I totally agree that clothing with hateful slogans should not be allowed. And should not be protected under "free speech".

Of course that means that the popular "Boys are Stupid: throw rocks at them" shirts, should not be allowed either.

My only problem, as a bit of a more free speech absolutist, is anybody who thinks that banning a shirt is more effective than having a public discussion at the school about the underlying thoughts that would cause an idiot to wear a moron shirt like that.

norbiz: totally agree. much easier for the school to just ban or not ban rather than spark a dicussion.

What I have trouble understanding is when conservative Christians like this student will realize how selectively they view their Bible. 200 years ago, conservative Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. That was bigotry. But of course no one seems to view whichever passages that were used as some sort of excuse for slavery anymore. When will conservative Christians realize that condemning homosexuality is no different than the bigotry of 200 years ago?

Today I've already had discussions with my students (10th grade English) about the Day of Silence.

Unfortunately, at a lot of schools/campuses, the conservative Christian groups are coming back with their "Day of Truth," where they wear "Day of Truth" shirts and probably hand out literature to "show how damaging homosexuality is" or something to that effect.

It's been difficult, because I to show support for GLBT students in my classroom, but I also need "that balanced view," particularly here in Colorado after the Bennish debacle. It's amazing how different things are. Now, out of fear of conservative Christian uproar, teachers must be "sensitive" to "everyone," including the religious right. And I can't tell you how frustrating that is as an educator.

Wow feminists have been slacking heh? Don’t they know in this day and age you are only allowed to wear shirts that are intolerant of white males.

In fact being intolerant of straight white males is a multi million dollar t-shirt industry!

http://www.menstuff.org/archives/davidandgoliath.html

Schools allow these shirts, even though boys are behind in education and men are left out of violence legislation, it is ok to perpetuate the stereotype men are dumb and it is fun to teach little girls to practice violence on them!

Why hate homosexuals? Its much more fashionable to be intolerant of straight white men or any thing Manly.

Ask the owners of this site.

http://feministing.com/archives/004872.html#comments

Hujo, why do you read this site if you hate feminists so much? I'm just curious.

It seems to me that there are a LOT of antifeminist trollers here. Is this a reflection of castration anxiety--the fear antifeminist men have of assertive women--and the subsequent uncontrollable, Pavlovian urge such men have to silence them?

Cheers,

TH

Yes TH, I wonder the same thing. It's actually funny to see Hujo hop into a thread and turn any argument into something that's ALL ABOUT HUJO!! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! LOOOOOOOOOK AT MEMEME!!

Any.Way.

I wonder, since Christians seem to feel it's OK to distribute information on the wrongness of homosexuality, can a group can distribute information on the wrongness of Christianity? I suppose not - that would be religion bashing, which is a no-no. Isn't gay-bashing a crime? Why are Christians allowed to do it at all? School is hard enough without the self-appointed "morality police" breathing down your neck.

There is a simple explanation for the large number of anti-feminist "trolls" here.

The feminists here are often just tilting at windmills. They get so worked up about the imaginary Patriarchy, that they forget about the principles of fairness and tolerance.

So it's the trolls who are actually the good guys, speaking up against ignorance and prejudice.

Maybe you guys should get capes and little costumes that say "anti-feminist avengers."

My copy of the First Amendment does not contain a "unless someone's feelings get hurt" exception.

Yes TH, I wonder the same thing. It's actually funny to see Hujo hop into a thread and turn any argument into something that's ALL ABOUT HUJO!! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! LOOOOOOOOOK AT MEMEME!!

Hey, don't you know? It only "counts" or is a "problem" if it effects, in this case, "heterosexual white males". Sweep any points about existing social barriers under the rug, we know they are the most important, so how DARE we discuss somebody else?

School is hard enough without the self-appointed "morality police" breathing down your neck.

You know, I suddenlt have the urge to print some rather disagreeable Bible verses on a t-shirt and put "hypocrite" next to it, then go to that kid's school. Then we'll see about "freedom of speech".

You know, the idea that the trolls think they're doing something meaningful--and not just taking a crap in somebody's livingroom--when they do this sort of thing leads me to suspect that it really must be castration anxiety. Why else would they feel so threatened by a blog that they don't even have to read?

There's a similar phenomenon going on here in Jackson. A woman-run alt weekly has inspried at least three or four sites attacking her for, in effect, being a woman with an opinion. These sites are visited many times a day by folks who post pretty persistently about her and little else. What inspires them? They say it's because they want to hold her accountable, but the way to do that would be to not pick up copies of the paper.

Nope. Castration anxiety.

I'm just constantly amazed that people are constantly willing to go out of their way to make themselves look this ridiculous, logging into blogs they have no business posting to and harassing total strangers for having informed opinions about topics they know absolutely nothing about.

Cheers,

TH

BTW- I blogged on the free speech implications of this event. Bottom line is that I think this was an appropriate restriction under the Tinker standard, but that the standard needs to be revisited because schools abuse it, censoring everything from Black History Month T-shirts to school newspaper editorials promoting abstinence. The original case, if folks will recall, said that schools could not constitutionally prevent students from wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.

But the standard clearly would have prevented students from showing up dressed head to toe in Klan regalia, and I think that's the unspoken point pertinent to this case. What depresses me is that a Hispanic girl got disciplined for wearing an American flag during immigration week, but if a snotty rich kid wants to wear a shirt that will promote violence against lesbians and gays, it goes all the way to the 9th Circuit.

Cheers,

TH

This sounds like a politically correct ruling for politically correct times. Why is not hurting someone's feelings more important than free speech (however disgusting it may be)?

Should all things offensive be made illegal?

RM, bud, I don't mean to keep shilling my blog entry--but give it a read. It explains the judicial logic behind this decision, which is consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent (1969!) landmark ruling on this subject.

Cheers,

TH

It's that the owners posted a cartoon intolorant of striaght men, but somehow they still post this article, as if they are not intolerant themselfs.

A homosexual has the right to say "Hey! I have a right to be who I am and you have no right to mock me."

But striaght men are whiney trolls for doing the same?

Double standards help feminism or this site? Or does it point out the owners are as intolorant of men as christians are of homosexuals.

I think there should be room for all.

If you're talking about the Mansfield cartoon--since when did he become representative of straight men?!

Jessica"Maybe you guys should get capes and little costumes that say "anti-feminist avengers."

I am not anti-feminist; it would be fair to say I am anti-double standards, anti-intolerance (even if it is straight men) and Anti-corruption.
I am only trying to point out intolerance is intolerance. People pick up on double standards and anti-male sentiments. You have lots of trolls? It couldn't possibly be the general anti-male vibe of the site? NOOOOOOO its all just women haters, making no valid points.

But I guess I should take a cue from the patriarchy and suck it up. Keep my feelings inside like a “real man�.

To question feminism means you hate feminism? Is that like questioning the bush government and being told you hate America?

If you're talking about the Mansfield cartoon--since when did he become representative of straight men?!

Since when did feminism become the authority of what straight men should write about when writing a non hatefull book about being straight.

Your little cartoon hurt me because I know so many straight men that are against war, intolorance and sexism. I also think young men lack any good role models, quite frankly because being manly or male or a father is routinly mocked and denigrated in our culture.

How is posting your cartioon about striaght men any differnt than making fun of metrosexuals or feminists?

It's not. The only difference is you knew you would catch no heat because being intolorant of striaght men is done so casualy, you probably forgot you were being a big hypocrite.

The bottom line is that the function of schools is to educate students. It is not democratic or voluntary.

I don't care for the boys are stupid shirts either(though the boys hate the girls and the girls hate the boys cannot be laid at the feet of feminists-its older than that). Or the "It's all about me - deal with it" thing either.

Well, it wasn't my cartoon first of all. But I have made fun of Mansfield--this is true. Because his book wasn't a "non hatefull book about being straight." This is someone who writes about "the problem" of women's autonomy and says that gay and transgendered people are on "society's margin" and should remain there. Again, I don't think this is representative of all straight males, do you? So how exactly am I being intolerant of straight men by calling someone out on their discriminatory views?

Because the cartoon is mocking straight men not the (now exposed as a bigot [thank you]) Mansfield himself.

If a gay men spoke out against "breeders" destroying the society and someone like Mansfield put up a cartoon about how being gay makes you like the author of the book. that would be O.K.?

The carton is as much an attack on manliness or straight males as it is on mansfield himself.

We are not all war hungry metro hating, sexists. But if some of us do indeed like John Wayne movies and shooting guns off at the range or playing football, then so what?

Why is that to be mocked and intolorated?

First of all, I look dam good in a cape!

Second of all, hate speech is not about "hurting people's feelings". It's about promoting hostility, intolerance, and even violence. That's why it's not covered under free speech (or humor). It gets trumped plain and simple.

Thirdly, I don't see feministing as someone else's "living room". I see it as a public space, that is relatively open (until they change the rules) to honest debate and a civil exchange of ideas. So, it's an intellectual thing, based on the assumption that if you provide rational people with correct information they may adjust their views accordingly. Of course having an open mind is a crucial ingredient.

wow... what a very interesting conversation...

considering how overrun feminsting's become lately with folks proclaiming the evils of feminism, i might point y'all in the direction of a post at brownfemipower's site, which is an interesting treamtment of the phenomenon of folks displaying privelege deriding the community spaces of people working against inequity.

oh, yeah, and tom head's blog is right on... and i didn't realize you wrote for about... that's hot... go ahead with your bad self.

intersting thoughts. maybe it doesn't relate to this conversation. maybe i'm a man-hating... er... man. right.

don't know where to start, but... for starters, the actual subject... seen, speech is an interesting freedom and i'd like to know what y'all guys would think of someone walking into a school in birmingham a couple of decades back wearing a shirt that said "just say no to miscegenation". would that be okay? i mean, it isn't directly advocating violence...

however, it is fostering an atmosphere of intolerance in an environment where violence is perpetrated.

also, as far as the charge there's a multi-million dollar industry of making tshirts that poke fun at men is ridiculous for several reasons... not the least of which is that, at least in the link you posted, there's also a shirt that states "no means no... well, maybe if i'm drunk."

david and goliath tees is just some assholes... so what does that have to do with feminism?

once again, feminism =/= man-hating... being an asshole is being an asshole no matter the context, and the shirts your link refered to were made by all-around assholes, not feminists. get it straight.

now, the comic...
the comic is not making fun of men, it's poking fun at mansfield... just mansfield... and at the myth that there's just one kind of "real" man out there.

i mean, really, how could that actually be construed as attacking all men? it clearly lays several categories of men who don't fit into this absurd 50's utopian "manly man" stereotype...

and about the "someone else's living room" thing... seen, the problem is not so much that some people "own" this space and some don't... but that it's not the job of feminism just to educate or debate with people who think it's "man-hating"... seen, sometimes, folks just want to build, you know - work for solutions...

and when folks come on here spouting off about how feminism is the matriarchy it interrupts the opportunity for constructive conversation.

while i disagree with the term "trolls", i do think there's a big problem when the conversation on a site is more filled with arguments than with constructive conversation – beyond that, i feel that a lot of this on blogs concerned with race and gender (among other things) has to do with white people and men feeling personally attacked... which is problematic...

i also think it's problematic the way that things have been dealt with. calling folks names (i.e. "trolls") or stating that they should have capes is not really a constructive solution to the problem of reactionaries posting like mad on feministing when it's convenient for them.

there's more i find pretty troublesome about this whole trend, but i have to get back to work.

peace and blessings

Great post, Puck! And thanks for the link to the dialogue happening at brownfemipower. I think it helped to clear my head a little bit about what has been happening at feministing. It really seems like a group of assholes did a google search for feminism and "woman power" then proceeded to attack them with their unmovable anti-feminist sentiments. And I am suferring for this - I am always one to drag conversations on forever trying to convince someone they've been misled (as evidenced by a drawn out conversation with hujo on the Alabama Prison topic). They are not really here to be informed, but they are here on a mission to discredit us any chance they get. It seems like a waste of time, but it starts to get under my skin.

Yet there is the question of public space and being open to diverse points of view - that didn't really seem to sit well in this case. As you eloquently put it:

"and about the "someone else's living room" thing... seen, the problem is not so much that some people "own" this space and some don't... but that it's not the job of feminism just to educate or debate with people who think it's "man-hating"... seen, sometimes, folks just want to build, you know - work for solutions...and when folks come on here spouting off about how feminism is the matriarchy it interrupts the opportunity for constructive conversation."

Here I think you're right. It automatically spins the conversation so that we are on the defensive. Not so we're merely having a conversation, but where one person is sure in their bones that they're right about what feminism is, how hypocritical and demonizing of men, and are not going to change their mind. So why do they even come here if not to make some kind of bullshit mockery of how stupid we all are?

It's that the boys are stupid shirts are blatent man hating propaganda being promoted to little girls and the company makes millions It could not be done to women it would be a hate crime. Even with cries from many mens and childrens orgs wanting them banned. How can you say it is a joke if it is offending and creatring out cry from the social group it mockes. If it were "blacks or jews or women are stupid" the shirts would not have made it to market.
It was used as an example to show how feminists would stick up for gay men or people but not straight men or little boys (Ya know, The enemy) I am showing feminsm plays favorites.

Yes the cartoon was mocking men, manly men, and mansfield.

So you have him saying metros are lame and there is no room in the culture for them, and you have feminsts saying manly men are lame and there is no room in the culture for them, hypocritical.

Thats how I see it.

It's that the boys are stupid shirts are blatent man hating propaganda being promoted to little girls and the company makes millions It could not be done to women it would be a hate crime.

First off, you are out of your mind if you think there aren’t anti-woman/woman-hating shirts marketed. For example the Beer t-shirts. Or commercials aimed at boys (remember the troll doll commercial years ago, the Battle Trolls?). Or in cartoons. It is just so ingrained into our culture that females are irrational/silly/weak/stupid that any objecting to it is just more irrational feminist propaganda.

It was used as an example to show how feminists would stick up for gay men or people but not straight men or little boys (Ya know, The enemy) I am showing feminsm plays favorites.

You are showing nothing except for how you are a patronizing reactionary. “The enemy�? Christ, leave your straw-men at the door. If you were able to see anywhere beyond your narrow view and “lah, lah, lah, can‘t hear you! Mind‘s made uuuuup!� stance, you’d understand that criticizing for example Mansfield is sticking up for straight men and little boys. Because it is saying that straight men and boys can be complex, tolerant, thinking individuals instead of walking the rigid, restrictive line of 1950s masculinity without being called a “faggot� or “pussy� or whatever by guys like Mansfield.

So you have him saying metros are lame and there is no room in the culture for them, and you have feminsts saying manly men are lame and there is no room in the culture for them, hypocritical.

Thats how I see it.

No, and not that you’ll actually consider what anybody says and won’t stop derailing topics until we go, “yes, Hujo is correct. I’ve been wrongheaded. Let’s put aside our concerns and start caring first and foremost about what Hujo wants� or anything, but you have feminists making fun of somebody with a rigid view of masculinity. That defines “manliness� on his own terms. Do you got it? Are you hearing me?

Though I will say it now, probably not.

Well, some feministing "trolls" are more tactful than others. I sympathize with the angrier ones, because I know it's the hypocrisy that gets to them. Many posters here take positions that are strictly pro-women, as opposed to principled positions that are pro equal treatment.

It would be nice if people tried to substantiate their beliefs in the Patriarchy with evidence or studies. But I have yet to see anyone do this. It is simply taken as gospel, and anyone who points out that the wage gap may be mostly a result of women's career choices becomes a de facto troll.

Agreed Tragula.

I started off on this site pointing out the hypocrisy of many of the posts on this site, and for that I was labelled a troll.

I moved on to calling for some critical thinking regarding many of the articles that are posted here, as many people seemed to only be able to see one side of the issue and for that I was labelled a troll.

I further moved on to ask for some parity on this site to ask for both articles on womens AND MENS problems in society and was labelled a troll

I tried to push forward the idea that feminism should look after males issues aswell, as right now MRA groups have next to no political power, and was basically told to piss of because feminism is about women (and race, class and homosexuality - notice how that includes basically everything except straight white males?) and was again, basically labelled a troll.

I freely admit that in some of my posts, mostly the earlier ones, I've been rude, angry, nasty, what have you. But getting called a troll just because you have a differing view would piss anyone off.

Zaij writes:
I further moved on to ask for some parity on this site to ask for both articles on womens AND MENS problems in society and was labelled a troll

Zaij, the name of the site is Feministing. Not Masculisting, not Humanisting. Feministing. So when you're saying "Why don't you talk about men's issues?," that's a lot like going to a basketball site and saying "Why don't you talk about chess?" It is trolling.

Cheers,

TH

What do you think that feminism is about exactly Tom?

*Sigh*

Why does every thread have to devolve into debate with shrill men's rights activists who think they aren't getting sufficient attention? It's boring. Now when I read comments, I wonder how many posts it'll take until Hujo or Felix or Tragula or someone else starts squealing "What about ME? Even though the article up for debate is about women in prison/offensive t-shirts/disappearing reproductive rights, everyone needs to know that all feminists hate men and LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME!!"

It's getting old, gents. I'd ask why don't you just go the hell to a MRA site and talk with those you can commiserate with, but this thread has been derailed enough, and frankly, it's pretty obvious what your agenda is.

As per the t-shirts: I think that the t-shirt "Boys are dumb, throw rocks at them" is jesting at the four-year-old mentality that girls think boys are icky and boys think girls are icky. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find a similar "Girls are stinky" t-shirt. However, t-shirts of the like that say "Quiet down - let's not turn this rape into a murder" are different kettle of fish, as is "Dead girls don't say no" and "Git her done." I'm not going to link to the specific sites because 1.) you can find them yourself, and 2.) these are not shirts I hunted up on websites, but saw on men while I was walking around town.

Should we censor offensive shirts? Yes, if that will make things easier for all maligned groups, and this means disallowing "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" as well as "Homosexuality is shameful." Substitute "Jews" for "Boys" and "Being Black" for "Homosexuality," and you have a lawsuit on your hands. No one should be a whipping post, not women, not men, not gay/bi/trans people.

Because I'm not an MRA. I'm an egalitarian and I think it'd be easier to turn feminism into an egalitarian ideal than those MRA people. Lets face it, feminism is bigger than the mens rights movements, its got a lot more political power and in general, its not filled with 60 year old bitter men. I don't see why feminists think it would be so terrible to turn feminism into a truly egalitarian movement. It's a perfectly reasonable idea, so why are you being so unreasonable towards me?

I post here because this is probably one of the largest feminist thingos on the internet, and it's a great place to preach egalitarianism. If I go to an MRA place they'll go on saying something like "women arent vicims, we are! women have more rights than us! white power!" and other garbage.

Just because I say that there are problems for men, doesn't mean I don't think there are for women. An egalitarian movement would be more powerful than just a feminist one.

No one should be a whipping post, not women, not men, not gay/bi/trans people.

http://feministing.com/archives/004905.html#comments

Is it just me or are stright white men not welcome on this feministing promoted blog?

Also see "women prefer housework to love" related article: "Sc women kills husband w/ vacume cleaner."

Subtle but funny, "murdering your husband is funny"

This is just what I found in the week I have been here, I haven't looked at archives yet.

h, then why the hell are you here? Why the hell are any of you antifeminist, male-victimhood troglodytes here? I mean that in the kindest possible way.

Cheers,

TH

I was not aware this was a site for close-minded, one-sided, people that would choose to shelter themselves from opposing out looks and points of view.

That’s a poor way to live Tom.

Was that comment directed at me Tom?

If so, when have I been anti-feminist or claimed that men are supervictims or whatever?

Was that comment directed at me Tom?

If so, when have I been anti-feminist or claimed that men are supervictims or whatever?

Was that comment directed at me Tom?

If so, when have I been anti-feminist or claimed that men are supervictims or whatever?

I am not claiming men are super victims, just pointing out there is a hypocritical intolorant nature on a site based on equality and tolorance.

If you take a step back and look at these issues from a more collective perspective I think that we can see that the same situations do not affect every group equally. This is why there are groups for the promotion of women's rights and gay/lesbian rights etc., because many of the people who belong to these groups face challeges and struggles that are based on their membership and their marginalization.

Women/feminists have fought very very hard for things like the vote, maternity leave, safe and legal abortion, anti-violence legislation etc. (and certainly there have been men involved in these battles as well). These issues do not affect men and women in the same way. There are issues of privilege and power that cannot be dealt with by saying that we should all be egalitarian, it's a nice thought, but not possible. Women are still faced with discrimination because they ARE women.

Violence in the home is primarily directed at women, women are still carrying the burden of child rearing and housework, even when they are working full time (and there are many many studies about the existence of the patriarchy). And this isn't about individual men, we can all point to examples of men who stay home or men whose wives hit them, this is about systemic inequalities. If people are really interested in becoming equal then we have to acknowledge and address the inequalities first.

This is why feminism (and it is problematic to use this as a universal category, but for the sake of this argument I will) isn't as interested in men's problems, because their mandate is to address the systemic inequalities to women.

This is also about being respectful to the purpose and vibe of this space, it's about women's issues and women's struggles, if that makes you angry then maybe you should ask yourself why. Your concerns and comments may be recieved better if they were presented with a tone of respect and sincerity and not hostility.

We should not have to apologize for being feminists and for fighting against inequality and we should not have to defend ourselves on a site that is created by and for feminist.