Tee hee hee, violence is funny when the victim is a man!

Well, that first bit is silly. I'm not even going to get into the debate that's going to pop up about that.

I enjoy the second message though. I think it's important to remind people that if you see someone in trouble, do something! I'm not saying try to fight the attacker off alone and put yourself in danger, but simply calling the police can help. Tell other people around you and form a group that can intervene safely. I hear about crimes all the time that could have been brought to a halt or at least prosecuted but weren't because bystanders chose to not even report it.

SiF, you're a real treasure. Between the 'tee hees' and rape apologism, you're like the most perfect troll ever.

Well, I don't know if SiF is a troll or not, but I'm serious about this question (also, I wasn't aware of the earlier time you posted this, so I'm sure my question has already been asked in this fashion. Please humor me, just this once!):

"Careful! Men answer back!
If you stupidly stare at a man, talk rubbish or touch him, you have to be aware that he might insult you loudly, a glass of beer is emptied over you or you might be hit in the face. We strongly advise you to refrain from this kind of harrassments."

Is this warning less acceptable, more acceptable, or about the same as the one you posted?

Seriously, I want to know. I know men act boorishly, heck I used to be guilty of that myself. Assuming it is therefore acceptable for a woman to smack a man for acting loutish toward her, I'm asking if the opposite is also acceptable: if I'm in a bar, and a drunk idiotic woman starts acting loutish toward me, I should be able to smack her, pour beer on her, etc., right?

Roll your eyes, call me troll, whatever: I really want to know. If you think you've explained it 1 million times before, please understand that I wasn't a member of the audience at that time. Seriously -- I see a double standard here. Please tell me why there isn't one, if you indeed think there isn't one.

Thanks.

Let me put it simply, Scarbo. Women are victims of acts of violence perpetrated by men every minute, they live with the threat of rape and sexual violence. However, I am not aware of any rampant woman-on-man violence. Unless I missed the hordes of rabid hairy-legged lesbians terrifying men all around.
This poster is a joke because men are not usually afraid of female violence. The opposite is NOT true. I hope it was clear enough.

I don't support violence of any kind. BUT I do like this sign -- I'm not taking it literally, but I appreciate its message. I think Scarlet is correct; women are VERY frequently victims of violence and harassment, and in many cases they feel too scared and alone to know what to do. There's a lot to be said for standing up for yourself and saying back, "HEY! That's unacceptable."

So no, I wouldn't smack someone. But I would try to fight back in a productive way.

where do I get one in english? Fuckin' right mood on.

Hi Scarbo. Go to the Feminist 101 blog (finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com), read "Please Read This First," click on the link by #1 (Sent here by feminists?), read that, then go to the FAQ Roundup and read to your heart's delight. I recommend the FAQs about "why do you feminists hate men?" and "aren't feminists just sexists towards men?" You might also want to check out the stuff about defining patriarchy, because your comment sounds like you don't know what that is. Checkitout. (BTW, I'd link you, but my last comment got eaten because I included too many hyperlinks. So I guess you'll have to do a little work to answer your questions. Awww.)

Maybe this is where being an English major comes in handy. Oh, those whacky parallel constructions! Try reading it this way (as it is clearly grammatically structured to be read):

Leering at someone? Watch out, you might be loudly insulted for doing so.

Talking shit to someone, calling her frigid or a dyke because she won't go home with you? Watch out, you might get a pint of lager dumped over your head (though hopefully not good lager, because that stuff should not be wasted... yum!)

Groping or fondling strangers? Watch out, you might get a smack in the mouth.

When you take into account the obviously parallel structure, each one of those reactions is arguably proportionate to the provoking action. It would be proportional whether the party doing the reacting was male or female, but the sign is addressed to men because by and large, they're the ones doing the leering and not the ones telling the leerer to go fuck off.

I just love my liberal arts education.

Nice poster.

Next time a woman annoys me, I'll smack her. Hard.

Great message. I don't see what's to like.

Yes, UCLA, I'm sure you get groped by women all the time. And don't forget the hairy-legged hordes, they're out to get you.

Must be nice to be shielded by all that privilege.

I think this poster is hilarious and awesome. I was going to defend it but Scarlet pretty much summed up my thoughts.

"Groping or fondling strangers? Watch out, you might get a smack in the mouth."

Tbat sounds find to me, especially if it is repeated.

What doesn't make sense to me is celebrating violence against someone who stares at you or annoys you (the first two thinks listed in the poster). Not how I was raised, anyways.

Also note that the highest level of violence mentioned in this poster is "a smack in the face", yet UCLA likens it to "smacking down a woman (hard)".

"Yes, UCLA, I'm sure you get groped by women all the time. And don't forget the hairy-legged hordes, they're out to get you. Must be nice to be shielded by all that privilege."

First off, you have no idea what level of privilige I have because you don't know my personal circumstances.

Second, responding to violence with violence is okay in my book.

Responding to non-violent behavior with violence is not. Which is what the poster supports.

UCLA, the reactions mentioned are, in that order: insulting, pouring a glass of beer over you and slapping you. I think we can safely assume that a stare is met with an insult rather than a slap in the face. Unless you're afraid that you're going to get your arse kicked by all these out of control women.

(kmg's post above makes a lot of sense, but I wrote this before that was up and still think it's worth posting. Also, the image on the poster still focuses on the slap as a response, and shades the reading of the text somewhat.)

I'm referring only to the first paragraph, and the illustration, here—I don't think there's anything particularly controversial in the second.

Arguments why this is acceptable: A "double standards" accusation here is overly simplistic, because it doesn't take into account the prevailing power dynamics in (most) Western cultures. "Laddishness", or whatever you prefer to call an indulgence of harrassment of women on the part of many men, is very present and widely accepted. The notion of women as display pieces is deeply ingrained. The idea that any woman in a public place is "fair game" for unsolicited commentary/critique/sexual propositioning is similarly ingrained. Given such a situation, it makes sense (and is moral) to break other social taboos in order to highlight the fact that these behaviors are, in fact, unacceptable. Hence a slap to make sure nobody thinks it's all "in good fun" makes perfect sense.

Arguments why this is unacceptable: Violence is simply wrong as a response to anything less than actual or threatened violence ("being touched", however, when it's unwanted, seems like it could be a violent act itself, and responding to it as such seems reasonable). Lots of people (including plenty of women) regard eye contact or looks as valid markers of interest, and making an extremely subjective criterion like that (is it that easy to distinguish between various kinds of looks and where they become "stupid stares"?) into a valid reason for a violent response is quite dubious. The same goes for "talking rubbish", although something important may have been lost in translation there. Wouldn't an assertive response of "Stop staring at me" or "Go away" be better, at least as step one, rather than going right to the beer-dumping or face-slapping?

Furthermore, the idea that face-slapping is acceptable when it's a woman hitting a man is tied in to all kinds of other cultural assumptions, many of which appear to be linked to the underpinnings of patriarchy. Nobody in Western cultures would view a man slapping another man in the face as anything other than a violent act that would (very likely) provoke a violent response. That a woman slapping a man is viewed differently is predicated on the idea that women are the "weaker sex", that they are simply unable to challenge a man physically, and (to a lesser but still present extent) that they cannot deliver a challenge to a man's "honor" or "social prestige" in such a way—you're not likely to hear a man called "chicken" by other men after presenting no physical response to a slap from a woman, whereas you would hear that a lot if the slap were from a man.

I don't think that's a trivial consideration, because that poster looks to me as if it's encouraging women to assert their rights while still relying heavily on a whole host of conceptions tied in with sexist constructs of gender. I understand that not everyone would see it that way, that some people do not think equality means that gender is considered irrelevant in violent situations. In addition, presumably some support the poster's sentiment on the grounds that relying on those patriarchal conceptions is just fine, a judo-like turning sexism against itself. If so, I think that still needs to be explicitly recognized and called out, and the dangers of such an approach admitted.

Plenty of food for thought and discussion, which is presumably why it's so controversial.

First off, you have no idea what level of privilige I have because you don't know my personal circumstances.

Well, I think you mentioned in another thread that you are a man. So if you are, you certainly enjoy the privilege of not being fondled by strangers and of not being afraid of sexual violence.

SCARLET: "Also note that the highest level of violence mentioned in this poster is "a smack in the face", yet UCLA likens it to "smacking down a woman (hard)".

Scarlet, notice how I described exactly what the poster displays.

The poster display one person smacking another in the face. I'm going out on a limb and assuming that huge bright red star on the face indicates that the smack is hard.

Hence the reason I described it as smacking hard. Because that's exactly what the poster shows. Clear enough?

UCLA, when was the last time you were threatened or harrassed by a woman?

I thought the red star was to show that it was a smack and not a loving caress.

"UCLA, the reactions mentioned are, in that order: insulting, pouring a glass of beer over you and slapping you. I think we can safely assume that a stare is met with an insult rather than a slap in the face."

That's not how I interpret it. Not as a progression from one to another, but as possible acceptable responses. Especially given the visual representation.

Even if we go with your interpretation, I don't see how being stared at or annoyed merits violent response.

Further, 12% of men in relationships are hit by their partner each year. Usually this is a rare occurrence, but I don't see the benefit in promoting more of it.

I'd like to point everyone back to KMG's post.

It seemed very clear to me upon firsting reading that they're saying if you touch or group someone you may get hit.--not in response to leering or verbal harrasment.

also difference between how something "might" happen and how something "will" happen.

"Well, I think you mentioned in another thread that you are a man. So if you are, you certainly enjoy the privilege of not being fondled by strangers and of not being afraid of sexual violence."

I'd say it's much more complex than that.

First, as a man, obviously I'm more likely to be assaulted.

Second, as a disabled man, my ability to defend myself is somewhat limited, particulary if a serious fight was to break out.

So in those senses, it is in my personal interest to discourage physical violence as an acceptable response

Going the other direction, however, I have quite a large body frame, which can be intimidating and dissuade an assault. In that sense, and the sense that you mention, I am priviliged.

My having that privilege though doesn't change my attitude about violent responses to non-violent threat. As a guy, certainly I have faced situations where someone tuants you or tries to taunt you into a fight. In my opinion, it's best not to respond with violence to those non-violent situations.

That's my opinion.

UCLA, don't tell me you can compare man-on-woman violence to woman-on-man violence. Your statistics don't change anything to the fact that women live in fear of male violence, while the opposite is NOT true. (We're not talking about domestic violence here, but harrassment by strangers. And even in the realm of domestic violence, the tremendous majority of cases concern male on female violence).
The poster is only saying that men shouldn't behave in crass ways because they don't expect women to retaliate (hence the title of the poster "Be careful! Women can defend themselves!").

SCARLET: "The poster is only saying that men shouldn't behave in crass ways because they don't expect women to retaliate (hence the title of the poster "Be careful! Women can defend themselves!")."

Just so we are clear about what I am saying:

A) I do think that a physical response is acceptable when faced with a physical assault (e.g., groping).

B) I do not think that physical response typically is acceptable when faced with a verbal harassment or being stared at.

C) I interpret the poster as advocating both part a and part b.

D) In some extreme situations, I could see a violent assault being appropriate as a response to continued unending up in your face harassment. But certainly not as a typical response.

I want one. Everything sounds more intense in German.

UCLA: You just need to chill out and quit trying to suppress free speech, man.

Who cares if it advocates violence? It's just an opinion. Chill dude, don't try and run all over the constitution.

SCARLET: "UCLA, don't tell me you can compare man-on-woman violence to woman-on-man violence."

I didn't tell you that. I was, in fact, treating them as two separate things (I never mentioned female on male violence).

Obviously female on male violence is much lower and, on average, is less severe. My point is to not encourage more of it.

I think the main issue you and I are having is that we differ over what the poster is saying.

If you think it is saying to respond to groping and other physical invasions with violence, then that seems uncontroversial.

If you think it saying to respond to verbal harrassment with violence, then that seems more controversial to me.

MIRANDAJAY: "UCLA: You just need to chill out and quit trying to suppress free speech, man.

Who cares if it advocates violence? It's just an opinion. Chill dude, don't try and run all over the constitution."

Dude, did I ever say it should be censored or banned?

No, I didn't think so.

UCLA, I'm wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse here. Given three levels of offense, and three levels of response, and you starting a statement "even if we go with your interpretation", why are you matching level three to level one? Her point is that level one matches level one.

Let me spell it out:

"Being stared at" (all of these are bad translations; I'll write my own further down, but even going with these...) = Insulting

"Talk rubbish" = beer poured on you

"touch her" = slapped

These are, in fact, proportional responses even as stated, but it might become clearer with a better translation (I used to live in Germany, though I didn't grow up speaking the language -- if there's a native speaker here who feels improvement is possible, please don't let me slow you down):

Warning! Women defend themselves!

If you leer at, verbally harass, or grab a woman, you need to deal with the fact that you might be loudly insulted, have a glass of beer emptied over you, or get slapped in the face. We therefore strongly recommend that you refrain from these kinds of harassment.

Women, migrants, the homeless, transgender people, gays and lesbians are often victims of assault. Don't look away, confront it!

If you grab a woman, and all she does is slap you in the face, you got off easy. Once you make it clear that you are a physical threat, I wouldn't fault her for bringing her knee up into your crotch as hard as she can.

And yes, before you ask, this goes both ways. If you get cornered by a woman who is (as most men are to most women) substantially larger and stronger than you are (or is otherwise obviously a physical threat), and she starts grabbing you, and you decide to hit her to get clear, I've got no problem with that, either.

But only when you end up with the same threat level that women get to deal with on a regular basis.

UCLA: Miranda was being sarcastic. There was a discussion in "Um, Wow," that provides the context for her comment. She was actually agreeing with you.

I saw these posted in the bathrooms at Oktoberfest in Munich last year. Never have i witnessed women fondled, groped, and sexually harrassed so intensely as during the festival. However many of the people there were really cool about helping women get away from gropers and fondlers which was awesome.

It's a metaphor, guys. Can you please put yourself in our position instead of being so f***ing sensitive about our concerns?

Do you know how it feels to wonder whether the male on the other side of the street is a good guy or a bad guy? That's not man-hating, that's justifiable anxiety. You'd feel the same way if you were us. That doesn't mean we think you're all like that, or even most of you.

Sure, there are bad women, too, but men have a monopoly on violence in our society. And the thing I can't understand is why even the good men don't seem to be with us on this issue. Any time we try to take action to protect women from domestic violence -- action against the BAD guys -- it's always led by womens' advocates. Where are you good guys??? We're your girlfriends, wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, and we're being hurt by this. You ought to be helping us instead of getting bent out of shape over a poster. You help us and we'll embrace you.

So, no, guys, I don't interpet this as advocating some man-hating female-on-INNOCENT male violence. But instead of getting all angry about this, the good men ought to be advocating adding a man's figure next to the woman's -- and having him fight the metaphorical bad guy with us.

Sweet. The next time a woman stupidly stares at me, talks rubbish, or otherwise irritates me I get to dump a beer over her head and hit her in the face? Of course not.

Obviously, this get placed in the "women are children" category as women have tantrums, throw things, and hit people when they are irritated because they are actually little girls without self-control and are not expected to behave like reasonable adults. Brings to mind the wifey trowing pots and pans stereotype.

Thoughts:

This doesn't offend me because 1) I don't identify with leerers or gropers, and 2) the first part is obviously meant to be a silly attention-grabber as opposed to last line, which is the real and nonviolent message.

I do see how it could be interpreted as anti-male rather than anti-harasser, but I'd say that interpretation is overly defensive. Although I'm guessing that most of the people defending it would be quick to take the defensive about a poster showing anything negative happening to a woman...

Analysis: why is it ok to laugh at violence here? Harassment by a male furthers a real societal power imbalance, while responding to and laughing at retaliation lessens the imbalance. That's the idea if I understand correctly, and I agree.

However, there's more to the story. The poster plays on the stereotype that men are abusive to women. "But wait!" you say, "it's true." Most abusers are men, yes, but just because there is some truth to a negative stereotype doesn't make it ok. The point is that negative stereotypes aren't as damaging to white males as they are to others. White males don't get passed over for promotions (etc.) because of stereotypes nearly as often as others, because the people doing the passing over are usually, yeah, white males.

The issue is subtle, and although making snarky comments about guys who honestly see a double standard and want to understand the issue is easier than trying to explain it, it's even harder for us guys to understand the issue from women's perspective when the only input we're given is how much of a tool we are for asking questions.

Sincerely,
Typical male bullshit asshole tool of the patriarchy etc.

"Do you know how it feels to wonder whether the male on the other side of the street is a good guy or a bad guy? That's not man-hating, that's justifiable anxiety. You'd feel the same way if you were us. That doesn't mean we think you're all like that, or even most of you." - MsPitt

This is why I have no qualms about saying that most men don't see women as people. If they did, they would feel empathy for us - especially when it comes to male-on-female violence.

But they don't.

"Being stared at" = Insulting

"Talk rubbish" = beer poured on you

"touch her" = slapped

(1) and (3) are fine. (2) escalates verbal harassment to assault. Not advisable. There is definitely a trope in popular media of female on male violence being okay and amusing. It can be cast at either spectrum, the prissy girly girl slapping an uncouth suitor or the harsh virago pushing around the effete male. Not cool or funny.

That said, the message of the shirt is the final line. It's an important message. Presented overzealously? Maybe a little. Important, nonetheless.

Am I the only one who took the "slap on the face" suggestion as a joke or exaggeration?

In movies and popular culture, it's a common joke to have a woman slap a sexist man. I don't see how this is any different. I doubt the poster is meant literally.

"(2) [Talk rubbish = beer poured on you] escalates verbal harassment to assault."

Johan, do you know what normally happens right after a "rubbish" comment? Probably not, since you're a man. Let me enlighten you: no matter what the woman's verbal response (including silence), often the very next thing from the man is a THREAT OF VIOLENCE. Because the original comment included, by default, an UNSTATED threat of violence. This is the reality that women live with every moment of every day.

Posting this sign levels the playing field, by implying that threat of violence against men, from women.

ed, great post.