More Male Bashing
Larry sent me this picture today to let me know the kind of trashy posters this "tolerant" University posts on it's campus. Take a look.
posted by Helen at 1:20 PM
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Home Alone
- Moussaoui May have Schizophrenia
- How Dare Those Guys Think They are Entitled to a G...
- Internet Dating
- Happy Easter
- Transparency in Healthcare
- The Well-Managed Husband?
- Podcast with Harold Ford, Jr.
- Male Teachers Under Scrutiny
- Do you think Al Sharpton will come out to protest ...
47 Comments:
They may have jumped the shark with this one. Even people sympathetic to the narrative are going to be taken aback by the depiction of half naked prepubescent boys as congenital rapists and hate criminals.
BTW the 80% figure is bogus. I suspect that the group promoting this posits that all white men are hate criminals, unless they are homosexual, and that 20% of white males are homosexual.
you can find the actual stats here - http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/details.cfm?id=38321
I agree with anonymous, my first reaction to the poster is that it is perverse.
The poster promotes exactly what it pretends to be fighting, hate.
The stats are indeed bogus; it's almost impossible to get honest reporting the first place, so there is no reliable data to build stats on.
I agree with Dadvocate; the poster is hate speech.
"hate crime" has always been a misnomer, having nothing to do with hate. It would be more accurate to call it "value crime" or "irrelevant superficial attribute crime", but these would necessarily include things that are currently acceptable in this culture, like this poster. Which doesn't make the idea any more valid ... if I commit a crime, I commit a crime. What I had in my head at the time is irrelevant.
The group that it was posted by was indeed (it appeared) to be a homosexual group.
though like most college boards of its type half a kajillion things were posted on it
It is a very peculiar poster. Its semiotics are contradictory. With its similarity to a host of war/refugee images, it appears to show its target as vulnerable rather than dangerous. It is not what I would call a conventional image meant to represent white male supremacy. That seems unlikely to elicit the reaction its words appear to seek, and there are surely any number photographs of boys out there which show a mean or aggressive demeanor more suited to the message. Whoever made it up is either an incompetent "artist", is presenting a subtext which goes over my head (perhaps it is even counter-propoganda?), or has some real issues to deal with. Personally, I go with that - whoever made it up needs help.
Darren is right. "Hate crimes" laws were a bicuit tossed by liberals to their constituents.
What's the big deal? Who objects to allowing groups to post things on campus? Who thinks the provost whould have disallowed this? Why?
The big deal is the blatant hypocricy, the invalid logic, the social acceptance of the condemnation of all white men by virtue of their being white men, particularly when it is painfully obvious that white men are the only minority in this country for whom it is socially unacceptable for them to defend themselves.
Would a poster condemning all black males because of the percentage of prison populations that are black males be socially acceptable? Or a poster condemning all women because 70% of divorces are initiated by women?
But I don't think anyone said that the provost should disallow this. Why? Because the dolt who made this poster has a right to do so in this country. Just as the commenters here have a right to point out its flaws.
But if the situation were one of my hypothetical posters, you wouldn't hear a whisper about free speech.
Darren, you are so right about the useful vagueness of hate crime laws, and this is coming from a gay man. Take a peek at Gayptriot sometime; they falw the gay pressure groups from time to time for just what you are talking about. Concealed weapons are a better answer to gay-bashing than a hundred hate crime laws. Armed and fabulous.
As for the pedophilia point, these days, at least in the Us, straight women sure are making up for lost time with every other category. I don't know that gay men are more likely to offend than straight men, and perhaps the data is skewed - I wonder how many straight men don't get prosecuted because they get permission from the parents of their underaged paramours.
Anonymous 4:07:
Or since you are so confident about the tolerance of universities, why don't we send Larry a poster to stick up next to the one on hate crimes at the University of South Florida. It could be something like..."Gays will be Gays" and state the percentage of homosexual men who are pedophiles or maybe this one, "Blacks will be blacks" and states the number of whites who are murdered by blacks in interracial crimes each year (hint--it is much higher than the reverse). We could add your name to the poster since you seem so sincere. After all, it's no big deal. And I am sure the provost will allow it. Why? Don't know--you tell me.
Any ideas of where the original picture is taken from? I have a strong feeling that I've seen this one before someplace, like documenting the Hitler Youth or something.
Anonymous,
Yes, that is what it looked like to me--not sure where the original is from. Anyone out there know?
Well I suspect that the intended message is - what you call boyishness is actually a hate crime. So the 'artist' intends for the boys to look as though they're puffing-up their chests in a masculine fashion to resemble the haters that they'll all become. That these boys were likely gassed shortly afterwards is therefore regarded as poetic justice.
This fits with various popular feminist theories which posit that allowing juvenile males to develop masculine traits results in a rape culture, or whatever totalizing feminist cultural critique is prominent at the time. Such precepts are part of essentialist critiques of males which hold that males possess retarded moral, empathetic, and intuitive aptitudes and that these are nurtured by patriarchy to enforce male domination ( see Testosterone Poisoning )
http://www.dukenewsense.com/blog/2006/04/possible-e-mail-sting-by-durham-police.html
not a good sign. But don't you suspect that the public would have learned of an incriminating response?
Anonymous 4:26,
If the posters you mentioned were disallowed at the same campus, you might have apoint about hypocracy. Is that the case?
So, unless that is the case, what's the big deal?
80% of all hate posters are put up by leftists.
helen,
I said nothing about my confidence in the tolerance of universities. You know that.
It really is no big deal until students are not allowed to post something you suggest at the same campus.
I can't tell you what the provost will allow or will not allow. But comparing reality against your imagined injustice is silly. Compare reality against reality at the same campus before redlining the Whine-O-Meter.
anonymous 11:05
So what's your point exactly? That it's no big deal if someone is allowed to put up racist and sexist garbage that demonizes white males so long as we white males can respond by putting up racist and sexist garbage of our own?
What if I don't want to put up racist and sexist garbage? Can I still complain about those who do?
Two points: First, you're nuts if you think such a thing would be allowed by any administration. What's more, before the administration even knew about it students would be tearing down the flyers, writing op-ed pieces in the university newspaper, organization protests and sit-ins, and calling for more tolerance workshops for us white males to attend. Administrators would do what they needed to in order to appease the students.
Second, it's largely irrelevant whether the administration would allow other flyers or not. No one would actually do it, and if someone did, do you think the response of an administrator to a homosexual or black student group would be "Hey guys, it's no big deal because you're allowed to put up flyers demonizing straight white guys. Go to it."? He wouldn't have his job very long, I assure you.
So what's your point exactly? That it's no big deal if someone is allowed to put up racist and sexist garbage that demonizes white males so long as we white males can respond by putting up racist and sexist garbage of our own?
Well, yeah, that's what free speech IS all about, after all.
I disagree with the poster, but I'll defend their right to post it.
What if I don't want to put up racist and sexist garbage? Can I still complain about those who do?
You are free to respond or not. Your willingness, or lack thereof, to promote your own beliefs has no impact upon their right to promote theirs.
Rizzo, we don't know for sure how the administration will react until they are tested. They are innocent of enforcing a double standard until proven guilty. At NKU, the administration recently fired a professor for leading the destruction of a pro-life display, so don't assume all university administrators ignore free speech. Some still get it.
You're free to complain about the manifest stupidity of people holding those ideas, and condemn and rebut the ideas, but when you start denying that they have a right to hold or express them, you're out of line. Idiots have free speech rights, too.
dweeb,
I'm not talking about their right to do it. I don't contest that, although I probably have less faith than you do that most university administrators are free speech absolutists. What I'm objecting to is the notion that seems to be put forth by the anonymous commenter above that we shouldn't be particularly bothered by it if the university allows the poster of flyers that offend other groups. In other words, we should only be bothered by the hypocrisy of the administration, which in this case, hasn't been proven, not the contents of the poster itself. So until we can prove or disprove the administration's alleged hypocrisy, no big deal.
And the best reaction to this flyer, in my view, is not to post offensive flyers of our own just for the sake of proving that we have free speech, and then should we find out we do, letting the matter drop. Also, I do wonder how well a flyer that called the campus' homosexual organization a hate group would last and what the reaction would be.
Also, one more thing. You write:
You are free to respond or not. Your willingness, or lack thereof, to promote your own beliefs has no impact upon their right to promote theirs.
This is where you kind of missed my point. Putting up a bunch of racist garbage is most certainly not my own beliefs. So why should I do it? Just to prove I have free speech?
Anyway, I was just responding to the implication that as long as all groups are allowed to put forth their messages, that we shouldn't be bothered by the messages themselves.
Anonymous 1105,
You ask:
"So what's your point exactly? That it's no big deal if someone is allowed to put up racist and sexist garbage that demonizes white males so long as we white males can respond by putting up racist and sexist garbage of our own?"
1. It is no big deal if someone "is allowed to put up racist and sexist garbage that demonizes white males..."
2. It is no big deal even if white males cannot respond with their own favorite racist and sexist garbage.
3. You might have a point if you were referring to some real event on this campus where a poster was disallowed, but all you are doing is whining about your own answer to your own hypothetical. If you don't like your answer, just quit arguing with yourself.
CORRECTION:
Alas, I failed to give Rizzo credit where it is due. That last post should have been addressed to Rizzo. The error is mine due to sloppy cut and paste techniques.
Rizzo,
I am not at all concerned if anyone is offended. That is their own free choice.
Therefore, I am not at all concerned if people are offended by what is said, written, or posted.
If we limit ourselves to saying what offends no one, we have effectively chosen silence.
anonymous 3:16,
First, I'm whining about nothing, just discussing. Second, I think you pretty much made my point for me when you said it's "It is no big deal even if white males cannot respond with their own favorite racist and sexist garbage."
Basically, us white males shouldn't be bothered or offended (for the record, I'm not offended by this, I largely think it's silly) regardless of what is said about us.
So, I'm not sure what you're saying about me arguing with my own hypothetical. My hypothetical (which isn't so much a hypothetical on many campuses, although perhaps this one) is exactly what you seem to endorse.
Rizzo,
Feel free to be bothered or offended by whatever you choose. I don't care what offends you or any white male. Nor do I care what offends women, blacks, Mexicans, or Arabs. Why should I?
The choice to be offended is individual. People will choose to be offended for any number of reasons, and that's their personal mental state. It's nobody's business.
Then the offended may decide to tell us how offended they are. That's fine, too. They have that right of expression.
But when they tell us how offended they are, it's reasonable to ask what's the big deal. Maybe someone will tell us what's the big deal?
anonymous 3:24,
I'm not particularly offended by the flyer, as I am not an easily offended person. What brought me into this conversation was that every time free speech topics come up, someone always jumps in with "But they have the right to do it," as if that trumps every argument and ends the discussion. But so what? No one criticized their right to do it, they were criticizing the content of the flyer. There's a difference.
Some did point out the hypothetical possibility, which I think is entirely plausible, that the university administration would be less absolutist on other types of free speech. Maybe they're wrong about this particular univerisity, but I don't think this is out of bounds for discussion as far as the general state of post-secondary education goes.
In short, I agree with what you said in your last post, but I don't think that's where the controversy was.
The disagreement I have is with those who think that since they have the right to do it, the rest of us should just shut up now and quit criticizing it.
I've been guilty of the same argument myself in the past. On of my friends, a former Boy Scout, was upset with the organization's anti-gay policies, and my response was "They have a right to their own membership rules." Well, I can now admit that was stupid argument. He never claimed they didn't have the right, he was just expressing his unhappiness with their policies. My argument was completely irrelevant, as is the free speech argument here.
Tolerance is only word candy if uttered by those left of center. When applied to the left, it doesn't count.
Rizzo,
Nobody in this thread made the argument you should shut up because others have free speech rights.
My question still stands unanswered. What's the big deal about the poster?
anonymous 9:28
Umm, yeah. Let's recap what happened by quoting the post by anonymous 4:07 (which I assume was you):
What's the big deal? Who objects to allowing groups to post things on campus? Who thinks the provost whould have disallowed this? Why?
At what point before this post did anyone object to allowing groups to post flyers? The only thing I read were posts complaining about the content of what was actually posted. Yet, this comment implied that we shouldn't bother caring, or for that matter commenting, so long as it was "allowed".
Rizzo,
Sorry. I asked who objected to allowing the posting, and who thinks authorities should have stopped it. That says nothing about advocating you shut up.
So, here's the question nobody will answer: What's the big deal about the poster?
Helen initially posted the item. Maybe she knows.
Perhaps it is no big deal.
Ok, this will probably be my last post on the subject, because I'm bored with it and I just don't care anymore, but I will try to answer your question. I think that people are bothered by the poster for a few reasons (to be honest, I'm kind of surprised that I even need to answer this since I thought other comments have made it pretty obvious):
1. It unfairly demonizes white men. It implies that straight white men are more predisposed that other groups to commit the list crimes below, when we all know that it's nonsense.
2. The 80% statistic is most likely a lie. The way hate crimes are defined, it's almost as if only white males (and perhaps occasionally white females) can be guilty of them. For example, if a white man rapes a black woman, it's a hate crime. If a black man rapes a white woman, it's not. Personally, I'm opposed to lying for a cause, no matter how noble it might be.
3. Some are bothered by the hypocrisy of the group that put up the flyer. Presumably this is a gay group that demands tolerance for themselves while practicing intolerance toward others.
4. The fact that such posters have become rather ho-hum on many college campus. The reaction to such a poster is almost nonexistent, yet if someone put one up demonizing blacks or gays, the reaction on campus would be much different, and I'm not just talking about the administration. I'm talking about fellow students, faculty members, etc. Not many students would be reacting by defending the free speech of the person who put up the flyer, and telling the offended groups to just deal with it. When white males complain, they're whining. When other groups do it, it's a genuine grievance. At least that's how it's often treated on many college campuses (and again I'm not just talking about the actions of the administrators, whatever they might be).
Rizzo,
In other words, we should only be bothered by the hypocrisy of the administration, which in this case, hasn't been proven, not the contents of the poster itself. So until we can prove or disprove the administration's alleged hypocrisy, no big deal.
And exactly so - we shouldn't be drawn into throwing out spurious accusations that can come back to bite us. Save your ire for cases where you have evidence to stand on, and don't go all Chicken Little/Boy-who-cried-wolf over speculative slights. As far as the university administration goes, until you have evidence of a double standard, it's a non-issue, and, quite frankly, jumping the gun on such accusations only gives them a heads up so they can allow some low-impact token conservative speech and crow about how fair they are.
This is where you kind of missed my point. Putting up a bunch of racist garbage is most certainly not my own beliefs. So why should I do it? Just to prove I have free speech?
No. First of all, no one suggested you put up anything YOU view as racist garbage, but your objection to the poster makes it pretty much a given that reasonable statements supporting your point of view would be viewed as racist garbage, and condemned as such, by those who put up the poster. You could also satirize the poster's blatant spin doctoring in a number of ways. For instance, affirmative action bake sales are a common satirizing response to leftist agitprop, but they are viewed as racist garbage by those they satirize. However, if you aren't willing to get in the game, it seems immature to whine about the other side outplaying you.
What brought me into this conversation was that every time free speech topics come up, someone always jumps in with "But they have the right to do it," as if that trumps every argument and ends the discussion.
If you attack them for effectively conveying their message, it does end it. Stay scrupulously on the message, and THEN you can dismiss such objections.
On of my friends, a former Boy Scout, was upset with the organization's anti-gay policies, and my response was "They have a right to their own membership rules." Well, I can now admit that was stupid argument. He never claimed they didn't have the right, he was just expressing his unhappiness with their policies.
In other words, he was EMOTING, and you offered a RATIONAL response, and you don't think that was valid on your part. By taking that position, you buy into the hegemony of feelings over principle that is the SOP of people like those who put up the poster. Don't validate his sloppy thinking. If he objects to their policies, goad him to form a group with policies he agrees with. I constantly run into people who want to "reform" the Boy Scouts. That's what leftists do. On the other hand, few people realize that The Assemblies of God, the 2nd largest Protestant denomination in the country, found the Boy Scouts TOO inclusive in their membership policies, but rather than try to change the Scouts, they formed their own alternative, the Royal Rangers, which is an outstanding similar organization limited to Evangelical Christians. While the AoG DID something, your friend whined, and you were right to point out to him that what the Scouts do is none of his business, and, conversely, he is free to form an alternative and his policies in so doing are none of the Scouts' business.
I think that people are bothered by the poster for a few reasons
Yeah, we all get that part. It goes without saying that the message bothers almost everyone here, so, if that's your only point, people are complimenting you by reading in subtexts - they're assuming you have something substantive to add.
I don't get that angry about the poster, but rather about the position of those posting it. The poster itself represents a BRILLIANT piece of marketing and political street theater, and I can appreciate that on the same level as a batter appreciates the skill of the pitcher who just struck him out. If I was trying to promote their bankrupt ideas, the only effective way would be to resort to their ethically questionable manipulation, and I have to admit that they're very good at being bad. However, more than I fault them for effectively utilizing the only means available to them, I fault the weak mindedness of a society where these tactics are actually effective, and that is the fault of our side for failing to effectively promote clear, logical thought over blindly emoting through life. To that end, I advocate that we be excrutiatingly rigorous in our own rhetoric.
Allright, I lied, one more post:
Dweeb, you say:
If you attack them for effectively conveying their message, it does end it. Stay scrupulously on the message, and THEN you can dismiss such objections.
My point was that that was exactly what people here were doing before someone piped in with the "they have the right to do it" argument. No one argued that they didn't have the right to do it, they were arguing with the message itself. Some, including myself, did speculate that such rights might not be extended to other groups, and perhaps we shouldn't have, but that doesn't mean that we think this group doesn't have the right.
Second thing:
Yeah, we all get that part. It goes without saying that the message bothers almost everyone here, so, if that's your only point, people are complimenting you by reading in subtexts - they're assuming you have something substantive to add.
Apparently the anonymous poster who repeatedly asked why people were offended did not get that part. At any rate, I put that post up to provide an answer to his question, not to fish for compliments or to add anything substantive, which is why I included the disclaimer about how I didn't think it was necessary to point these things out since others have already done so.
But that's enough. We're essentially arguing about nothing since we're both in agreement that the group has the right to do it.
Rizzo,
Minor correction. I didn't ask why people were offended. I asked what was the big deal about the poster. I don't think it's a big deal that people are offended. Do you? Does anyone?
With regard to posting this or any other offensive poster, we should "let a hundred flowers bloom". Groups should not only be permitted but encouraged to reveal their vile bigotries. The should be required to identify themsleves on thier posters - unattributed posters can be torn down because they don't represent anybody's speech.
A poster like this is enough to make the high-minded group who posted it look like a front for NAMBLA, whatever worthy purpose they may have had. (As if)
We're essentially arguing about nothing since we're both in agreement that the group has the right to do it.
And, I presume, that they are scum. Creative and effective scum, but that just makes them more dangerous.
The should be required to identify themsleves on thier posters
Um, actually...no. Anonymous speech is protected - see McIntyre vs. Ohio Election Commission. Who is speaking is irrelevant unless one is looking for handles for ad hominems.
"Um, actually...no. Anonymous speech is protected - see McIntyre vs. Ohio Election Commission. Who is speaking is irrelevant unless one is looking for handles for ad hominems"
Not a problem, since they are not being attacked, just their posters. And there will be times when people absolutely must have the right to stay anonymous if they are to have any right of free speech - undeniable. But in this case if they come forward to complain, they label themselves as child moletser.
Which leads me to ask why CPS in that state was not involved in this case.
Dr. Helen, a thought about a research project. Given that Knoxville's J-S (and, indeed, many local papers) publishes the names and pictures (and thus identifies gender) of all the high academic achievers at local high schools, would a comparison of the number of males vs females over time show any trends? There ought to be 25 years worth of data or more. If, as I perceive, the number/% of high achieving males is decreasing with time, that ought to support at least a speculation that males are differentially discouraged academically.
Just a thought.
Anonymous 11:31,
That's agood idea. However, it would not tell us if males and females are approaching HS differently and taking different things from it. It would only tell us how they are being evaluated.
I think many teachers evakuate not on how well a student masters the material, but on the learning process the student uses mastering the material.
For example, suppose one student got A's on all quizes, tests, midterm, and final. Suppose another got C's on all quizes, tests, and midterm. But that student got an A on the final. And let's say both demonstrate the same grasp of the material at the end of the course. We would expect one student to get an A and the other to get a B. High school honors can be misleading.
I suspect the SAT folks have very good info on the aptitude and achievement test results by gender. That might give a clearer picture of what has been mastered rather than how it has been mastered.
Jim, there's no basis for concluding the posters of the flier were child molesters.
Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! mesotherapy newmarket concerta+net concerta respordol evista Brown leather handbags Reliable dishwashers
The Bible says:"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean." This poster, and what it says, is a real piece of self advertisement. It says more about the person who authored it, rather than the intended target!
Luka Magnotta said it best
cut men...do we not bleed?
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
080aa片直播080aa片直播080aa片直播18jack主入口18jack主入口18jack主入口18x us18x us18x us18成人avooo18成人avooo18成人avooo18成人avooo18成人avooo18成人免費18成人免費18成人免費18成人免費18成人免費18成人影城
Post a Comment
<< Home