i can see how they could promote discrimination against women. not only that, they are not funny.
I have yet to see any dead-baby jokes create any dead-baby urinals. Your logic is cud.
Depends on the joke, depends upon the context. The toilets are stupid, but they don't make me wanna piss on a woman.
Finally I can even the score!
"We found that, upon exposure to sexist humor, men higher in sexism discriminated against women by allocating larger funding cuts to a women’s organization than they did to other organizations,"
so.... if you remind sexist men they are sexist right before you ask them to do non-sexist things, they will behave even more sexist-ly than usual. got it?
Are you offended by gummi tits and urinals but not the scantily clad escort ads that help pay your rent? Huh?
bottom line--it involves, but is not limited to rebellion against the previous (parental in some cases) generation.
the staff's parents generation protested sexist symbols therefore the staff posts them. The previous generation (some of them) liked the Beatles therefore their offspring professes to hate them. Some in the previous generation marched against a war therefore the next generation (some of the stranger staff) dump on people who march against a war in the 21st century.
Time marches on..
Thanks for pointing this out Erica. I truly hate blond jokes and sometimes find myself telling blond women that I find a joke made by them about being blond offense. It is worse when a man makes the joke about women, but women shouldn't participate either.
But what KIND of "women's organization"? A flaccid talkie advocacy group, or a DV shelter? If it's the former, it doesn't take a toilet shaped like a heroin addict to hurt their funding.
And "then were asked how much they'd be willing to give" is just horsecrap, not science. Western Carolina University, huh?
Gummy breasts, therefore woman-shaped urinals? I don't see how this follows.
Woman-shaped urinals are troubling to me. Boobie pasta, not so much. But, shit like this should be outlawed.
This is your fascist side, Erica. It's what I hate about you. Love the fascist, hate the fascism.
and what about the problem of making men feel like they can pee in women?
No shit. They only teach her how to "cook" two fucking cupcakes. She's on her way to domestic violence city, where her life will actually get a hell of a lot cooler. So no bigs.
Something tells me that if this study said:
"Jokes about Chinese drivers and dumb blacks may be told in good fun, but they can promote discrimination against people of colour, researchers say.
...you all would be saying, "They need to cite RESEARCH to prove that????"
More bad interpretation of social science on Slog (see brandon's comment). I'm so surprised.
I also have to agree with Fnarf that the study itself doesn't seem to be well-designed enough to be conclusive. At least the studies Dan cites actually mean SOMEthing.
Let's not leap straight to the most abstract conclusion--"Jokes about female drivers and dumb blondes may be told in good fun, but they can promote discrimination against women"--which is already a third-hand gloss on the study. Instead, we could try looking at the actual language of the study, what the subjects were asked to do, and think about what that might mean in a limited sense. Then we could look at the limited conclusions of the researchers and see if we agree
Seriously: if us lib-ruls are going to replace god with science, and therefore try to hoist our Truth flag higher than the Jebus folk, we might as well try understand the "science" we resort to to explain our lives and our stances.
@13 - I knew a girl who liked to be peed in. Is she the enemy?
You're right, the conclusions of the study are obvious. But that's because, as per brandon's reasoning, the study's conclusions are somewhat teleological. The study doesn't show what we seem to want to interpret from it, which is that sexist jokes make NON-sexist men become sexist.
How I've missed slogging in the afternoons! Thanks Erica!
Now I'm really in the mood for one of Charles' posts. Something with a picture of a building, a beautiful black woman, and a beautiful black ass...
Aw come on, Erica. Who the fuck would put that thing in their bathroom, anyway? Bret Michaels?
@18 -- all it said was that these jokes "can promote discrimination against women." That's not an attack on non-sexist men, as far as I can see.
I'm fairly certain I couldn't find another male urinal if I looked, ECB. Two female-shaped urinals, one male-shaped urinal. This scientific study is conclusive proof that women are 100% more socially disrespected than men. Great work!
Anyways: that you can equate jokes that actively malign women with tacky breast-shaped novelties in terms of meaning, and don't feel at all inclined to defend that idea, is primarily what is baffling. In Egalitarian Parallel Universe, misogynist jokes will probably not be very common, but boob-shaped pasta will likely continue to enjoy its place as a dumb gag gift, on the shelf right next to the penis pasta. Why wouldn't it? Why is it intrinsically degrading? If the answer is, "It's the context ..." then maybe it's the context that is worth complaining about, not the breast novelties.
Also: why don't they ever address the long term in these studies? Ask these same people again what they would donate a week later, without subjecting them to the jokes.
My girl (who is fourteen years my junior) will not let me pee on her. But luckily for me, society is slowly evolving to accept men peeing on women, and I just need to wait a bit longer? Is that it?
Ok, while I almost never agree with ECB on anything, those urinals do make me want to throw up.
TSM @ 22: Actually, if you went to the link I put up on my last post, you'd find lots more. It's not just those two by any means
I agree. And I meant to say that the conclusions study was tautological, not teleological (oops!), although the study design appears to be that, too.
The study doesn't say:
"Sexist jokes make non-sexist men become sexist."
and it says:
"Sexist jokes promote sexism in sexist men."
In other words, the study simply serves to define the active sexism of the men it already names as sexist.
Which is to say:
"To be sexist is to behave sexistly."
If we needed a definition of sexism, fine, but I don't know that this lends anything to Erica's argument.
if i let a guy pee inside of me during anal sex, is that considered an enema?
Q. Why is the space between a women's breasts and her hips called a waist?
A. Because you could easily fit another pair of tits in there.
hoo boy thats a great joke! informative too, on things such as anatomy and physics.
awww hells no, its celebratory, and respectful...of the glory of tits.
mmmmm gummi tits.
From whence we all came.
All over Canada the holes in urinals are commonly arranged in a penis shape. Is this evidence of a great north-of-the-border man-hating conspiracy? Or simply evidence of Erica weakening her argument substantially by saying 'it doesn't happen to men'?
Erica shut the fuck up and go to any Buca di Beppo restaurant where even the door handles to the men's restroom are shaped like penises.
Oh and West Carolina State is really a bastion for scientific research. Petty arguments like this only under cut real feminism.
Overreaction. Listen, if a guy wants to pretend that he's pissing on some random, faceless woman, all that really means is that he likes being able to feel as though he dominates all women with his powerful man-stream. He just gets to convince himself that womenn, faceless, inferior skanks that they are, are less than him. What's the problem here?
I'm so baffled by some of these responses! Where does Erica say this is evidence of a "woman-hating conspiracy"? She's pointing out evidence that sexism still exists in our supposedly (according to some of you, it seems), completely eqalitarian society. If it's news to any of you that our culture degrades women's bodies more than men's, and gives men more access to power, then you haven't been reading the most influential publications out there: the Bible, and porn (not to mention the daily news).
I'm not sure why you all are so defensive about this reality, and so vehemently angry at Erica for pointing it out. If you're not sexist, then why take this personally?
While the woman-shaped urinals are bizarre and disgusting, I don't see how they can be equated with gummy boobs in terms of sexism. The urinals don't need any context to be understood as demeaning to women; disembodied breasts, on the other hand, make no such obviously sexist connections. (Really, what do gummy boobs mean? Breasts are full of sugar?)
Irena, the reason you are baffled is that you are a blockhead. The comments you are reading are trying to explain to you what is wrong with the Taliban version of pseudo-feminism that finds threats to women in all forms of erotica. You read the words, and they bounce off your third wave force field, having no effect at all. Hence, blockhead.
Many people have read screeds saying that porn is an attack on women's bodies and so on, and have rejected it as bullshit. You could debate that, but the problem is not that you are the only person who has read that crap. It's just that you and Erica are some of the only ones who buy into it.
You should meditate on the kind of reasoning you use. "If you're not sexist, then why take this personally?" Didn't Joe McCarthy say "If you're not a Communist, then what do you have to be afraid of?" Erica is trying to police other people's thoughts and expressions, and many people take that personally. It's fascism.
elenchos, I have to admit I got a giggle out of this. And I'm sure my male friends will be amused to hear that I'm a "blockhead" (sweet!) and that only a tiny minority of "pseudo-feminists" (the new Taliban, apparently. Men, lock up your sons!) are aware that porn can be degrading to women. Funny, there seem to be quite a few men out there who agree with me. Guess they're brainwashed, huh?
Okay, look. If you could successfully twist my or Erica's statements into some kind of absolutist call for policing and censorship of people's thoughts, or convince me that either of us "finds threats to women in all forms of erotica," then you'd have a point. But we don't. I love erotica. I love sexy pictures. And I sure don't agree that ALL porn is degrading to women. But if you're arguing that NONE of it is, then sorry, bud, you don't have a case.
Most importantly, here, is that you are confusing cultural critique with fascism. Dude, we live in free countries -- we have a right to criticize what we see and hear! If that's fascism, then the entire Slog is fascist! Yep, Erica's a femi-nazi, and Dan's a homo-nazi. And you are completely oppressed, here, complaining freely away about our jack-boot fascism.
Funniest thing about this is how much you have in common with those feminists who DO overreact (by saying that all hetero sex is rape, for example). I've got no patience for any of it. You deserve each other.
Here is a clown urinal!
@36: Irena, I think I love you.
I have a simple test for whether or not something is sexist:
Would people freak out if you replaced the questionable female image with one that was stereotypically racial? In other words, if you were peeing on a naked caricature of an African-American, a Native American, a Hispanic, whatever, would people flip out? If so, the image in question is indeed offensive to the thus-stereotyped population.
Do you think people would flip out if there were urinals shaped like naked lawn jockeys, or Chief Wahoos? I do. In fact, I pretty much guaran-damn-tee it.
Most of what the clueless like to apostrophize as "PC" is nothing more nor less than common sense and courtesy.
Oh, and fuck people that are so insecure in themselves that they need to pee on stereotyped images of others to feel powerful. That's just lame.
@27 - It's the only way to feel truly clean.
What about, it's a fucking stupid, offensive, and shitty design for a toilet? If it makes the Bukowski quoting shitheads feel more hardcore pissing in it, more power to them. But it doesn't speak highly for the creators or the fans of the toilet. If that's rebellion, then rebellion is dead.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).