(no subject)

[nathanjw]

I was in Davis for the first time in a few months yesterday, and when I pulled into a parking spot next to Brooks, I noticed that the mural there had been painted over. Does anyone know when this happened, and if there are any plans to repaint or replace it?

Comments

[four-thorns.livejournal.com]

men get celebrated every freaking day. did you not see a whole bunch of them being celebrated during the world cup yesterday?

the reason a wall of "celebration for men" or the like would provoke outcry is that men, on the whole, as a gender, have never NOT been celebrated or respected in our culture. on the contrary, women have.

when the wage gap is ended and women not longer have to be concerned about the government making laws on their bodies, and there are more than 14 female US senators, and less than 1 in 4 american women will be raped in her lifetime, THEN perhaps you might have a somewhat valid point.


(and how is the idea of respecting women "exclusionary"? who does it exclude? people who don't respect women?)

[hauntmeister.livejournal.com]

and how is the idea of respecting men "exclusionary"? who does it exclude?

Women.

and how is the idea of respecting women "exclusionary"? who does it exclude?

Men.

Do you understand that these are mirror images? If we celebrate members of one gender solely for the genetic happenstance of their having a vagina/penis, we exclude the other (roughly) half of the human race who has a penis/vagina instead.

[four-thorns.livejournal.com]

so women can't respect men, only men can respect men? and men can't respect women, only women can do that?

i disagree with that idea that celebrating somebody means excluding somebody else. everybody can celebrate women. everybody can celebrate men.

it seems that you think the presence of a mural celebrating women somehow takes away or distracts from one's ability to celebrate men. as i said above, this might be true in a vacuum. but in the context of our society, which is one in which men are already quite celebrated, it hardly even equals things out, let alone makes them unfair. if you're concerned that men are being excluded from societal celebration, i encourage you to open any newspaper, see any movie, watch any news report. you'll see that, quite to the contrary, they're being lauded for all sorts of things.

but by your logic, since we've been celebrating men for most of human history solely on the basis of their having penises, we've therefore been excluding women, the other (roughly) half of the human race who have vaginas instead, so really, women deserve at least a simple mural to compensate for this exclusion.

(and really, if a mural makes you feel excluded enough to cry about it here... wow, dude. you'd never make it as a woman. cause we have to deal with, you know, serious instances of exclusion in society.)

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

Yes, but acknowledging the truth of what four_thorns said -- that women are in many ways excluded in this society -- is not exclusionary but a statement of fact. So recognizing women solely for being women is an attempt to counterbalance the fact that women are discriminated against solely for being women. I understand the point you're making -- both attitudes are exclusionary -- but it's still not a mirror image, because the two groups you're comparing are not in equal positions in society.

Yes, attempting to balance out inequality in this kind of way is problematic, a response but not itself a solution. I still think it's better than pretending that the problem doesn't exist. Acting as if men and women are treated in exactly equal ways won't magically change something endemic to the society, and calling attention to the problem is not a worthless endeavor.

[hissilliness.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing you're not too happy about Black History Month, either?

[hauntmeister.livejournal.com]

Nope, that's not true. Why would you think that, other than it fitting a stereotype you expect?

"Black History Month" actually has a focus. It's not just a celebration of one subset of the population because they happen to be dark-skinned. It gives us a context to explore civil rights, history, and the accomplishments of the members of one particular minority group in America.

The now-departed mural did nothing of the sort. It did't recognize the entire community. (Counterexamples from Central Square: "Crossroads" (http://www.citysource.com/LocalCreations/crossroads.html), ,"Crosswinds" (http://www.citysource.com/LocalCreations/crosswinds.html), "The Potluck" (http://www.citysource.com/LocalCreations/index.html#allpotluck).) It didn't recognize global themes which include us all. ("Celebration of Imagination" (http://services.bostonglobe.com/globestore/category.cgi?item=147009&type=store&category=600)). And please don't tell me, "It's inclusive because everybody can respect women!" That's no more true than a gigantic crucifix (or pentagram) being called inclusive "because everybody can worship Christ (or The Goddess)".

It didn't recognize specific women because they had accomplished something in particular, other than the accident of having been born female. It was a depiction of roughly half the population, while excluding the other half.

As the others before you have noted, the mural itself seemes to be a attempt to counterbalance a perceived bias in society. But that doesn't mean I can't critize the mural for being deliberately biased in the opposite direction.