) than they do saying “Hey, please don’t circumcise your infant sons! Let them decide for themselves when capable! Yay, bodily consent!”
That and criticism of the Jewish ritual practice in these circles often turns into outright antisemitism.
So I have trouble fully endorsing the movement, though I am against infant circumcision.
The phimosis stuff in particular is terrible pseudoscience which should be denounced no matter who’s saying it. It’s almost akin to telling a type 2 diabetic who voluntarily purchased a lifetime gym membership and started an exercise program to control their blood sugar that they were scammed by the fitness industry and they really should’ve just bought those nutrition shakes for the rest of their lives. Not everybody has the same degree of the same disease and not everybody is helped by the same thing…
Yes, I am a diabetic, by the way (though type 1).
Yup, with regards to people generally not caring about this. Anecdata alert, but the few circumcised men I’ve known and talked to about it, them being aware of concepts like phimosis and dick cheese for the record, don’t seem to care about having been circumcised, or are thankful it got done back when they couldn’t remember it. They think of it as one less thing to worry about, not as a missing body part.
Not saying they shouldn’t care, but just that it seems to be the most common opinion.
My husband is actually arguing that, if we have a son, we should circumcise him, though I obviously disagree. We so agree that it’s kind of complicated, because circumcision does have small benefits and is much more difficult to do later in life if it ends up being needed, but it’s also not necessary and constitutes a body modification. We really just wish there were some sort of infant future mind reader for this kind of thing, and I’m sure the milder, bodily autonomy arguing intactivists would agree with that sentiment.
I mean, if removing an infant’s appendix were as easy and low-risk as infant circumcision, compared to the adult procedure, I’m pretty sure it would be routinely done as well. Though it’d have significantly more benefit and wouldn’t be an external body part, so the ethics issue wouldn’t be present.
(For context, my husband is in the military, where it can be quite helpful for your hygiene not to have a foreskin/a small crevice that need to be frequently cleaned.)
One issue I’ve also heard on the male circumcision front is that, particularly in the more heavily traditionalist Jewish groups, there is a non-zero chance of disease transmission from the rabbi to the infant. There was a case a few years back involving 11 babies in New York who caught Herpes from the rabbi performing the ritual.
And, of course, the more traditionalist groups tend to be much harder on the ‘you can’t tell us what to do’ front, which makes it much harder to enforce any sort of sterile conditions.
Unless and until a supreme court reverses our current First Amendment doctrines, it’s basically impossible to outlaw circumcision in America. There’s just no way that law would pass the Lemon test. Personally, I’m not 100% happy with the Lemon standard, but any changes would have to be made very carefully.
——————————————————————————————————————
I’m not a priori opposed to “paper abortion,” if it were implemented as part of an omnibus reform (strengthening, to be clear, since “reform” usually means “sabotage) of welfare and social security. In the bad old days, men could pretty much abandon their children with impunity, which lead to widespread suffering and poverty. We came up with child support as a way to address that, but honestly, it doesn’t work that great. Men can still disappear if they really want to, or fight the judgment until it’s not worth it. Some fathers are rapists or abusers who really should be on the hook, and maybe could be compelled to pay up, but only at the cost of giving him a way to stay relevant to his victims’ lives.
Not to mention, some unlikely children have fathers who aren’t deadbeats, they’re actually dead. Basically, there are lots of reasons children end up raised by single parents (generally mothers), and the idea that children need a man to provide for them is a leftover bit of patriarchy. We need a welfare state strong enough to give a fatherless child a good life. Meanwhile, I do think that becoming a parent against one’s will is an awful thing to happen to someone of any sex (that’s why abortion rights are so important). Right now we can’t have a right-not-to-parent because compelling actual abortion is a horrifying violation, and once a child is born, it’s needs trump those of an adult. But if you could fix that last problem, then I would at least consider allowing for “paper abortion.”
I thought there was a current case like that.
Oh, there probably is. There are lots of these cases which only ever actually hit the news when one of the people inside one of the more insular communities comes out and complains, or it gets found by a doctor who’s not part of the community. Which means new cases show up every year or two, often when somebody finds out that an infected rabbi is still performing circumcisions despite being officially banned.
The traditionalist ritual is really not sterile in the slightest, and as mentioned such groups are often so insular that getting anybody to trust an out-group member over the official authority of the in-group can be very difficult.
Well, it is probably going to be twisted that way in practice, that’s what I meant by “extremely difficult to pull off successfully”.
“All people should be given the chance to opt out” means all people should have the ACTUAL option, you know, available safely and constantly.
It’s less “if you don’t like it, get out” and more “If someone so much as touches you, we’ve got your back”.
It is our job, as people who are not Native American women, to make it safe for them to reach out for help and get it.
This is also what I was talking about in our previous exchange about victims coming forward.
It’s not that making judges resign o protesting against police is a fool proof plan.
I meant to give a few examples of thinking in a way that doesn’t put the onus on the victim but on ourselves as members of society.
CMIC is possibly the strongest example out there of the stopped-clock adage. Both anti-Semites and MRAs (the Venn diagrams are, admittedly, approaching congruence, but there’s still some areas of exclusion out there) use it as a rallying cry, and so you have to be very, very careful if you want to actually argue against CMIC without doing way more harm than good.
My go-to comparison for CMIC is actually douching. It’s mostly a social-pressure phenomenon, has a virtually nil medical benefit except in fringe cases (in the West, that is–in countries where hygiene and condoms are both scarce, there’s considerably more benefit to CMIC, at least), and has a ever-so-slightly larger medical risk attached. (Botched CMICs, even when performed in clinical settings, are rare, but they do happen, sometimes with rather horrific results.) So the practices should be stopped in non-medical cases, but because the risks are so low, it’s better to proceed with an educational approach rather than a legal one.
brooked,
With regard to my assertion that the U.S. criminal justice system treats men more harshly than it treats women, you ask:
There’s a likely reason that nobody else in this thread has challenged the notion of gender inequity in the criminal justice system. That gender inequity is massive, clear and undeniable. Many other commenters here have no doubt looked this fact up, found it to be true, and decided not to talk about it for that reason.
Sonja B. Starr of the University of Michigan Law School published on this issue in the 2012 paper Estimating Gender Disaprities in Federal Criminal Cases:
Starr’s study (which controls for factors such as prior offenses) and other similar studies have shown that, for the same alleged criminal act, men are:
–More likely to be arrested.
–More likely to be charged.
–Less likely to have those charges dismissed at a pre-trial hearing.
–Less likely to get a reduction in charges in a plea bargain.
–More likely to get a long prison sentence if convicted.
From arrest through sentencing, men are treated much worse than women by the criminal justice system. At every stage.
Race inequity is of course also a serious issue in the criminal justice system. But it is actually worse to be male than it is to be a person of color. Black defendants receive sentences 20% longer than white defendants. Male defendants receive sentences 60% longer than female defendants. If a black man facing a judge for sentencing could magically choose to change only his race or gender, he’d be wiser to choose “female” than “white.” There is privilege in both, but 3X more privilege in one than the other.
The effects of gender bias in the criminal justice system reach beyond merely the length of time that a man spends behind bars. Because a woman is more likely to have a felony knocked down to a misdemeanor, a man is more likely to suffer a host of consequences that come with being a convicted felon: losing his right to vote, enduring the ex-con stigma in hiring and his social life, turning to crime and/or drugs due to the massive loss of economic opportunity that effects all felons.
The criminal justice system is one of the most powerful institutions we have. It can destroy a person’s life. And it is treating men far more harshly than it is treating women for the same crimes. You’d have to be willfully blind not to see this as a civil-rights issue that deeply matters.
Cue the willful blindness…
Or maybe you’re not the first dipshit to show up and argue this.
There’s an absurd amount of shit that study elides over, ignoring things like the fact that violent crimes are disproportionately committed by men. Also, gosh, why might judges be more lenient towards women? It couldn’t *possibly* have anything to do with a bullshit patriarchal system that sees women as its property to protect and defend. Nope, not at all.
TL, dr- you’re not fucking original, we’ve done this dance before, and with better partners. Try harder.
And girls who have been abused are very likely to be incarcerated for acting out due to the trauma. More so than abused boys.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/9/girls-caught-in-abuse-to-prison-pipeline.html
I don’t want to open a pdf on my phone, but there’s a link to it in the article.
Prostituted girls are still, in many places arrested for prostitution even though they are trafficking victims who are being raped. By many places, that includes the US.
The criminal justice system is oppressive to marginalized people.
Men are not marginalized simply for being men. It’s men who are poor, non white, mentally ill etc who are viewed as dangerous and being oppressed by the system. Upper middle class white men are not being handed exorbitant prison sentences or shot by police. It’s not a misandry issue. It’s a racism, classism and ableism issue.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/6a98b9e2cf64fce276767b43c132a316/tumblr_inline_nmr26rs19Y1t5wl3j_540.gif
Hrm.
Here’s a better, less ridiculous study:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=bjcl
When you really dice the data, it seems to come down to having dependent children and it being a first offense. Since more women fit those categories, they tend to get more lenient sentencing. Women who are repeat offenders with children receive similar sentences to men committing equivalent crimes.
Like I said, Bucko, this ain’t our first fucking ballet.
I really don’t like the extent to which routine infant circumcision is being downplayed. It’s a terrible thing.
It’s not a men’s issue or a Jewish issue. It’s as children’s issue. Religion or culture never excuses removing part of a child’s body.
It never even occurred to me that opposition to routine infant circumcision related uniquely to Jewish people until someone called me an anti-semite for it. I sleep with Jewish guys! Circumcised Jewish guys! I have no problem with their dicks or their Judaism. I have a problem with the fact part of their body was needlessly removed without their consent as a kid.
I guess that makes me a big ol’ Nazi!
I’m not going to use bullshit arguments like “IT’S THE SAME AS FGM” to express its wrongness because in lots of respects the phenomenon is very different. They’re performed differently in different places by different people for different reasons, have different risks and long and short term effects. They need to be tackled separately.
The fact one is far more horrific in many respects in most cases doesn’t make the other something I’m OK turning a blind eye to. It’s about the well-being and bodily autonomy of little kids.
There’s a similar disparity here in England. Men are imprisoned at about twice the rate as women for similar offences and they tend to receive shorter sentences (with one major exception).
As pointed out though there are a few reasons for this.
Dependant children is a major one. Although judges aren’t supposed to consider the effects on third parties they obviously do. Judges tend to be pretty aware of criminology and they know that sending kids into care increases *their* chance of entering the criminal justice system; so they do have an eye to the future. Also, judges are human and, whatever the sins of the parent, judges don’t like to take kids’ parents away from them.
There’s also good old fashioned gender stereotyping. Judges are more sympathetic towards women and can buy into the ‘fallen woman’ tragedy mythos especially where there’s a bit of sobbing and some remorse. Male offenders are typically seen as more defiant and unrepentant.
The stereotyping can work against women though when they commit ‘unladylike’ crimes. Female child abusers tend to get much more severe sentences than men. There’s an element of ‘how could you go against nature and harm a child’. Women are supposed to be nurturing and all that.
If men had equal child care responsibilities then the sentencing would probably even out.