20090324

Ride the tiger



What do you notice about the event flyer?

It appears as if the knight is riding the tiger.

Why would that be a problem?

The knight is a representation of a male fraternity and the tiger is a representation of a female sorority.

First thing that popped into my mind is "Who in the sorority approved that?"

Who approved a picture that people could interpret as a guy riding a girl or further implying that the girls associated with this group are 'easy'?

My problem with this image is that it perpetuates gender role stereotyping; men dominate women.

What do you think?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well yes you have interpreted it in that way but most people will just see a knight riding a tiger. Males have generally been placed as the dominate ones. I think this is just the role most males take in the animal kingdom it is not uncommon even among us humans. Egalitarianism is a very dangerous path to follow, tread carefully.

rarehero said...

The difference between human beings and non-human beings is that people form cultures that promote different things. Amerikan culture promotes male dominance. Enough is enough and it is time for a change.

Anonymous said...

I will have to disagree. Well most human cultures throughout history promoted male dominance. The US seems to be less guilty of this. And while I hate the US culture, I try to see things as they are. I think that women have lost sight of what it means to be a women and the privilege it is to be one. I believe the woman's rights movement went too far in many aspects. And many women who were involved it it would agree.

rarehero said...

What does it mean to be a woman?

How did the women's rights movement go too far? Double standards are all over the place. Check out http://www.equalitynow.org/
for more information.

Anon said...

First I would like to point out my views on rights. I think labeling rights as women's, black, animal or whatever blurrs what a right really is. A right is not given to us by any organization be that a charity, government or business but we are endowed with these rights at birth. They are natural to us as humans and we can understand them even at a very young age. These rights are simple and based on self ownership. We own our time, energy, labor, body and property. We may use these to better our lives and the lives of others as we deem fit. We may also waste them if we feel the need to because it is what we own and to take these away from us is slavery. We all have these same rights and carry them equally no matter age, gender, race, etc. I will give you a few examples. I see taxation as theft on a grand scale by the gang that calls itself government. We contract with companies to trade our labor for paper notes through free will. But at some point of time we are forced to give up a portion of our property to the gang or we would be forced from even more property and/or locked in a cage. And if we resist them enough they will kill us. All because we wanted to keep all that is rightly ours. As another example, if a man or women decided to smoke meth then that would be harmful to the body but they would have to the right to do what they will with that body that they own. I would not suggest someone to do this because I think it is a wrong choice in life and is obviously harmful but i would not have the right to force them to stop.


The women's rights movement went too far because it forced people to treat women at an equal level as men. Although I agree with you that it is wrong to treat someone badly just because of gender it is my right to do what I will with my property. If I wish not to hire a person because she is a woman, it is my right, in the same way as it is when I refuse to let somone in my home. It is the application of force that is the problem not the change in culture.

flailingmaster said...

all of the following comments are directed at anon / anonymous. I'll number them so you can respond in turn.

1. using "the animal kingdom" as an example is unjustified on two fronts, a/ it's not true. when comparing the two primates most similar to humans you'll find that chimps are a male-dominated species and bonobos are a female-dominated species. the two species are equally similar to humans. (from dewaal, our inner ape 2005) b/ this example, faulty as it is, combined with "most human cultures throughout history" merely implies that what is is what should be. this is an unproven assumption.

2. your complaints about the women's rights movement in the final paragraph beginning with "the women's rights movement went too far" are faulty to me. to illustrate, replace every instance of "women" with "blacks" and "gender" with "race" (obviously.) if you can find anything wrong with the reasoning of the resulting statement applied in say pre-civil war or even 1950's America, you should be able to find the flaw in your reasoning.

3. acknowledge that there is a difference between "equal treatment" ("the same as") and "equal treatment" ("fairly.") I assume that you think women should be treated "fairly." if you don't think so, this blog really isn't the place to start a discussion of that magnitude.

Anon said...

I agree that the use of the animal kingdom was a weak point to make. But why I disagree with rarehero is because he sounds egalitarian. How would you get men to treat women as equal? Would you convince the government to use it's monopoly of force to do what you want? And if I were to break some law against women that what would you have done to me? And yes I can replace women with blacks gender with race and still feel valid in my argument. If I were to expel any person of color from my business then I would be at loss and people would eventually not do business with me that felt I was wrong. Legal or not it is my right to do so because just as you do not have to welcome me into your building called home I do not have to let you enter my building called store. I am not arguing about the morality of it just what rights we carry. Would you disagree that I have the right to expel a person from my store because of an ignorant hatred of a race?

rarehero said...

A government should not have to force people to treat others with dignity and respect. It should be natural. It should be something people want. However, for some, somewhere along the way, the need to own things has overshadowed that.

It's obvious that for you Anon, the need to be completely autonomous overshadows anything else in your life. You sure don't want a government (or anyone else telling you what to do or what you should be doing). Maybe its time to evaluate what it means to be a human being. What goals do you have for yourself, family, or for your community? How are those goals going to provide any satisfaction in your life?

flailingmaster said...

anon,
you have several extraordinary flaws in your reasoning that you need to address:
2/ you missed the analogy. the 1950's were not about one person throwing another out of one store. it's a system. actions aggregate in this system and have broad reaching consequences; some rules are necessary to curb these larger consequences.

thank you for responding to 1 and 2. 3, however is important because you haven't acknowledged whether or not "fairness" is a principle that needs to be enforced in societies and / or groups of people living together (without jumping to a discussion of how it's enforced.)

4/ "I'm not arguing about the morality of it." this is a sad irony. you can't discuss "rights" outside of the context of morality. back up for a second and ask yourself why they're called "rights" in the first place. I'll give you a hint: it's not because they're the opposite of "lefts."

5/ I'll synthesize 2 and 4 for you; discussing "rights" without considering the consequences of exercising these rights on other people makes no sense. furthermore, once you've introduced other people into your little thought experiment, you'd be horrendously narcissistic (among other adjectives) to neglect a discussion of what their rights are and how all your rights can play nicely with each other.

your arguments are incongruous. given your interest in "rights" some reading might help sort things out: j.s. mills "on liberty" and john rawls "the original position." if you really insist on pretending like you're an anarchist, read some nozick ("anarchy, state, and utopia.") when you stated "first, I would like to point out my views..." I assumed you were reiterating locke, but it's apparent that your perspectives are incomplete. what I mean is, you started on a path, but you haven't gotten to the end of it yet. locke walked down that road a few centuries ago. look into his second "treatise of goverment" to complete the thought.

AFTER that, THEN come back and PERHAPS we can start over with our discussion of hegemonic masculinity.

take your time. I'll be waiting.

Anon said...

On 3
Fairness is subjective and should not be forced but by the property owner.

Before I answer fully I would like to invite you to watch this short video. It is a nice short sum of my philosophy. Maybe I am not too good at explaining myself. I never can find many people to have an intellectual conversation with. I am enjoying it greatly. I am open to change my mind but I am confident on where i stand so please do not take me to be cocky. And I just realized that I need to read what I typed before I click publish lol.

Anon said...

Rights and morality are not the same thing I think we can both agree on this. Your morals can greatly affect what you do with your rights but do not change what your, or anyone elses, rights are. If I see something as being immoral, even if this person was in their right, I have my choices to consider. I can use my rights to counter act his immorality, I can ostracize this person or I can violate his rights and use aggression against him. If someone were to be consistently immoral then you can be sure that society would put pressure on this person or business to be otherwise.

I was simply trying to explain what a right is since so many people have not learned or are confused. Today, it would not be hard to find someone that would say "health care is a right" even thought health care is not provided by nature. As I said before, we all have the same rights. Through consent and contract is the only virtuous way to take something from someone. I thought that it would be easy to see how this concept would play out between people. I am in full ownership of myself and property and you are with yours. How we interact is up to our mutual consent.

I do not pretend to be an anarchist. I understand people associate the word with chaos or immature punk kids because the meaning of the word has been misused for such a long time. My position is founded in logic with a mature mind and many hours of thinking and reading. And I think Murray Rothbard+ did a great job countering Robert Nozick's book. So I must say I am an anarcho-capitalist with no pretending needed. I Like I said before change my mind because I am very open to it. I even challenge myself which is how I got to this conclusion. I am no utopian, I know the world would not be perfect if the world was the way I would want it to be.

Post a Comment

Thank you for sharing. I appreciate that you viewed this content and that it was worth enough thought for you to comment about it.