Talk:Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect replaced with article[edit]

From WP:RfD:

  • Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them → David and Goliath - the redirect makes no sense. --Fibonacci 6 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)
    • Please read the article. "The company are notable for the slogans that they produce on some of their products, such as Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them." It's one of the slogans that they use. Dysprosia 6 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
      • Why doesn't Where do you want to go today redirect to Microsoft, then? --Fibonacci 7 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)
        • Why shouldn't it? Anyway, you said the redirect makes no sense, I have tried to clarify the reasoning. Dysprosia 7 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
          • Okay, sorry for that. My point (in the second message, of course) is that we don't need those redirects, or do we? --Fibonacci 7 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
            • There is no need to delete it because Wikipedia ain gonna run out of space anytime soon. But, is anyone gonna type in that lengthy slogan? Fibonacci's probly right - we don't need it, but i don't really mind if you keep it. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 09:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David and Goliath is now a sensible redirect to Goliath, and the clothing company is listed at Goliath (disambiguation) as David and Goliath (clothing company). Any sensible person familiar with Wikipedia and with the ancient story would have done it that way in the first place. Anyone not familiar with the ancient story will not understand the name of the clothing company anyway. Michael Hardy 23:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you do not introduce double redirects if you want to do something similar in future. Dysprosia 11:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, hey, there are so many misogynist shirts out there ("Big Johnson", "Beaver Hunt") and everybody gets mad at this unserious, cute little shirt? Men's rights my ass. 67.160.174.24 (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shut up, this one is promoting violence, "Big Johnson" hardly promotes assault simply because a person is different. If there was a shirt "Women are stupid, throw..." then there would be all sorts of crap. --218.215.18.19 (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism an Importancy[edit]

I think such tone sounds sexist: "Boys are stupid throw rocks at them" And another thing - this company, trading these stuff is Worldwidely Unfamous and Obscure, it's unimportant. It's not Gucci!

Natalie Dee weighs in[edit]

http://www.nataliedee.com/091106/hating-stuff-to-make-yourself-look-interesting-is-not-interesting.jpg

I love Natalie Dee, she is a genius Maerk 09:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!--72.94.87.243 06:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Dee weighs out[edit]

Natalie Dee doesn't want any public association with Goldman, even as a critic.

This was in reply to my email. On 4/26/07, Alastair Haines <edited> wrote:

  • Dear Natalie,
  • congratulations on being notable enough for your own Wikipedia entry!
  • Would you grant permission to Wiki for display of your parody of the Goldman
  • "Boys are stupid?"
  • For context (though you understand how this can change at Wiki) please visit
  • "Boys are stupid" at Wiki.
  • If I have misunderstood the message of your cartoon, correct me if you think
  • it worth the time.
  • I expect no response, and assume your answer is "No". I thank you for your
  • time reading the request.
  • On the other hand, should you grant permission, I will be absolutely
  • delighted to see additional circulation for your thought-provoking, and
  • probably historic comment. It so concisely addresses a debate that may be
  • nearing conclusion, that readers in a hundred years time may associate the
  • culture of the turn of the millenium with the two contrasting pictures.
  • Best wishes,
  • everyone thinks you rock! :D
  • alastair

Canada Customs[edit]

Didn't Canada customs ban the import of these t shirts to Canada for a period of time, arguing they violated Canada's hate speech laws ??? Does anyone have any information on that they can add ???

Since gender isn't one of the prohibited grounds under that law, I don't see how that could be correct. -- Spock 156.34.72.161 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--there is no criminal law against hate speech directed towards a particular sex. HOwever, there are other laws on the books that prevent hatred of someone because of thier sex.

Accuracy[edit]

Why was "Much of this money will probably end up in the pockets of the original artists from whom Goldman plagiarised many of his designs." deleted? We're all fairly sure by now that Goldman plagiarizes and a lawsuit is inevitable.

You know why that was deleted. The current plagiarism controversy has nothing to do with this particular manifestation of Goldman's work. Powers T 13:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does now. The "Boys are stupid.." image is plagiarized too: http://www.worldofwassco.com/portfolio/character10.html Quadpus 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Todd Goldman[edit]

I support the merge. Any other comments? GarryKosmos 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not notable beyond being a footnote in Goldman's quest for publicity through controversy, merge it. --Markzero 22:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
do not merge, appears as the slogan was the topic of a media campaign to have value as an article, the previous merge proposal was to David and Goliath (clothing), that seemed more sensible, but I would still oppose that. I note that the "David and Goliath (clothing)" article is proposed for merger to Todd Goldman Paul foord 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where have all the real men gone

I like this article, didn't hear about it here in Australia, very useful datum.

Gotta say though, the boy IS stupid, and he is a BOY -- he's running away.

Men, on the other hand, pick up the rocks and throw 'em back.

Unless of course it's girls throwing rocks. Men don't fight women, and women will always throw rocks.

Seriously though, I'm against the merger, this article is better than the other one.

This article rocks! ;) Have a nice day y'all Alastair Haines 22:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question ... how do you merge to a protected article anyway? Alastair Haines 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of article[edit]

I'm flagging this article for expansion. I've added a section and some external links, including a TV broadcast at the bottom of the list. There's a lot of solid reference material there. I've also created redirects at:

Someone else's turn to do some stuff, cheers. Alastair Haines 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added some more stuff. This issue is much bigger than Goldman. The slogans he created have become cliches in journalistic comments on gender issues. Ironically, I think the bad press the Men's movement gave Goldman only increased his profits. However, it seems to have worked both ways. Goldman's implied denegration of men has increased public sympathy for the men's movement.

Absolutely fascinating cultural study. If no-one else does it, I'll be back to do some more research, and report any further developments. It's amazing how free speech, allowing expression of extreme views, can actually lead to greater public understanding and discernment. It just takes time.

PS I've contacted Natalie Dee for permission to display her version of the picture here at Wiki. Alastair Haines 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update, see above respect Natalie Dee Alastair Haines 11:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being fair to Goldman[edit]

I hope we all agree to respect not only Goldman's free speech, and that of his critics, but that we also remember:

  • Slander is awful.
  • Innocent until proven guilty.
  • Trial by justice, not media.
  • Our publicity brings responsibility to US.

Letters to web-site hosts have been posted by Goldman's lawyers. He really shouldn't have to do this.

This is from Boing Boing (cartoon artists web-site).

Think about the words in bold, they are true aren't they?

from Andrew.P.Felix@[redacted] to authors date Apr 19, 2007 6:10 PM subject Todd Goldman

Andrew P. Felix, Esq. wrote: Dear Sir or MadamR This firm represents Mr. Todd Goldman. I write on behalf of Mr. Goldman regarding certain comments and disparaging remarks that are posted and housed on your website (www.[edited].com).

We have acquired articles posted on your website which contain defaming, derogatory and malicious statements about Mr. Goldman. Therefore, we request that you immediately remove these article from your website, as well as any subsequent articles and/or URL links of this nature regarding Mr. Goldman. Further, the hosting of such statements and/or URL links about Mr. Goldman is actionable defamation and libel that has caused irreversible damage to his character.

Unless we receive written assurance that you have removed these article, as well as any subsequent articles and/or URL links of this nature regarding Mr. Goldman, from your website by the close of business on Friday, April 20, 2007, we will have no other alternative but to take action to seek injunctive and monetary relief against you pursuant to Florida law. Please be advised that we will also seek to recover attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this matter. As time is of the essence, this action must be taken immediately.

This letter is not, nor should it be construed to be, a waiver of any rights or remedies available to Mr. Goldman under federal or state law, whether now existing or hereafter accruing.

PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

Sincerely, SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP

/s/Andrew P. Felix

The following text has been removed from the display page, but may be highly relevant to the article later:

Further controversy has dogged Goldman. Some see resemblance between the boy in Goldman's cartoon, and a character in Chip Wass' The Intel Bunch. [1]

Alastair Haines 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Todd Goldman - what a victim! Get real. — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV link[edit]

I read more books than I watch TV, but that is not true of all readers. I would have though audio-visual is a great asset to an article. Happy to hear other views, including issues of legal sensitivity. Cheers. Alastair Haines 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Endorsements"?[edit]

I'm not sure that those comments are endorsing the products... I thought an endorsement was a positive statement?

Are you refering to the section Endorsements of the campaign? Alastair Haines 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description accuracy[edit]

It seems to me that the introduction to the article is at best somewhat inaccurate, and perhaps subtly biased. It describes the slogan as "tongue-in-cheek," which is a subjective consideration -- regardless of whether or not the designer intended for it to be tongue-in-cheek, many people would consider it otherwise. It also states the t-shirt is "popular," which seems contrary to many of the reactions against it. As such, I've removed these phrases. --HarmonicFeather 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one take your point Harmonic, though the t-shirt would not have been such an issue if it hadn't been popular with purchasers. The designer did claim he intended it tongue-in-cheek, which allows one to make the comment that the message is no joking matter, i.e. even that intention is no excuse. Presumably purchasers also consider it tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, I don't think anything is lost by removing these verifiable statements. Alastair Haines 11:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant shirt?[edit]

This is a shirt with a boy pushing a girl out of a window, also generated controversy. Appropriate for comparison and/or a separate article? ~Eliz81(C) 10:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the commentor at the blog (third or fourth down):
Yes Eliz, I think this needs writing up and cross linkage. I'm awfully sorry but I have a serious deadline that's going to take me day and night for a while. If you find the press coverage and summarize it at Problem Solved, I'll take a break from my deadline work to back you if anyone interferes with your efforts.
Don't worry, I'm not big on pushing the "Domestic violence conspiracy" thingy, though I do think there's a serious story there. It's just not quite my topic, even this article wasn't really my scene, I just did the work to find sources 'cause people were talking about removing the page.
I notice you're a Wiki Gnome / Fairy by your recent contributions. I can't imagine anything more perfect than a Wiki fairy writing a neutral article about a kid's t-shirt with a boy pushing a girl out a window. The total stupidity of a market that buys either kind of t-shirt is not something we can print, of course. Are you game to do it? I'll help, if anyone tries pushing you out of windows, I'll throw rocks at them! ;) Alastair Haines 11:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Alastair! I'd be happy to write such an article in the next day or two. :) ~Eliz81(C) 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! I really want to help, but all I can do is cheer from the sideline, OK? Take your time and enjoy! :) Alastair Haines 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't resist, I kinda made a start for you. I found some sources and set up the page. Now all the hard work is up to you. ;) Alastair Haines 09:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation expired![edit]

http://worldofwassco.com/portfolio/character10.html turns up a error. I will mark the citation with a fact tag, so you can find it easily. Kushal 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

In what sense is this article's subject notable? 78.86.128.70 (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also confused by this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.142.137 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem very notable, about as notable as those little miss tipsy shirts they were flogging here --218.215.18.19 (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing popularity[edit]

The shirt company has a Flash game in which a girl throws rocks at a boy, who gets progressively more damaged. There's a Boys Are Stupid journal, 2009 calendar, a board game, posters, and other clothing including pajama tops and bottoms. Шизомби (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looks like continued promotion by the company to me. Where's the attention from reliable secondary sources? Nevard (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I can't take feminism seriously all it does is hate and blame all men for the world's problems.--58.7.73.157 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum. Equivamp - talk 14:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that is just how I fell.--58.7.73.157 (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh)[edit]

Yet another example of humanity's unwavering obsession to divide and insult. Is it any wonder I hate everyone? 86.45.152.211 (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, we may as well be resigned then be farcically divided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.143.73 (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STFU this is a discussion page, not an opinion blog. God, some people never learn.

Telling an editor to “Shut the fuck up” is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. 344917661X (talk)

Pressure on Antifeminism[edit]

Since this artical is about something that encourages Misandry, why isn’t there any mention that the item perpetuates the flaws of feminism? After all doesn’t misandry cover a majority of Antifeminism, that’s responsible fore many false accusations and keeping feminie movements stationary and not progressing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.143.73 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it if someone would answerer my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.109.51 (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There would need to be a citable source for such a statement --209.181.16.93 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its reputation had died at least 100 years ago, everyone knows that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.249.141 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

The lead section of this article currently reads, "The material includes statements such as: 'boys come from the stupid factory'..." etc., but there is no prior mention of what "the material" consists of. The previous sentences mention the "throw rocks at them" David and Goliath T-shirt and a People magazine article, but it's not clear if either of these are "the material". I suspect that "the material" is a wider social phenomenon - probably several T-shirts? also the book? - but that needs to be made explicit. Cnilep (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pending rewrite: "The material includes statements such as: "boys come from the stupid factory", "boys are pretty much smelly and useless" and "boys make good pets"." Cnilep (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even the cover...[edit]

What an artistic fraud this guy is: even the cover to this book is traced over someone else's art! - Stormwatch (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote by Wendy McElroy[edit]

The (modified) quote by Wendy McElroy which appears in the text is ambiguous at best, or possibly just downright misleading.

"The protest campaign launched by radio talk host Glenn Sacks ... [is a good example] of how hate mongering is a lucrative business and the best remedy is to yank away the financial incentive." — Wendy McElroy

As presented, the sentence is best read as meaning: "Glenn Sacks' campaign against these shirts is a good example of how hate mongering is a lucrative business and the best remedy is to yank away the financial incentive."

...This is filed under 'campaign supporters,' which is odd because she doesn't sound very supportive here. Perhaps this quote needs to be trimmed a little less aggressively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

At the end of the article, the phrase "empowerment" links to the wiki page for "Hate Crime." Is there a reason for this? 76.30.244.221 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title stongly implies it.

Last Paragraph of T-shirt and its success[edit]

The last paragraph of T-shirt and its success says "Due to this the T-shirts are targeted at any female of any age who identifies herself as a Feminist, since the shirts represent all of what feminist are." how ever the previous sentence was "According to the Wall Street Journal, the sales volume of David and Goliath was expected to rise to US$ 100 million in 2005, up from US$ 90 million in the previous year." So could someone explain why an increase in sales of a T-shirt causes it to be aimed at all feminists?86.186.187.55 (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because feminist are a majority and the word feminism is just another word for misandry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.215.184 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Boys lie" meme[edit]

It seems odd to me that the "BOYS LIE" meme (T-shirts, buttons, etc.), which predates this one by many years and was (and remains) far more prevalent (I saw a 30-something woman wearing a "BOYS LIE" shirt only a few days ago), isn't even mentioned. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic status?[edit]

Do we have any sources saying that the controversy around these t-shirts has taken on "iconic status"? That sounds rather close to synthesis. Ideally, we'd need a source that says specifically that 'Boys are stupid' has had any importance in debates around gender. Without that, we're just synthesising. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separatist feminism link[edit]

I have just reviewed a revision that linked to separatist feminism, and havent found grounds to reject it. Consider it a WP:BOLD addition, as I am personally unsure of how applicable it would be. -- Nbound (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the fact that this article has absolutely nothing to do with separatist feminism would be grounds for rejection? -- Mrmatiko (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, I wasnt sure, it quite possibly has something to do with feminism. Because of this, I am letting people know the change occured here, so it can be rectified if need be. (And it appears it already has). I dont want the link slipping in any more than anyone else here if not appropriate :) -- Nbound (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!_controversy&oldid=1206405945"