panel three: little girl climbs back into box
panel four: little girl plants foot squarely in little boy's crotch. little boy cries "like a girl"

I love how this is marketed to children. So the next time your mother is nagging you about cleaning your room or feeding a pet... yeah, just slap the bitch across the face to put her back in her place.

Yeah. This shirt is freaking adorable.

/sarcasm

Do you know what I find heartening? That the DA, a male DA, finds the shirts nasty and publicly connects their so-called "humor" to the abuse of women. I think that's a real sea-change, that a male representative of authority isn't just chuckling and saying "can you women take a joke."

Where is Hujo to complain about the "Throw rocks at them" t-shirt?

Erk, that's just gross and wrong. I feel the same way about a sweatshirt my sister had in the '80s that said "Kid for rent/sale" (I think it was rent; also, I now think of it in both the "haha, kids are a pain in the ass" and "um, are they talking about selling the kid for sex?" way) and one I saw yesterday at Wal-Mart in the boy's clothing section that said, "Holding auditions for new sister". Just yuck.

I often wonder what the suicide rate is amongst corporate spokespeople: "Kmart serves a diverse customer base and is committed to providing quality services, products and solutions that earn our customers' trust and build lifetime relationships. I'm going to go swallow my gun now."

I really don't get the Rosie-style "it's just a joke" argument. We know it's a joke, that's what's offensive about it.

One thing that I'll always defend is offensiveness. Everything out there is basically going to offend someone.

I may not agree with the KKK but I respect their right to express and say what ever they want. I feel this way about *everything*. Once I start saying someone can't do something because I find it offensive that means others can do the same to me.

"one I saw yesterday at Wal-Mart in the boy's clothing section that said, "Holding auditions for new sister""

Heh. As one of two sisters myself, it never would have occurred to me that this shirt was sexist! But if it was in the boys' section and not the girls'...

In theory, maz, I agree with you, but the question is who gets to set the standards about what is offensive and what isn't? Wal-mart, if I recall correctly, refuses to cell uncensored CDs of songs whose content they consider offensive, and I'm pretty certain that a shirt making light of racist or anti-semitic violence wouldn't make it to their stores (one hopes). So what is it about misogynistic violence that makes it all right in Wal-mart's eyes?

Actually EG an antisemitic shirt was on the shelves of WalMart for a good while, just look through the Consumerist archives for WalMart.

I personally do not believe that there should be any censorship what so ever and that no enity should place any onto any populace. I only believe the government should stop people from censoring. Don't even get me started on the FCC and their regulations on decency.

Also with these major super stores do you really think they have time to look at every little product that they might stock with a magnafying glass? I certainly don't believe that's possible.

EG, I'm with you on the sister shirt... I seem to remember an old Olsen Twins song (from back when they were still little-bitty) called "Brother for Sale," and I certainly wouldn't think of that as reverse sexism. Sibling bickering doesn't bother me; I used to fight constantly with my brother and sister, and now we get along great, and can rib each other pretty good, to boot.

As to the offensiveness point, I think we need a better definition of "offensive." Right now it encompasses things that simply make us uncomfortable (which should absolutely fall into "free speech") as well as those that legitimate genuinely troubling and harmful views (which arguably are hate speech).

It's one thing to wear a shirt that says "fuck the draft." It's quite another that says "rape gets a bad rap" or something similar. Tons of speech is prohibited under various codes, and for good reason. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it could lead to a stampeded and harm people. You can't utter "fighting words" because they could result in, well, a fight. I don't see anything hypocritical between being pro-free speech and drawing a line at hate speech. Whether or not this shirt constitutes hate speech is up for debate, but I'm not ready to draw a bright-line rule that says "no speech is taboo."

This seems like just another "cute" gender violence joke. Do people have the same problem with the very popular "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them." T's for girls, or is this one of those "It's wrong for one gender and not for the other because of the patriarchy" things?

"I only believe the government should stop people from censoring."

maz, how exactly would this work? What if I censor myself on my blog by changing the names of various persons and not giving out all the details of my private life (I do in fact so censor myself, because I don't want just anyone stumbling onto my blog)? Should the government make this illegal?

What if a Jewish temple is asked to allow a political candidate to give a blessing at its services? If it opts not to do so on the basis that this might appear to be endorsement of the candidate, is this unlawful "censorship" as well?

There's a reason that "censorship" is a term only applied to the government; part of free speech is the freedom not to say anything at all. For the government to order us not to censor ourselves is just as bad as it forbidding us to speak.

"Actually EG an antisemitic shirt was on the shelves of WalMart for a good while, just look through the Consumerist archives for WalMart."

Oh, well, that's OK, then. How nice.

"Also with these major super stores do you really think they have time to look at every little product that they might stock with a magnafying glass? I certainly don't believe that's possible."

I do. That's how they track customer preferences, and how they track what sells and what doesn't--they certainly seem to have the time to refuse to sell CDs with dirty words in them. Further, this shirt has been brought to their attention; nobody's even trying to argue that they don't know about it. I've never bought the "I'm too busy to do my actual job" excuse.

I would also point out that nobody's advocating censorship: nobody's saying that it should be illegal for Wal-mart to sell the shirt. Many of us are saying that is disgusting and immoral of them to do so.

I wasn't really offended by the "sister audition" shirt, just thought it was curious that it was only in the boy's section and in "boy colours" (I absolutely don't believe in "gender assigned colours", but you've probably all seen children's clothing in department stores - there's a lot of pink, purple and blue happening on the girls' side and brown, blue, orange and khaki going on in the boys'). I'll check to see if there's a similar one in the girls' section, but I'm pretty certain all I'm going to find is stuff with "princess" and "diva" emblazoned on them in glitter.

to the law fairy,
the inherent problem with defiining "offensiveness" is that it is an inherently subjective phenomenon. not only that, but who is the one who gets to decide what is counted and what is not? it's nice if those who get to decide share your views, but what about dissenters? what happens when those who decide leave and others get to decide? there really is no essential difference between an anti-war shirt and a sexist shirt. both offend some sort of sensibility. the only way to preserve free expression is to preserve the first amendment.
obviously self-censorship is beyond the pale. don't be silly.
all of these examples are of a private nature. KMart is a company, and they can choose not to carry the shirt on moral grounds if they want. no one should force them, though. if people want to protest the shirt, that is their business. if the protests work, and no one buys the shirt anymore, and the company persists in selling/producing them, then they're stupid.
food for thought: what about the many examples of girls' merchandise that is blatantly anti-male?

"Also with these major super stores do you really think they have time to look at every little product that they might stock with a magnafying glass?"

It doesn't take a magnifying glass. Someone there picked this out and decided to sell it. Not only that, after it was called to their attention they put it back out! Can someone on this planet take responsibility for their own actions--or at least for the people they are using to make billions of dollars.

"there really is no essential difference between an anti-war shirt and a sexist shirt."

Um, actually, invis, there's a huge difference.

One challenges the establishment. The other entrenches it.

And aside from the more obvious, basic differences, there's the further difference that protesting war does not identify and demean a subgroup of the population to oppress. Sexism does.

My point about offensiveness is that people use it as some magic buzzword to say "you can't censor me!" When it's overused the way it is, this belies a poor understanding of censorship. First, censorship can only be done by the government. This is a definitional matter. "Self-censorship" is a colloquialism; there is no such thing, legally speaking, as self-censorship. I'm not sure what you mean by calling it "beyond the pale"... you're saying it's bad to censor yourself?? I can't imagine that this view is very popular at family get-togethers.

Do you disagree that any form of censorship should occur? Or should I be allowed to make bomb threats at the airport?

Well, first of all, censorship as in the infringement of First Amendment rights comes from action by the State (State Action) not individuals. You or I cannot by definition censor anything in that sense of the word. Moreover, none of us gives up any rights to protest, loudly if we deem it necessary, the actions of corporations, or individuals. Indeed the Bill of Rights protects us, the individuals, that is the purpose of the document. So you or I have every right to object to merchandise that offends, however reluctant we may be to draw the bright lines of the Law Fairy. Actually, no lines are needed. Andrea, the male DA is, like I was, someone familiar with the brutality of domestic violence. It is not to our credit, nor should it be a surprize, that we do not see the humor in graphic. Which leads to my final point, the Rule of Jokes. I always tell my kids that the First Rule of Jokes is that they must be funny. This is not funny and all the protestations to the contrary do not change that simple fact. All I need now is the name and e mail address of someone to write to and share some of this outrage. I will check back here later.

Michael "+8 years of DV prosecuting in L.A."

I'm.. not sure I get it. Is this shirt supposed to tie-in with something..?Because if it's supposed to stand on its own.. why would anyone want to wear this? I mean, even if you don't find this offensive, why would you wear this? Stick to the classics. You know, daddy was a pistol, and I'm a son of a gun.. stuff like that.

I actually was going to send you guys a picture of this shirt that I took a few weeks ago, but I haven't gotten the cable to be able to pull pictures off of my phone yet. Kmart isn't the only place that is selling them, as I saw them in a Goody's, I believe. It's a different version of the image, with just the designs for male/female from bathroom signs, but it's the same message.

closethipster - I'm.. not sure I get it. Is this shirt supposed to tie-in with something..?Because if it's supposed to stand on its own.. why would anyone want to wear this? I mean, even if you don't find this offensive, why would you wear this? Stick to the classics. You know, daddy was a pistol, and I'm a son of a gun.. stuff like that.

I personally don't think I've ever seen a chuckleworthy shirt in a department store. The internet is rife with them, and when i want a particularly offensive one, I get a custom job, but at K-mart? Never. Usually some tired joke about being stressed or needing coffee.

coasttocoast posted
This seems like just another "cute" gender violence joke. Do people have the same problem with the very popular "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them." T's for girls, or is this one of those "It's wrong for one gender and not for the other because of the patriarchy" things?

I think "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" shirts are funny. Part of what allows them to be funny is the fact that society does not suffer from an epidemic problem of girls assaulting boys with physical violence by throwing rocks.

The garment pictured here shows some noisy whiny bitch who ain't shit and the proper response for a man to take against her. This is not appropriate in part because it depicts domestic violence, a situation that is epidemic in society.

Sometimes it is very easy to be indignant and roll one's eyes on principle if one ever hears the word, "patriarchy," but principle unconnected to reality is a naive, useless luxury.

Same deal.

yeah, tRJ, i can see how one might easily confuse that which mocks domestic violence as it occurs persistently and pervasively. i find shirts like "boys are stupid; throw rocks at them" particularly offensive in an age in which all young women hate the young men they grow up with and persistently commit acts of violence against them.

Rilee - Sometimes it is very easy to be indignant and roll one's eyes on principle if one ever hears the word, "patriarchy," but principle unconnected to reality is a naive, useless luxury.

I realise how indignant I sounded. It wasn't entirely meant like that, though I don't agree with your justification, so I guess a little indignation may have existed.

While domestic violence against men by women is certainly less frequent than the reverse, it does exist. What does the percentage of all domestic violence have to be before a shirt like that is no longer funny?

A recent study showed that Men account for 3/4's of all victems of violence(that seek hospital treatment.) Are shirts like that still funny? Would a shirt that made a lighthearted gesture about male on male violence still be funny?

coasttocoast: or is this one of those "It's wrong for one gender and not for the other because of the patriarchy" things?

rilee: This is not appropriate in part because it depicts domestic violence, a situation that is epidemic in society.

You called it, Coast.

CoasttoCoast posted:
A recent study showed that Men account for 3/4's of all victems of violence(that seek hospital treatment.) Are shirts like that still funny? Would a shirt that made a lighthearted gesture about male on male violence still be funny?

A study showed that men are more likely to engage in violent acts against each other and this has what to do with male violence against women? "Violence" isn't some spectre you can conjure up as though it were an abstract thing here. We are talking about this being offensive as a reference to gendered violence in a specific situation.

As for your question, I don't know. I'd have to see.

You know I'm so fucking sick of hearing about that ONE dumb shirt. ONE shirt that says girls should throw rocks at boys. Yes, it's wrong, no doubt.

But get your heads out of your asses and realize that ONE shirt depicting boy-targeted rock throwing (which clearly is at epidemic levels in the U.S.) does not even slightly compare to the insane amounts of "light hearted" shirts, jokes, etc, about women being abused. I'm sorry to be ranty, but I'm so fucking sick of this bullshit argument.

When Sean Connery made a comment about slapping an uppity woman, everyone here was rightfully justified. But if you put it on a t-shirt and market it to CHILDREN, it's ok?

This is all about gender socialization and stereotyping. It teaches little boys that girls are annoying, and that to deal with them, you have to shut them up. Notice that they're not arguing; she appears to be simply nagging at him.

Censorship aside, none of you see the problem with teaching young children that? They grow up to be the sexist asshats of tomorrow, and it's because of all the socialization they get as children.

I'm terribly sorry that I used the most popular shirt by far that related to the conversation, Jessica.

...depicting boy-targeted rock throwing (which clearly is at epidemic levels in the U.S.)

I did not realize that the defenestration of women was at epidemic levels.

Woah ho ho!

Wikipedia, on the "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them":

The Canadian Children's Rights Council has termed the slogan hate speech[4].

Well there's something that I didn't know.

you mean pushing women? so they fall and hurt themsleves and sometimes die? yeah, that never happens in domestic violence cases. fucking please.

"So you or I have every right to object to merchandise that offends, however reluctant we may be to draw the bright lines of the Law Fairy."

Bob -- just so that I'm not misunderstood. I'm not the one advocating a bright-line rule here. I think that censorship often is necessary (hence my theater and airport examples). I also made the distinction between censorship, which by definition occurs only when the government (state) does it. I think you might have been thinking of quotes I used from others?

Canada does a lot of things some of us may or may not approve of in the name of censorship. What are you going for here?

rilee - I thought that it was a very interesting and suprising fact.

You mean you thought it was a useful hand-picked fact as an appeal to authority to bolster your argument.

"You called it, Coast."

Yes, tRJ, it's upsetting, isn't it, when feminists point out the real-world effects of misogyny, and you're brought face-to-face with the face that men benefit from it and women suffer. How irrational of us feminists to do so!

Hand picked? I suppose I could haul random facts from wikipedia about slugs and densities of metal, but when discussing a particular shirt, i found that that shirt has been classified as hate speach by people in my government.

Can you suggest some other facts that I should have included alongside that one?

You know, it's funny. When I was in high school, it was easy to find T-shirts where a little hawaiian dressed boy and hawaiian-dressed girl abused one another. For shirts marketed to women, the girl would be abusing the little boy, and vice versa for shirts marketed to men. Both made me sick; I have no idea why society believes that it's fun for people to treat one another that way based on gender.

In spite of all that, I think it's very amusing that we seem to have a "but think of Teh Poor Boys" argument going on here when I have never, EVER seen a little girl throwing rocks at a little boy, but I have on numerous occasions heard little boys taunting little girls and yelling in their little five-year-old voices, "shut up you stupid bitch!"

What is also important to notice here is that it is being MARKETED TO LITTLE BOYS. Who is the number one person who nags a little boy? A mother. How many T-shirts do you see marketed to little girls that encourage them to kick a man in the crotch for annoying them? None. You see the "daddy's little princess" shit, which encourages them to be whiney, needy, and ultimately dependent upon Daddy's money and gifts. So we teach little boys to tell their mothers to go clean the blood off their faces and make them a sandwich, and we teach little girls to be dependent on daddy.

Coast, if a shirt advocating joke-violence against boys is considered hate speech by a country with a comparatively stellar track record for gender equality, how much more so must be a shirt advocating violence against women?

I'm not sure of your point here. The fact that shirts advocating violence against men EXIST doesn't make us hypocrites unless we're the ones marketing them. I don't think anyone here does that... right? Show of hands?

I'm suggesting that you picked one point of view from one authority and myopically hoped it would be somehow poignant or something, but your comment on wikipedia fact vomit was also poignant and topical.

EG: Well, it's upsetting—or at least intellectually frustrating—to know that a valid point that isn't easily rebutted can simply be explained away with "patriarchy" assertions.

TLF- i wasn't looking to call anyone hypocrites. I was confused by the enraged call to arms of some of the commenters that simultaneously applauded the misandric shirts.

Then I argued against the logic that one was right while the other was wrong.

I really don't think that anything that promotes resentment of people based on gender is a good thing, but popular culture seems to have misembraced feminism as empowerment through degradation of males.

Not that it's an epidemic, or that i'm whining or anything, just that it's out there, and I find it ever bit as insulting as the reverse against females.

the male DA is, like I was, someone familiar with the brutality of domestic violence. It is not to our credit, nor should it be a surprize, that we do not see the humor in graphic. - Michael "+8 years of DV prosecuting in L.A."

Perhaps it should not be a (pleasant) surprise, Michael, but unfortunately, it is. Particularly as the Los Angeles County D.A. who taught my criminal law section repeatedly made jokes such as "it's easier to kill your wife than divorce her." When he received complaints, he petulantly refused to discuss crimes of sexual violence "to avoid offending sensitive students."

Oh - he also related stories about passing around nekkid photos during a search of a well-known actress/model's home. Yeah. He was a charmer.

Jessica, are you used to people doing your debating for you? You seem to be saying that I somehow owed it to you to research a rebuttal to my own point.

I really wasn't posting it to make a point. I actually find it somewhat extreme to label that kind of thing hate speech, i was just really suprised to see it, so I thought i'd share.

"I really don't think that anything that promotes resentment of people based on gender is a good thing, but popular culture seems to have misembraced feminism as empowerment through degradation of males."

Okay, I think I agree with you. I agree that the shirts advocating violence against men are absolutely wrong, and frankly, I find those shirts childish and unfunny, myself. We don't need to beat men up to get ahead -- hell, that's what the patriarchy wants everyone to think: "the only way for women to achieve equality is for them to bring men down. Therefore, equality is bad."

That said, I absolutely understand the inclination to think of them as somehow "less bad" ONLY given the backdrop of sexism against which we live. Simply put, the "throw rocks" shirts don't entrench a sexist mindset, whereas the "push women" shirts do. I'm not saying this makes the "throw rocks" shirts okay, or inoffensive, or funny, or anything. But the bottom line is that these shirts aren't adding to a society awash in misandry, whereas the "push women" shirts add to a society awash in misogyny. Again, these shirts are bad. Not good. But I think it's fair to consider the "push women" shirts more harmful, in terms of broad subconscious social consequences. This doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out against both of them -- it just means that it's not unreasonable to be marginally MORE troubled by the "push women" shirts.

Does that make sense?

"I was confused by the enraged call to arms of some of the commenters that simultaneously applauded the misandric shirts."

Who, may I ask, applauded the rocks shirt? Give me a break. I need some troll-be-gone.

"Jessica, are you used to people doing your debating for you? You seem to be saying that I somehow owed it to you to research a rebuttal to my own point."

I dont' know what you're talking about...did you mean to address someone else?

TLF - Certainly it does, however I find it hard to understand why people commenting on this board, arguably vastly more informed on gender issues than the average person which makes up 99% of society whom have never read a feminist blog or publication arguing for one type of gender influenced violence over the other, as some of the commenters here have.

But that doesn't apply to you.

Jessica - rilee stated that she found the shirt funny.

TLF- You hit the nail on the head. It's not that the "ooh, beat up the boys" banter is funny. It just seems less threatening against the backdrop of our current society. (I agree, though, that both are counterproductive since it seems to uphold this idea that men and women can't interact harmoniously solely because of the difference in genitalia).

CoasttoCoast posted:
Certainly it does, however I find it hard to understand why people commenting on this board, arguably vastly more informed on gender issues than the average person which makes up 99% of society whom have never read a feminist blog or publication arguing for one type of gender influenced violence over the other, as some of the commenters here have.

Except that we're not talking about gender-influenced violence, because we're talking about gender-related speech, which is different. If you want to talk about violence, we can see: There is no rock-throwing epidemic. We can see: There is a domestic violence epidemic.

Speech is not violence, but it can address real violence in different ways.

I think both shirts are fairly funny, but then I have always been easy to amuse and quick to laugh. Anyone who is incited to violence by these shirts would have to be extremely messed up to start with.

rilee- i guessi should have been explicitly clear. Speech or art that advocates gender influenced violence.

I guess I can see how that would really trip you up there.

I guess if I was picking nits, there is no rock throwing epidemic nor is there any pushing women through the walls of comic balloons into vast nothingness, but I wouldn't do that. I know you were referring to violence against men by women versus violence against women by men, and were simply trying to ridicule my argument.

noname, the point isn't whether it incites you to violence (though if it did this would be an additional reason it's troubling). In fact, it's the fact that you (and, presumably others -- not to single you out) find it funny that makes it troubling. Gender-based violence isn't funny. Period.

I don't think it will lead to violence either. Like I said before, I'm concerned with the effect that gender stereotypes and normalizing hostile gender relations have on children.

I think chains like K-Mart can make technically shirts that say whatever they want, but that they also have a responsibility to promote positive messages for children. We all do. Children don't need to absorb the sexist garbage spewed out by adults, and they don't need to be limited by it.

Do people have the same problem with the very popular "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them." T's for girls, or is this one of those "It's wrong for one gender and not for the other because of the patriarchy" things?

One person insults men once, and that means that assholes get to be misogynists to everyone forever. That's "fair" in the anti-feminist world.

Actually it's more like, misogynists talk shit about women for hundreds of years, every so often a woman gets pissed off and insults men, and misogynists take it as a free pass to talk shit about women for hundreds more years.

CoasttoCoast posted:
i guessi should have been explicitly clear. Speech or art that advocates gender influenced violence.

And I don't think your supposed misandrist analogue advocates gender-related violence. Whether you think it is appropriate, juvenile, whatever, it depends on absurdity for its humor. I don't think it promotes violence because I think it operates within an environment in which it can be plainly assumed that girls do not throw rocks at boys; that girls do not perpetrate physical violence upon boys on a socially meaningful level.

The misogynist joke cannot claim this innocence. These are not analogues.

75% of violence may be against men but it's by the hand of other men. This is patriarchy and since it hurts men and women, coast to coast, et. al. should start their own websites about men's anger management. Alot of violence at the hands of men is due to anger turned outward.

What percentage of violence against men is at the hands of other men? 90% or more?

What percentage of violence against women is at the hands of men? 99%?

Violence is therefore not women's problem but men's. How it affects women is a feminist concern. How it affects men is something men should deal with because feminists have enough to deal with.

Can't the men here start their own websites about men's anger management?

law fairy-
sorry for the late response.
by claiming that one "challenges the establishment" or what have you, you are essentializing what is the "status quo." of course i am not saying that those who challenge said quo are doing a bad thing. all i am saying is that the status quo changes, often because of those who challenge it. what happens when the status quo changes into something worse? or: what happens when it changes into something you support? should those who disagree with said views be shut up? protesting the war, some would say, demeans those fighting in it. at the very least, it demeans those who engineered it or support it. no matter what you protest, you offend sensibilities. the answer to hateful speech is more speech, not gag orders.

remember: i am not saying not to protest. that is the right/role of the consumer. convince those around you that this shirt is disgusting. it is! write letters to Kmart. protest outside the stores. just don't take away people's rights.

my comment re: self-censorship made no sense. what i meant to say is that self-censorship is something we all do, and no one can stop/force us. it does not fall within the bounds of this phenomenon. i am plenty popular at family gatherings, thank you. ;-)

Ahem. The Canadian Children's Rights Council, which apparently called the rock-throwing t-shirt "hate speech" isn't the Canadian government.

It's a non-governmental organisation that looks to be a political action committee and think tank. Considering that it's a Canadian organisation, it looks to be quite right-wing.

The Canadian government never said anything about that shirt; in fact, I'm pretty sure I saw one of them at the mall tonight.

I am Canadian, but I used Google to find all that out.

TLF - I didn't say gender-based violence was funny; I said these shirts are funny (somewhat). One can make a joke about something awful without thinking that that something is funny. Think about whenever there is a disaster: jokes about it are soon to follow. I remember when the space shuttle Challenger exploded and jokes started circulating through my school. We all laughed at the jokes, but I wouldn't say any of us thought the death of seven astronauts was funny, just the tasteless humor which followed. I just looked at the on-line biography of Christa McAuliffe and found it incredibly sad even this far removed from the event. I still, however, chuckle at some of the jokes inspired by the event.

"misogynists talk shit about women for hundreds of years, every so often a woman gets pissed off and insults men, and misogynists take it as a free pass to talk shit about women for hundreds more years."

Bingo (to Amanda as well).

I have an idea. Perhaps every feminist blog going should do nothing but talk about how wonderful, perfect and blameless boys are for about a week. Maybe if we convince them that they are big, strong, sexually skilled boys - who should be coddled and pampered by women - they will think we're now adequately compliant and then get bored and go away.

Then, MAYBE, we could have one single conversation on one feminst blog somewhere where the boy-trolls don't automatically turn it into yet another round of "WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ!!!!!!!"

What do you say?

I tend to agree with those who oppose censorship and support free speech. I'm fond of Voltaire's quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Of course the right to "free speech" also extends to my right to say so if something offends me. I'd never suggest this shirt (or others like it) be made illegal, but I would suggest boycotting K-Mart (I could have sworn they went out of business years ago...) or just not buying shirts like this if you happen find them offensive. If they don't sell, they won't make more, or continue to try and sell more, like it.
That said, as other commenters pointed out, there is such a thing as "self-censorship"--which generally means you don't say inappropriate things in improper settings to certain audiences. Most people would hesitate to cuss like a sailor in front of their grandmother, or have a sexually explicit conversation in front of a room full of 6 year olds. If they did, I think a lot of people (quite rightly) would frown disapprovingly and/or reprimand them for their poorly-considered behavior, and if the guilty party retorted "You're censoring me! I have a right to free speech! I can tell grandma to go fuck herself, or talk about snowballing in front of 1st-graders all I want!" I think you'd see a lot of glaring, eyerolling, and eyebrow-raising.
This shirt's message is inappropriate for its audience, and the people who are protesting its sale are not advocating censorship so much as chiding K-Mart for failing to have the decency and common sense to recognize that it's not an appropriate message to be sending to children, and "self-censoring" themselves by choosing not to sell it. It's not even a sexist issue--I think you'd see a similar reaction if the cartoon man and woman on this shirt were depicted having sex in various exotic positions. That's also not appropriate for children.

For the record, I think the "boys are stupid..." shirt is juvenile and not particularly funny, either. But a quick perusal of the archives of this site alone will provide numerous examples of allegedly "funny" misogynistic tshirts ("It ain't rape if she ain't awake" and "Sorry officer, I didn't know she was 3" spring to mind) that far outnumber their misandrist counterparts. As someone else pointed out, one supports prevailing societal attitudes, and one challenges them. So trotting out that tired example is rather disingenuous. A drop in the bucket does not cancel out an ocean. Okay?

*One thing that I'll always defend is offensiveness. Everything out there is basically going to offend someone.
I may not agree with the KKK but I respect their right to express and say what ever they want. I feel this way about *everything*. Once I start saying someone can't do something because I find it offensive that means others can do the same to me.*

In my opinion, corporations should not have the same protection as a citizen under the bill of rights. A person’s right to free speech and a corporation’s right to make money off of something that is discriminitory and promotes violence, thereby marketing and promoting it, are not the same thing!

Furthermore, having lived in a very different culture and having dated men in that culture, the amount of “playful� violence and joking about violence seen as flirting that takes place in dating in the U.S. astonished me. Also, the general attitudes about partners (that you can’t possibly love your spouse, if you do you are crazy) are appalling.

oh jesus f'in christ who the hell cares. its not advocating violence its just saying girls are annoying. does anyone here think that someone will start hitting women bc of this shirt? or be convinced its an ok thinf to do if they previously werent convinced. when are we going to stop being over sensitive whiners and see the humor in things. god knows you all wouldnt be complaining if it was a man being pushed. then it would be funny. if it was seriousoly advocating gender based violence i would be the first to say WTF but its CLEARLY not.

Lots of generalizations there, katie. Obviously many people do care. And not because they are humorless whiners. Way to be even more offensive.

We're not arguing causation--we're discussing social responsibility, which is obviously a challenge when referring to corporations. Recognizing that gender violence should not be so flippantly marketed to young people is important and should not be shut down with "get over it" declarations particulraly on a feminist website. I would argue that someone who wears this shirt has a pretty sexist view of women, one in which they either expect no objection to it or would use the exact same excuse you did in defending it. I can't imagine one not having to defend himself for wearing it, but, sadly, some people really do have shitty senses of humor. Pop culture plays a pretty strong interactive role in society.

BTW, is coasttocoast the former eschew obfuscation or perhaps xyz?

Katie - if you read the comments in the thread (I know there are a lot of them, but be patient), you will find that your concerns have been addressed by other commenters. Unless, of course, you wanted to leave a poorly-spelled, angry, uninformed diatribe, in which case - mission accomplished.

yeah katie take it down a notch. calling other commenters whiners doesn't sit well with me.

my computer has alot of issues with typekey stuff so excuse my "poorly spelled diatribe". if you were trying to be a condescending brat then-mission accomplished.

my whole point jenn is that its not advocating gender based violence. i do agree there should be corporate responsiblity but you didnt answer any of my questions. do we think it will make boys think beating women is ok? is it not obvious it is a joke? IS it different then "boys are stupid throw rocks at them"? and i still think people are taking it to seriously. i just dont understand why many times people cant see the forest for the trees.and as i said, i would be the first to say and condemn it if it was seriously damaging to society.

katie, what exactly qualifies as "not whining" but instead legitimate, and who appointed you arbiter to decide what this is?

You have to understand you're coming dangerously close to questioning the entire premise of feminism. The point is that there's a "forest" here of sexism, but a lot of people don't believe the forest exists. That's why we need to point out specific "trees" like this, in the hopes that when we finally show enough of these ugly trees, people might start to open their eyes and acknowledge that there's an ugly, oppressive forest out there.

Why is this tree illegitimate? Because YOU are not offended by it? If I'm not offended by the "n"-word (I'm white), does that mean that Michael Richards' audience is oversensitive? Or does it perhaps mean that I'm not sensitive enough?

Where do you draw the line? The shirt clearly indicates that getting rid of a woman will solve (at least temporarily) your "problem" -- the problem, presumably, being that there's a woman there. What if there was no picture and the shirt simply said "Problem: women. Solution: shoving"? What if it said "Problem: women. Solution: violence"? If it said "Let's solve our problems by getting rid of women"? If it said "Women, just die already"? If it said "Kill the women!"??? At what point does it become okay to take offense? Or should we wait until people actually start beating us before we're allowed to protest?

katie-

I can't answer the question as to whether or not it will encourage boys/men to push girls/women around any more than is already the case. It's an empirical question. I doubt it, but I don't think that's what's being argued here. It's the prevailing attitude that allows the shirt to be created and debated in the first place--that pushing a nagging, "hysterical" woman out a window to get her to shut up is a humorous thing to print on a mass-marketed, (most likely) sweatshop-produced t-shirts. (Hmmm...let's think about those connotations shall we--abused women forcibly employed into creating clothing that depicts abuse to women.) Certainly, this is NOT the first time we've seen this kind of sexist attitude in print or anywhere really.

I would argue that as long as we live in a gendered world, where we can identify one of the stick figures as male and another as female, in the face of serious problems of gender violence in all aspects of society, this t-shirt is advocating violence. It's representing it as funny and lighthearted when it's not at all something to joke about. No, I don't think the reverse shirt is funny either, but it is not representative of an actual problem that exists in society and that was, until just a few decades ago, considered a personal problem rather than a legal one. Nevermnind the fact that it's a global human rights issue.

Everything is intertwined. There are deeper issues revealed when we analyze and debate these "trivial" things. I don't think it's as black and white as you're trying to make it.

ok the point about the boys throwing rocks thing is a good one. its not epidemic. i also totally agree that there is a forest of anti feminism and you have to see all of it. its not just big issues, alot of the time its the smaller stuff that is more insidious. perhaps so insidios that i dont even consider this offensive i dont know. people draw their lines in different places. .

I don't find the "throw rocks at them" tag to be offensive. I don't think children should be wearing shirts with that on them, but there's quite a difference between that a throwing someone out a window :\

I'm trying to figure out how or why anyone can defend K-Mart's decision to sell this shirt. Nobody's suggesting that the feds march down there and confiscate them; just that if K-Mart won't sell T-shirts with profanity or nudity on them in the children's section, they shouldn't sell shirts that are marketed on the presumption that little boys will find something funny about throwing a woman out a window to "shut her up."

Panel 3 is presumably the boy looking down at whatever's left of the girl and shouting "See what you made me do?"

The fact that MRAs actually defended this shirt proves that there is no position they won't take if they perceive it to be anti-feminist. Thanks, guys. You have now officially lost your last ounce of credibility.

Cheers,

TH

Well, there are girls shirts like that are about "how to drop a boyfriend" where the girl literally hits the boy, that's just as bad, if you don't agree you are a 2 faced S*B.

Well, there are girls shirts like that are about "how to drop a boyfriend" where the girl literally hits the boy, that's just as bad, if you don't agree you are a 2 faced S*B.