*
Monday, November 12, 2001 – BOULDER – The man who stole 20 ceramic penises from the public library said he might take them again if they’re openly displayed.
“If they press this, I know a dozen other “El Dildo Banditos’ who will also press it,” said Robert Rowan, 49.
Rowan admitted on Sunday that he is the original El Dildo Bandito, who took the brightly colored sculptures from the Boulder Public Library on Saturday. He called KOA Radio that night, and the station called Boulder
police with information about where he lived.
The work was titled “Hanging ‘Em Out to Dry,” and displayed in honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The exhibit drew fire earlier this month after library director Marcilee Gralapp decided not to hang a large American flag in the building’s entrance.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E221306,00.html
Replies
*
I haven't even seen the 'display', and I find it offensive. Not because it's a bunch of penises, get over it. But because it is sending the message that if you have a penis, you are despicable, and should be hung. Period.
Very few men are abusers. There are also an amazing number of women who are abusers. This 'display' is nothing more than a public display of penis hatred designed to make it seem that all men are despicable wife-beaters.
I have nothing against bringing the abuse problem to better light. I think it should be so. But I do not think that this 'display' does anything but teach people to fear anything that has a penis. It is gross propaganda, that's all.
*Luka,"...that if you have a penis, you are despicable, and should be hung"I guess if a guy has a penis, he'd appreciate being hung. Of course being hanged is another issue.I find the whole public display of penis sculptures to be extremely offensive. It is disgusting. Hell, why don't they just start hanging "dildo mobiles" in elementary school classrooms while they're at it.The implication that men are scum simply because they are men, simply amplifies the offense of this "art".Pete
*Ah, Luka, maybe you should look at the display, then criticize...I have nothing against penisis, I do have a deep displeasure against abuse.....Remember Judy Chicago?
*...Pi...My wife says it's it's es, not is, and why you would want more than one is beyond her. " You guys get in enough trouble with just one..."...But what does she know???......n...
*Aw, geez what kind of profession have I gone into?As a former art historian and a future librarian, I have got to say that we have a right in this country to express or say anything that we wish in any artistic format that we wish without needing to fear censorship. And a public library has an ethical obligation to provide equal access to all points of view existing in the community, including artistic points of view. I'd rather have this artist's works in a book rather than on display, but if the library is functioning as a public art gallery, then we have to worry about what we are going to be showing our children.But my teeth really grind when I see stuff like this. Because then I have to say that the same librarian better be prepared to exhibit a series of woodcuts that some artist in the community creates that show the advantages of the white supremacist way of life. Both points of view have a right to be seen or heard.And yes, with public dollars.Yes guys, there is such a thing as offensive art, but then you have to get into the "offensive to whom" and "public standards" debate.I wouldn't want to have to explain this one to my kids when I am taking them to story hour, certainly. Sometimes I wish people would just censor their own damn selves, sometimes.I need to know more about why this library director objected to hanging the flag.I tell you, some of the stuff that I am learning in library school has opened my eyes to our rights as far as access to information goes, and it looks like you parents are the only folks responsible for protecting your kids at the library, what they see, read, and have access to on the Internet. I really have a dilemna about this because I see the library as a safe place to let kids loose, but I will have to be doing some thinking about this.Why? WHy..........And for the record, I don't want my kids seeing this either. Is there no safe place for kids anymore?
*Does Lorena Bobbit have anything to do with this?
*...Teddie...I know a lot about Art, But I don't know what I like......As an aside: Cape Breton is still a safe place for kids and peace freaks......Peace......Newf...
*We take my dau to the YWCA for swim classes. On occasion they have displays--workshop-participant created art--about abuse that make all the dads there feel terribly awkward. It's very anti-male. Not questioning their right to anger and expressing as they choose, but to force all the regular dads to walk through that gauntlet of art...well, I just can't imagine an equal but opposite display at the YWCA.
*Actualy, I do wish that I could have seen the display, so that I could be more accurate in my assessment. But given the facts that we have been given, I still feel that all this amounted to was penis-hatred propaganda.
*Exactly.Any equal but opposite display, anywhere, would immediately get torn down and the person who put it up, villified.
*Do you mean if some man created a work of art that depicted a woman and more specifically the female genitalia as something threatening, or ugly, or objectified in such a way as to use them to make a political point, then that artist wouldn't find an audience?Excuse, me, would you like to pull any art book off my shelves and see dozens of such images created over the last 3000 years, referred to as masterpieces? That's one of the major themes in art since the beginning of time. What, can't you guys take objectification of your body parts? It hurts, doesn't it?
*This has the makin's of a pretty good slap fest!
*Your wife is right, it is es....She knows a lot....Ask her about Judy.......
*...Judy Who?......[she asked]......Newf's wife...froglady......ribbit...
*I don't want to get involved in a slap fest particularly.Cloud, I wish that you and your child could walk to swim lessons without being uncomfortable about what you see around you and how you are being portrayed, especially if you are one of the "regular" Dads who is a good non-abusing parent and spouse.Imagine for a minute that you are a young woman, pretty, dressed appropriately for work, walking through a big city. How does it feel to you when you are looked at in threatening ways, when suggestive things are said to you, when even appreciative glances and whistles are threatening to you? You are just a regular woman trying to walk downtown, maybe you have your daughter and your son with you, but you still need to pay attention to your surroundings, because someone might assume that you are interested in something you aren't interested in. And the threats can become real physical dangers. They aren't just posters on the wall. Think about it some. Women have felt uncomfortable for a long time because of threats from people around them.I wish there were someone stationed at that display at the Denver library to explain to every seven year old that the art work is "one person's point of view and emotions." That it doesn't represent the library's view of men, or even the view that many in the anti-abuse services take. That abuse isn't about gentitals. It was a poor choice, I think. I DO want our kids to be safe and have some innocence.I just don't know how to solve these problems!
*We deal with censorship every day. There are standards of good taste imposed on t.v., radio, and other areas of the public domain, etc. I think the reasonable (ah..hmm) "man" test applies here also.Obviously the librarian at this particular institution is a "femi-nazi". If this is acceptable for public display, I'm sure there are other wackos willing to push the envelope to make a name for themselves.Alot of times there is no grey area. Only black and white and those who are willing to stand up for it. Shock value does not further the cause of free speech.The notion of someone standing there telling people what to think would somehow make this o.k. is about the silliest thing I have ever heard, Theodora. "Art" does not need the other point of view to be appreciated. "Art" at least in my opinion is that which is intended to inspire, stimulated imagination and wonder, or provide positive insight about the human condition. Mutilated genitalia, be it male, or female does not fall into this category. Oh, and "Art" will stand the test of time. This won't. It is more of a prank, stunt, propaganda or something of that ilk. And to use your example, "If you were a pretty young woman..." If I was a pretty young women, I wouldn't be able to keep my hands off of myself.
*You brought ugly and objectivication into the debate. We are talking about a 'display' that makes the owners of penises threatening. Not a display that makes them ugly and/or objectifies them, per se. Objectifiy my penis all you want. It doesn't hurt me. It won't even hurt my feelings if you call it ugly. Take pictures of it, make a casting of it, and make art 'displays all over town telling everyone how ugly it is, and objectifying it in any way you please. Go ahead, it won't hurt my feelings one bit.But don't even dare claim that I am violent, or abusive just because I have a penis. It is not the 'art' or the freedom of speech that I object to. It is the way that the 'art' and freedom of speech is used to propagandize that I am necessarily an abuser because I have a penis.An equal but opposite display would be one that run tits through a wringer to propagandize that women are to be feared because some of them strap their kids in cars and drive them into lakes, or simply drown them methodicaly one by one, in the family bathtub.
*Tommy,I disagree that art should only provide positive insight about the human condition. What about Michelangelo's vision of hell in his Last Judgment? Picasso's "Guernica?" Sometimes people who are in agony, or angry, or bitter, or twisted, create art. Sometimes art is ugly. It is not always tasteful, or what you or I might like.Art does very frequently inspire us, and stimulate imagination and wonder, and uplift us. Those are some of the best reasons to provide public funding for the arts, and to make sure that all kids have access to learning about art and making it themselves. But that is only one facet of what art is. The dark side is there, too, and we can't not call that art because we don't like it.Tommy, you are telling people what to think by saying that certain subject matter can't be art.Of course there are others wackos out there and sooner or later they are all going to try to get public display space.How about if there were a statement on the wall next to the display that explains that this is only one person's interpretation of the issue of abuse? How about if a second and different artistic interpretation of the issue had been shown as well, in order for the library to demonstrate that there is a range of opinions in the community? The library is supposed to represent the interest of all parts of the community.Having not seen the ceramics, I have no idea how the theme is treated artistically and whether the penises appear mutilated or what. Guess what? Mutilated genitals are art according to some artists and according to some viewers.I don't agree that this was a good choice to make for the community, especially since many members of the community aren't ready to deal with the subject matter or the interpretation. And while it annoys me to say it, the library had a right to do it. Especially if the group who sponsored the display wanted it there as part of its message about abuse. They had a right to use the public space to air their views. The library may not have been a femi-Nazi. She might have disliked the stuff too, but she followed the code of ethics of her profession, possibly. Librarians are committed to fighting censorship in any form. We do need to think more about the issue of public standards and decency. Usually libraries are meek, well-behaved places where we would never expect to find this kind of stuff. Surprise! I wish they hadn't done it, but this is America.I've been looking at and studying art for three quarters of my life and I am no longer surprised or shocked at what stands the test of time. A lot of the world's acknowledged masterpieces disgust me personally.Tommy, if you were a pretty young woman, you'd have the right to put your hands on yourself anywhere and anytinme you wanted. But no one else would.
*We need to see this display. How do we know that the ceramics automatically make everyone who sees them think that all men are threatening just because they have penises? How do we know that that is what this particular artist intended about men in general? I think the issue is not that a man posseses a penis, but that it becomes a symbol for violence.The very thing issue you are raising is a form of objectification. By that I mean taking one part of the body apart from the whole, taking away the "person-ness" and the individuality, and using the part as a symbol, usually a symbol that belittles the owner of the "part" and makes them less than a person.I'm still thinking about your parallel in the last paragraph. I may let another of us femi-Nazis handle that one. I am taking up more than my share of wordspace here long ago.Slap, slap, right and left.
*aient got nuttin againt no penisis' in fact i got one myself.
*The art is a form of castration for all men. these women who are abused feel better and less threatened by a castrated man. Just a theory! Sort of the same as hanging a dummy in ephigy! This action creates a mob mentality leaving us with a bunch of screaming Lorena Bobbits out for blood. That scares me. I take personal offense to the "Art" as I'm sure most men here would not want to part with their PARTS. Perhaps a clenched fist amongst a crying woman might make the point more to the point and not such a generalization.
*i We need to see this display. How do we know that the ceramics automatically make everyone who sees them think that all men are threatening just because they have penises? How do we know that that is what this particular artist intended about men in general? Well, a clothesline full of ceramic penises is certainly not there to spread the word that cinnamon is a spice. The intent is clear from the evidence we are given.As I said before, I wish that I could have seen the dsiplay, so that I could have a better idea of the reality of the display. Going just on what information we are given...i The work was titled "Hanging 'Em Out to Dry," and displayed in honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month.We have penises hung on a clothesline. We have the phrase "hanging 'em out to dry". And it was in honor of domestic violence awareness month."Hanging 'em out to dry", would seem to me to mean that they are fighting back against abusers. They are hanging abusers out to dry. To carry that through, all abusers must have penises. I didn't read anything about any ceramic vaginas being hung up there. The theme is domestic violence. Ergo, anyone with a penis must be a domestic abuser.You, or I can see that this is not necessarily so. But many childen out there will understand it in exactly that way. In fact, there are plenty of 'adults' out there who will understand it that way. I believe that that was exactly the intended 'message' of the 'artist'.i I think the issue is not that a man posseses a penis, but that it becomes a symbol for violence.Absolutely correct. And wrong at the same time. The issue is that the penis is being made a symbol of violence. But who possesses penises ? Men. Penises cannot be violent in and of themselves. The message is still "if you own a penis, you are violent, and must be feared".
*Well, the artist had a right to think it, and to say it, and the library had an right to display it and you have a right to explain to your children why the hell anyone would think such a thing or want to express it.When public awareness of domestic violence perpetrated by women reaches the same level as that of violence perpetrated by men, I will be happy to support the right of an artist to choose any part of the female body to objectify in order to condemn all women.Because doing so to condemn all women would be nothing new.
*A post that has nothing in it, I can disagree with.b : )
*Dale,Womens's bodies have been taken apart in the name of art for centuries and it hasn't always been because the artist admired them. Guys. get used to your "parts' being a little less sacred.i Sort of the same as hanging a dummy in ephigy!Yup, I bet that's what the artist intended. I agree with you there, Dale.i amongst a crying woman You mean that the point would have been better made if the women were portrayed as weak? Luckily, art doesn't usually encite people to mob violence. Just verbal violence.
*Theodora,> When public awareness of domestic violence perpetrated by women reaches the same level as that of violence perpetrated by men, I will be happy to support the right of an artist to choose any part of the female body to objectify in order to condemn all women.Why is the level of public awareness relevent? In the b previous paragraphyou say:> the artist had a right to think it, and to say it, and the library had an right to display itBut this right is only if public awareness exists at a certain level?Rich Beckman
*Newf said to make sure everyone knows that he passed the keyboard to me for this topic. So this is Kelly:Luka: I think the message is not that if you have a penis you are a family abuser but rather that most family abusers have a penis and they think anyone without a penis is "weaker".Personally, as organs go, I kind of like them. But I would have enjoyed seeing the exhibit too....Peace......Kelly...PS. Luka, how do I get to post my own messages rather than use Newf's space? -KAD-
*At the top of, and the bottom of the screen, there is a logout button.Hit that logout button and Newf will be logged out. You will immediately be placed on a log-in screen. On that screen you can log in under your own name. When you are finished, just hit the logout button, and log Newf back in.If you haven't already registered a name of your own, when you hit that logout button and get the log-in screen, you'll notice there's a 'register' button there as well. Don't long-in. Just hit the register button. Register a name for yourself, and write down the password so you don't lose it. From there, it's pretty much self-explanatory.I would suggest a psuedonym, rather than your real name.p.s. Family abusers are the weakest thing alive. Chicken-shit assholes who deserve to be taken out back, tied up to a tree and shot.
*Have to come out of lurker mode on this one...i I find the whole public display of penis sculptures to be extremely offensive. It is disgusting. Pete, do you find the display of breasts and vaginas extremely offensive? Disgusting? Why is it different for the penis??Luka, I normally respect what you have to say, but in this instance, I have to disagree. Yes, there are *occasions* when women are the abusers. But, compared to the number of men who abuse the women in their lives, it is a very small number. Unless you can provide numbers that show it is significant, I don't even want to waste bandwidth discussing it. Yes, bring up the issue of Bobbit, but that's ONE case, when there are hundreds of cases of men mutilating or killing their wives or girlfriends every day. Yes, bring up the case of the woman who drowned her kids or the woman who drove the kids into the pond, but again, those are two sensationalized cases, against how many dozens of cases of men killing their wives and kids! We're so used to women dying at the hands of the men in their lives that it rarely makes the headlines anymore. But, turn it around and it's news. :-(I don't think this display is meant to say that ALL penis-owners are dangerous, but it is meant to point out that most abusers are penis owners. Why is it OK for Penthouse, Hustler, etc. to display women and their body parts being mutilated? The one that comes to my mind is the one of the naked woman bound in chains, blindfolded, hanging upside down on the cover of a Penthouse. Why is that considered harmless entertainment for men? How do you think pictures like that make women and children feel? I have to laugh at the reaction you guys have over this, when women have been putting up with this kind of treatment for centuries. Personally, I don't like either the female or the male body to be objectified or show cased in this manner. It does no one any good. But, why do we all accept breasts and vaginas being shown in this manner, but display the penis in this manner and it creates an uproar??
*Thanks Rich.Can I rephrase?I think an artist could chose to do so now. You are right that the artist's choice is not dependent on the level of public perception. And I support the artist's right now or in the future. My mistake was in assuming that an artist wouldn't bother to think about it until it became a widespread issue.Thanks, Rich.OK it's morning in the Tavern and if anyone wants Rum in their Hot Chocolate, it's on me!
*I suspect a display such as this does more to discredit the feminist movement than it does to raise awareness of the violence issue.Linking penises to violence in this manner is a very Ellen Jamesian concept. Linking psychological problems to violence would be more accurate, and encompass both the physical and mental cruelty that men AND women practice on each other. Such a statement would be more worthy of public funding.IMO, art that needs an explanation isn`t art. Without the accompanying text that explains the exhibit is to promote awareness, this would just be an odd display.
*I personally feel that any "art" that depicts anger or hatred toward another group of people is offensive, and should not be allowed. Period. KKK art work, anti-sematic artwork, anti-man or anti-woman artwork, etc... is doing nothing more than passing on a feeling of hatred, and should not be allowed in a public place. Display it in private if ya want, but it is not appropriate in public. As for the women in the skin mags (Hustler, Penthouse, etc...) they are willing participants, and are paid for their services. I do not like the content, and find it offensive, but it is a PRIVATE display, and they are willing models. The message that the mags sends out is offensive to me, but it is not on display in a public institution. There is a difference.Just my opinion...James DuHamel
*If I don't think it is art, then it is not to me.Pissing in a frame with a picture of Jesus isn't art either.Have any of you seen the article about the "artist" who coats the interior of houses with melted cheese?I probably would classify that as art either. But, its not offensive, and not diplayed at an instutution paid for by tax dollars.Which brings me to a question. Why the hell do we need a national endowment for the arts. That's primarily where this type of talent comes from. And that is why. The stuff is not artistically or commercially viable, so the gov't. has to pay for it? Why don't we unleash the NEA on the taliban. That would be one use.
*I'm sorry, Newf, I just saw this.....Judy Chicago did a very controversial sculpture on a certain female anatomy.....Sort of the opposite of penises.......
*Why can't ya just say vaginas ? You said penises, what's the hangup ?
*Here's [a bit of] Judy Chicago's Dinner Party. I saw it in SF and it was wonderful!http://www.judychicago.com/scripts/shopplus.cgi?DN=judychicago.com&CARTID=%cartid%&ACTION=add&FILE=gdinner/frameset_dinner.html
*no hangup, trying to not offend.....
*Thanks, Kai, you are good.......Saw it here and it really created quite a stir.....Don't know why, just did.....
*Cloud, here's an interesting site.....Take a look.....
*LOL leave it to SF to not create a stir about such things in the 70's!
*Yeah, we were a little backward then.......
*Hi Kelly, nice to hear from you :-)i I think the message is not that if you have a penis you are a family abuser but rather that most family abusers have a penis and they think anyone without a penis is "weaker"Which goes right to the point of abuse: it's about power/control, (e.g., most rapists don't ejaculate, according to http://www.marthalawrence.com/ a psychic-turned-novelist who still works AFAIK for the SDPD in solving crimes--at least I read that in one of her books, but they're pretty solid on stats). Just check the stats at the link Pi posted.That women are gaining, statistically, as abusers, is proof we, collectively, are going down the wrong road.
*Tommy, you would probably agree with most of what the national endowment for the arts funds. (is it still in existence?) Most of it IS stuff that you would want to take your child to see or participate in. A lot of it you yourself would really enjoy. Some of it you wouldn't be interested in but you wouldn't object to either. The sort of stuff that gets the attention is the kind of stuff we have objections to in the Danver case, or the Andreas Serrano photograph you refer to. A very tiny percentage of stuff gets a whole LOT of attention. We fund arts publically because our country believes, along with many other civilizations from the past and present, that a thriving artistic life is a vital part of a civilized country. We also believer that public funding gives access to the world of the arts to people who would not otherwise have economic access to the arts, and thus we are enriching our own lives by enriching the lives of all of us.THe same reason we have public funding for libraries. It makes for a better society for ALL of us together if we all have access to information. How about if only those of us could afford it could buy military protection for the country? If we decide the country's defense is for our greater good, we all contribute to funding for it.Well, if a person goes to the library on their lunch hour to do some research on furthering their career, and they can't afford to go to BArnes and Noble to buy the same information, then my share of the tax dollars have helped that person become a more productive citizen economically, and that's good for me, too.Public funding of the arts has always been more controversial, because we often ask if they are necessary. I believe they are. If I had children, I would want them to see a lot of the artwork and listen to a lot of the music and read much of what national funding of the arts produces.And yes. Sometimes our freedom from censorship in this country produces art that many, sometimes most, of us, are repulsed by. But then we have to have the "where do you draw the line" argument. And yes, those aspects of our culture enrage some religious fundamentalists around the world who fear that their cultures are infected by the vulgarity in ours. But look what happens when the TAliban starts to draw the line?Personally, I would never let a child of mine of 9 years old go to a Britney Spears concert. My neighbor did that. That would offend me. I haven't seen the Denver art exhibit, but I might rather a child see that and learn about why it was done, than to see a lot of stuff in our pop culture that I think is harmful, but seems not to be. As a country we have to accept that our freedoms have costs. Whose standards are the community's standards?
*Well dangit ! You offended me by not saying vaginas !!b : )
*The whole "who abuses whom more and worse" discussion is not on my radar. Any hit is wrong. All hits are personal. I say this from the perspective of accompanying a friend to district court to file a restraining order against her abusive boyfriend. Two weeks ago she calls to tell of problems in marriage (different guy) and lets slip that she slapped him 4 times, and then he pushed her away, and wasn't he wrong? There's no winners. It's not statistics to me. It's either you're hit or you aren't; either you're a hitter or you aren't. The numbers are irrelevant; each individual life is what matters.From that perspective I, along with a half dozen other doting fathers, walk our precious daughters into swim class every week for two years plus, and for 3 weeks had to go through a gauntlet of posters that said, "We don't need men," "I don't need a daddy," and "Daddy's hit and daddy's hurt you." We didn't ever say anything, and mostly agreed that it was good our daughter's couldn't yet read.
*Besides the Dinner Party (which I saw in Vancouver - wonderful!) there's another Judy Chicago installation - can't remember the name of it, but it's about giving birth. Also wonderful, but IIRC, not for the squeamish. Just came across this thread today - very interesting. Theodora, thank you - so refreshing to find someone who understands, and can articulate why, art does not have to be beautiful, or be something that hangs on the wall over the couch. I have many thoughts on the subject of political art, as the Denver installation so evidently is - will share them another time.
*You have definitely painted a clear picture of what you had to face at the Y.....I am so sorry you had to encounter that, and I think it shouldn't have been located where it was. You are right, here.
*Sandra,Kai's link just above this will take you to a site where you can see the "Birth Project."Thank goodness the definition of art is broad enough to include the beautiful as well as the ugly! And sofa art is art, too.
*Wow. At about post 36 this discussion took a sharp left turn and the female participants shifted their focus to supporting each other. I mean no offence to any woman involved, but I am very curious why?
*Dick, it's not a conspiracy, honest! The women here disagree on far more than we agree on. But I think we do share a realization that "art" has been a man's game for most of human history, and it's time to redress that little discrepancy to reflect the experiences and stories of the other 52% of the human race.
*Thanks again, Theodora. I had honestly forgotten just how beautiful those images are!
*i At about post 36 this discussion took a sharp left turn and the female participants shifted their focus to supporting each otherHmmm, which post was that, and "left" turn? Yeah, lots of times women do not support each other; same could be said about men. Just think of the consequences . . . women allow themselves and their children to be abused, and those kids grow up to be Tim McVeigh or bin Laden . . . what good father figures those might be, NOT.Sandra is right on.
*Sorry, Cloud, thought you might be interested.....
*I would like to know where the penises were displayed......Were they in the children's reading room or in a private gallery in the library, in the front door........Maybe the issue is it was in a public building, not that it was offensive.....I can't speak to the flag issue......Again, we don't know all of the facts and haven't seen the display.....Luka, this is going to sound very simplistic, but beautiful art is in the eye of the beholder, as is offensive art.....When I take students to our art museum, there are many paintings, sculptures that some would find offensive......I am not an art historian and I don't pretend to be, but I HATE censorship of any kind.....Remember the "hooters" thread........I found it offensive and pointed out why and was immediately told I was a party pooper...(BTW, I am a great one to have at a party .).....My point is, even though I find discussing women's breasts offensive, I still defend your right to do it and this is a PUBLIC forum......I find it interesting that when women stand up for each other or even agree with each other, there is suddenly something askew.......Hey, I've had my best fights with women!!!!
*Sorry, I always offend someone .....I could have used another word, too......Oooops, I've been up since 4:30 watch the meteror show and I've had too much coffee.....
*Theodora,one of your first posts in this thread mentioned that you would like to think of a library as a safe place to turn kids loose.I hope you know that in actuality a public library is about the worst place imaginable to turn kids loose---particularly a large inner city library.When I was a student I worked for about 5 years in our cites' public library system and it was a haven for the cites homeless,streetpeople and perverts. Heated in the winter,air conditioned in the summer it was a mecca for the cites rif-raf from 9-9.Other than that it was great.don't leave a kid un-attended for a moment in a large library.Your comments on art are right on the money and I am thankfull that someone as articulate as you handled this discussion. If you had not handled it I would have felt compelled to try----and I would have totally,TOTALLY botched it.Of course you understand that the carpenters here can't even agree on what makes a good pick-up truck,let alone what makes art---ART.They may know what they like,and dis-like but I would hate to let them decide for me.Just like I would hate to have librarians writing the building codes.PS. Art historian and librarian huh?I am sure this will disqualify me for the "manly construction workers hall of fame",but those are my 2 dream jobs.thanks again
*Stephen, I was sitting here thinking how to respond to Theodora's post....You said it well......You know, the cooks can't agree on how to cook a turkey, either.....But, then, one learns from the varied responses....Your library reminds me of CSU's library when I was in grad school....Those stacks were scary!
*Folks, I try to disagree or agree with individuals, not with my gender, although sometimes both men and women will do that, or young and older people, or any other demographic.Stephen,Yes, I do need to be reminded that not all libraries are safe all the time, or even some of the time. My mental model comes from my own experiences which have all been mostly good, and the two current public libraries I use a wonderful places for children. As I talk to other students in my library classes, I hearing a lot more about the experiences you mention. And the libraries have an obligation to serve the homeless and the psychologically challenged as well. I think libraries draw the line at prostitutes who use the facilities as working premises!This is what I think:1. Most men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers are wonderful and good people and the exceptions make us furious, and we need to work to change those situations.2. Most art is wonderful and good and sometimes we as individuals or even communities are tripped up by something that makes us furious, and we need to think really hard about why it does.3. Parents and teachers know more about children than I do, but I am increasingly realizing that those persons have the ultimate responsibility to protect them, because our rights to free speech and information access are equally important, and sometimes the interests of children and a totally free society will clash.4. I'm glad I mostly listen to the political discussions and not jump in unprepared, because you people are good debaters.
*so whats that got to do with a few penises and vaginas .. i think we need some pics i cant visualize this correctly..:)
*Ron, to whom are you replying? I'm a little slow today.....
*Theodora, you do quite well yourself debating....IMHO, when any of us reply to a certain post, we do it because we are interested in the subject or we feel we have something to add to the conversation.....I, like you, would never jump into a discussiion about construction techniques as I know nothing about it.....If I see a post about children, education etc., I will try to add my thoughts regardless of the gender of the poster......There are certain topics that raise my hackles as I am sure there are those that rankle you......What I do not like is that if females put in their two cents worth, we are sometimes looked upon as only defending our gender....Not so....I like to think of it as enlightenment.....You're right, parents and teachers do have the responsibility to protect children....One is not mutually exclusive of the other......There are safeguards built into a school's curriculum that will protect and we have to work with parents to ensure no child is exposed to anything that will damage.....Ah, therein lies the conundrum.......
*Pi,I think Ron is into Keyword skimming here...hehehehheee
*i But, why do we all accept breasts and vaginas being shown in this manner, but display the penis in this manner and it creates an uproar?? Very simple. I don't recall it being acceptable to hang breasts and vaginas at a public library. Invalid comparison.As to Penthouse, et al, you have to purchase or seek porn to see porn-it's your decision. If you don't like it, don't BUY it, or look for it.Perhaps my local library should install a display of artwork depicting mothers drowning their children, or driving their cars into canals with kids safely strapped in?Those examples of women are just as limited in their representation of women as equating penis ownership with abuse.Mike
*Will you people stop bringing the issue of whether it is art or not, into responses to me ? And stop strutting about saying that I am all upset that penises are being displayed, and after all, vaginas have been displayed that way for eons... I NEVER said a friggen thing about it not being art. I never said the artist should not be allowed to show the work. I never once said I was offended that penises were displayed. I do not find the display of penises as art, offensive or vulgar in any way. I do not have any different feeling toward their display than toward the display of vaginas and breasts. (Well, I suppose I am more 'appreciative' of the breasts and vaginas. LOL)Mangle them, mutilate them, make them into ice cream cones, put them up on pedestals and worship them. I really don’t give a rip. If that is your ‘art’, then do what you must. I do not condone the censorship of art. Nor do I think art should be a ‘male dominated world’. I am all for the right of any artist to show whatever they want, and to do so for the disbursment of any idea they want. I do not have any problem whatever with art, nor with the display of, objectification of, 'whatever' of.. penises. I am not, as some of you seem to be assumiing, all up in arms because penises were displayed. It is not the display of penises that I object to, it is the obvious message intended with that display.You cannot disassociate the message from the art in this case, because the artist intended it that way. This was not art for art's sake, this was art with an intentional message. There is an intention to this display, and whether you see it that way or not, I have no doubt the intention is just as I have stated before.Just because I do not like the message this 'art' is giving, does not mean that I would not fight for the artist's right to do as they wish. If I were there, and someone tried to tear it down, I would be first in line to stop them, and to fight for the right of the artist to show it. At the same time I may carry a sign protesting the intended message.Nor am I objecting to the fact that family abuse needs to be a better known subject. I just simply do not like the fact that this display makes men the sole perpetrators of this crime. I especialy do not like the fact that they used such a strongly emotional and singular symbol to do so. They make penises, (and by direct physical assocoation, men), things to be feared.My point is simple. I do not give the hair on a rats ass whether they used penises or not. They could have simply hung effigy's of men, and only men, to make the same point, for all I care. (But they did choose to use penises, because the image, the very subject, lends a huge amount of emotional weight to their message.) Just a small portion/example of what I mean by this. In public, we say penis, if we say anything at all. In private, we may say cock, or dick, or prick, whatever. There is a very strong social constraint about talking about the penis, and all genitalia, for that matter, in public. You don’t even do so in ‘polite’ private conversation. It has the aura of ‘porn’ about it. A taboo subject. Take all that experiences you had growing up. What would your mother have done/said, if you had talked about any genitalia ? Heck, what would she do NOW ? Now, take this display, put it in front of kids, and other people who don’t know any better, add the ‘taboo’ aura to it, and what affect do you think the whole thing is going to have ? What affect is it even having on grown people who should know better ? Again, in this disply, the penis is being made a symbol of violence. The message is still "if you own a penis, you are violent, and must be feared". Or, more succinctly, penises are violent and must be feared.How many rapes go unreported each year ? And why ? Largely because of the social stigma that is attached. Imagine the social stigma, real or imagined, attatched to a man admitting in public that his wife emotionaly or even physicaly abuses him. I know personaly of very large muscular men who are/have been physicaly abused by their tiny wife, because they refuse to strike her for any reason, and she does not hold the same qualm in any way. Granted, physical abuse from a woman, on a man is rare. But verbal abuse is very common. I have said already that men who hit women, children, animals, etc, are chicken shit pussy's, and should be taken out back and shot, or at least beat the shit out of. I do not in any way condone that sort of behaviour. I think that all men have one option that a very large majority of men just don't consider, and that is to simply walk away.Domestic abuse by anyone against anyone, is wrong. It is despicable. It should not happen. The only way that it can change is through awareness and education. (And more than that, social pressures.) I am all for getting the message out, and making the public more aware. But this display doesn’t just get the message out, and make people more aware of the problem. Why should it matter whether there are ‘more’ male abusers than female ? Does that make it ok for the women, but all men are monsters because a few are abusers ? Because the number of female abusers is smaller than the number of male abusers, it is a waste of bandwidth to discuss it ? Why should I have to come up with some sort of headcount statistics ? It is a fact that not all men are abusers, and not all abusers are men. This display is not about abuse, it is about men.The message should be that abuse is bad, not that men are bad.
*That was exactly my point, Mike.
*Ann,I think that is the intended message. But then we could debate that all day, and never know if either of us is really right.It is not ok for penthouse hustler, et al, to display such crap. Male or female, the mutilation is wrong, the public display is even more wrong. It is not harmless entertainment. It is wrong. But they have that right. I don't have to like it. And I don't have to look at it.I am a very empathetic person. I think I have an inkling of what it makes women feel like. And I know what it makes children feel like. No one should ever be made to feel that way. Women have been putting up with this for centuries. And I suppose that makes it ok now ? I don't accept this kind of treatment for women any more than I do for men. What is wrong is wrong, no matter who it is done to.It may even bother me less than you, for penises to be displayed and objectified in this way. I really don't care about the display of penises. I disagree with the message they are putting across with that display.
*Luka, that was absolutely perfect. Not that you need my approval, but you have it. As far as "controvertial art" goes, I'm a strong supporter of artistic freedom, in fact I see it as an extension of the 1st amendment. As example: Rudy Guiliani pressured a gallery to remove artwork consisting of religious figures and animal excrement. I think Guiliani has done great things for NYC, but this was staggeringly wrong.If a person doesn't like a particular message(art or otherwise) they don't have to look/listen. In this case(hanging penises) people are forced to view a particular message. That is the difference. Now we have artwork on display in public lobbys, courtyards, etc, but they are approved before installation because the public is forced to view said art. I would be extremely surprised to find that this exhibit was approved beforehand.As to the message it delivers, well, I can't begin to explain how offended I am at the insinuation that having a penis makes me an abuser. It couldn't be further from the truth.The artist has the right to think/say anything they want, but don't expect me to go along with being forced into listening, or subjecting my impressionable children to it.Hang it in a gallery somewhere with all Rubens' zoftic babes, or put pics in a magazine next to Hustler. I no more believe all men are abusers, than all women are silicone implanted barbi sluts.I WILL NOT be forced to hear either message, or allow my children to.
*Didn't mean to step on yer toes, I was just responding directly to Ann's post.
*I didn't feel my toes stepped on. Just making sure that you knew that that was actualy what I had intended in the first place.b : )
*Luka, Mike, one of the functions - maybe even the single most important function - of art is to be provocative. It raises questions, promotes discussion, offers alternative points of view, maybe disgusts some, or angers other. If it's done that, then no matter what your aesthetic judgement of a work is, the work has validated its existence. We can't offer any meaningful assessment of the display of hanging penises, simply because we haven't actually seen them. But that particular installation has certainly done its job of raising some hackles around here! The problem seems to be not that the work is controversial, but where the work is installed. Yet where better than a library to pose difficult or challenging questions? Where better than a library to expose children to the existence of controversy, and introduce them to the concept of dialogue? I'm not a big fan of the "vaginas good; penises bad" school of feminism which this installation seems to support, nor of art as propaganda in general. It is, however, a POV that exists, that must be discussed, and I think children should be included in the discussion. And a library, with its ease of access to many, many alternative POVs, just might be the perfect place for a thinking parent to open the discussion.
*Oh, you betcha!:)
*"Daddy, why are all those pee-pees hanging up there?""Well honey, some women think that all men are abusive neanderthals that hit mommies and babies. The pee-pees symbolize men being hung like in olden days when we used to hang criminals by their neck until either their neck snapped or they suffocated."Wonderful conversation topic.I'd tend to think a message about abuse in general far more appropriate. And not nearly as problematic.This kind of display is not only inappropriate for public display, but undercuts the message of the women's rights movement altogether by trivializing the message for controversy.
*And one more thing, a library's purpose is as a resource for education.It is not a platform for the display of one persons perspective above anothers. Now if they also had a similar exhibit of women shooting up while pregnant, or stuffing infants in dumpsters, the argument would have both sides. And it would still be inappropriate.
*Daddy, why are all those pee-pees hanging up there?Well, yes, the conversation could go like that. Or the conversation could take a more productive turn, depending on the parent. Toddlers would generally be satisfied with a more general answer, something like: "Well, that's what some people call 'art'." Older children are ready for a more substantial response that could start with "Well, what do you think it might be about?"
*a resource for educationPrecisely. And all education starts with a single perspective. Only ignorance stays content with a single perspective! As for exhibits of women shooting up while pregnant, I don't know where you live, but where I live the subway walls have stark, very graphic images on billboards, often sponsored by Covenant House, or Salvation Army, or similar, of just such scenes. Children also ride subway cars, and are as likely to question those images as any other.
*What Sandra said.With all their flaws, libraries are a relatively safe place for all except the unruly. Granted, you may have sat near someone studying how to make a bomb, but they're not likely to detonate one there.In my downtown main library, there have always been weirdos, but the worst was the odor. When I worked there I did a lot of pointing to signs, obviously ill-placed or misunderstood, and held my breath as I escorted a patron into a previously occupied music listening booth.Although many visit for mandatory research, a nearly equal number visit for sheer pleasure of discovery. The worst crime was sneaking books out. They have remedied that, sort of. Maybe half the checked out books trigger a false alarm; some days the checkout folks just bypass it and hand us the books beyond the detector.It is constantly occupied by art of one sort or another. Nothing this controversial, however. It also has movies and recitals and story hours. It is the precursor to the info age, and they are keeping up nicely, computer-wise. If children learn that controversy is part of life, and that knowledge almost always helps, and that thought-provoking art leads to conversation, etc., well, I think those kids have a better shot at life and work on this planet and over the airwaves for such exposure.One of the most diverse, civilized places in town.
*i Only ignorance stays content with a single perspective! That's precisely why I disagree with it's use. It gives no context to be compared to.As to the billboards you mention, wonderful!!They however, are an invalid comparison in as much as they do not convey the message that all pregnant mothers shoot up.
*i One of the most diverse, civilized places in townI agree completely, and I love libraries!! I just think this particular display is far too divisive and easily misunderstood.Insulting as well, in it's message, but that's my problem.
*http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/exh_spac.html
*Hi Sandra! I would have chosen shared response rather than conspiracy as a descriptive term, and my curiosty extended to what was the trigger. I think I have a better handle on that now.Interesting that the male focus here is more on the association of penises and violence and that the female focus is on the right of the maker of this exhibit to make this statement.Just as the distaste with which I look at the statement this exhibit makes doesn`t mean art should be censored, the fact that it is purportedly art doesn`t make this statement true, valid or even reasonable. I think that associating penises with violence is the equivalent to saying that all Muslims are bad because of the actions of a few. I think any woman would reject this idea out of hand, and yet can`t find the same flaws in the logic where men and violence are concerned. I find that very disturbing, more even than the message of the exhibit. It not only inaccurately reflects the true situation, it belittles the support offered by the majority of men, those that do not threaten women and children. The fact that this was displayed in a public place with public funding tends to institutionalize the belittlement by officially sanctioning it.
*Hi Dick, I'm not Sandra, but I agree that most women would reject the idea that penises are bad.......Seriously, I would reject that cause and effect argument i.e. men have penises therefore all men are abusers......I wish I could get more information on the exhibit, might put some things into a better perspective.....Ah, found it.....
*The fact that this was displayed in a public place with public funding tends to institutionalize the belittlement by officially sanctioning itHi Dick! I absolutely agree that most women reject the equation of violence with penises, and I know many men who are very vocal and pro-active against spousal/child abuse and violence in general. I don't necessarily agree that this display actually sanctions any such attitude - so hard to talk about an artwork we can't see! But it does open the opportunity to discuss 'what is art', 'what is propaganda', 'what constitutes abuse', 'how can we prevent abuse', and any number of other important questions. Just as it's doing here, I would hope the exhibit is doing the same in Denver. (And I have to wonder - would an exhibit of Rape of the Sabine Women (an acknowledged masterpiece, see it at http://www.artchive.com/artchive/P/poussin/sabine.jpg.html) have had the same effect? (Damn! for reasons I can't pretend to understand, this link is suddenly broken! Oh well, go to Google, and type in Rape of Sabine Women for link to Mark Hardin's artchive.)
*Here is a link to the Boulder Library's web site: scroll down the page a bit to see a description of what is intended through the exhibit. It sounds like more than one artist was represented in this particular exhibit, and possibly, more than one point of view. Browse throught the press releases and the rest of the web site, and notice that there is a very wide range of points of view represented in this library. So far I haven't found any images of the works by the artist we are questioning.http://www.boulder.lib.co.us/calendar/exhibits.htmlDick,i doesn`t make this statement true, valid or even reasonableThe artist's statement is personal. It is not something one makes truth, validity, of reasonability statements about. It is not like saying 2 plus 2 is four. It is that artist's free expression and it is not necessarily endorsed by the exhibiting group or the library.I am not concerned about the penis/violence issue here because 1.) I do not make that association myself, but I am willing to consider the expression of an artist who feels that way, and to look at the artwork created out of that emotion. I doesn't mean I am convinced by the artist's perspective, or that I agree with any particular about it. 2.) I haven't seen the works of art. I have no basis to make a statement about the meaning of the individual works of art without seeing them. All I have so far are verbal descriptions from which we are all in our various ways extrapolating a personal interpretation. I don't know what they "mean" until I see them. It is arrogant and irresponsible to be convinced of the meaning of a work of art without even looking at it. 3.) I do not believe there is one fixed meaning of any work of art in the way that a chemical formula conveys a precise unit of information that should be understood in the same way by anyone who sees it.
*and once again, thank you Ms Theodora! (Note to self: why do I keep referring to Denver, when it's Boulder that's home to the offending artwork???)
*Thanks, Theodora......
*Hey, Sandra, I know I'm computer challenged......I had the damned site, just couldn't get the link to work.....
*Thumbnails:http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/p/poussin/2/index.htmlAnd no, I don't believe it would have had the same effect at all.
*Actually,serving as a resource for education is only one of a good librarys' purposes.BTW if any of you want equal time AND own a traveling collection of ceramic vaginas ----you won't have any trouble finding a library that will display them.
*I read it, Pi, and thanks for taking the time. Aside from having a bad cold and therefore worse cognitive skills and tact than normal, statistics on this don't have the effect on me that the individual stories do. If 7000 or 70000 or 7 women or men are abused, the number doesn't sink in. My limitation. I don't know what to do with it. The stories behind the numbers though, really resonate. So many people leading lives of quiet desparation. Jim
*Hello Theodora. Your points regarding the display of art are well taken. Pursuing the link to the exhibits you provided through to the Safehouse sponsoring the exhibit and the request for submissions for this exhibit by the Safehouse revealed that "expressions of rage" were considered suitable subject matter and victims of violence were the group requested to submit. It would seem that this is someone`s therapy, and I hope it had beneficial effect.Sandra, one other discussion I would like to see opened along with all those you mentioned is about the tendency to categorize domestic violence as a male preserve. There appears to be a widely held view, and it has appeared in this thread, that violence against males by females is inconsequential. There is the view that because the violence practiced by women is more often verbal than physical, it is not violence. There is also a broad tendency to include all males in the discussion of violence by males against women. These are the causes of my instinctive reaction in this discussion.A good friend of mine, a very kind and gentle man, and his son recently spent the night in jail. It seems the son`s girlfriend, a very athletic girl with a mercurial temper was doing beaters on him. He managed to call his father who came to rescue him. My friend had to physically restrain the girl in order to allow the son to get out of the apartment. Within minutes of getting his son back home, the police arrived and they were off to jail. They avoided court because the GIRL decided not to press charges.Another friend became involved with a woman. The advice this woman`s father gave my friend on first meeting was "Son, you better get a second job". After going through the contents of my friends bank accounts, the relationship started going downhill, and the woman started becoming violent. In defending himself from an attack which left a kitchen knife stuck in the drywall (her installation, not his), he bruised her. Same story, here comes John Law and a night in the can. This woman pursued the charges resulting in some fairly stringent bail conditions for my friend and a ten month wait to trial. At trial, the judge listened to the stories, asked the woman to explain some of the conflicts in her story and then threw out the charges. Legal bill, about three grand.Individual, minor cases, but illustrative of the fact that the idea that all men are violent is already institutionalized. This is further supported by the link to the family violence page that Pi provided. In the index of the site, there is one glaring omission - there is no subheading for female violence against males.Perhaps the therapy that this woman obtained by creating this exhibit was valuable, and perhaps her rendition of the equipment was particularly artistic, but how do you balance that against the right of good and decent men to be free of the stigma that this exhibit reinforces?
*Well said, Dick. And well met.
*Sorry about the cold, Cloud.....I know it's not the most interesting reading.....I guess statistics are out there for a reason so we can all ponder.....I don't know what to do with it either.....I guess just keep working for more women and men to become aware.....I'm thinking of a parent(I suspect some of you think I make these things up), a woman, who was hit in the head so many times with a hammer by her husband she is brain damaged, yet walks her kids to school every day.....Kids are screwed up beyond belief....And it is NOT just men who abuse....
*Good Mornin', Dick.....Again, I'm not Sandra, but I have to respond to your comment about the site I posted....I could be interpreting it incorrectly, but I think it is saying that more women are victims of violence by a family member than men.....*76% of women were assauled or raped by a husband, co-habiting partner or date.....*17.9% of males were assaulted or raped by a wife, ex-wife, co-habiting partner or date.....Now, we all are suspect of statistics,however, I truly feel that more women are assaulted by family or partners than are men......
*Dick,Your two anecdotes highlight the law today. Regardless of the facts, the first person to make the accusation gets to put the other in jail. The only way to avoid this is to never, never, ever touch another person during an argument (a good idea anyway). The way domestic violence laws in most places work, if the cops are called, and if the other person touched the complaintant, that person goes to the pokey and it's left to the judge to figure it out (saw it on "Cops" so it's gotta be accurate! ha ha ha). When my friend hit her husband, he coulda called 911 right then and she'da been in jail. Coulda screwed her life up in one moment of anger. She said that I was the only one who lectured HER; her parents, psych, and crisis counseler all told her that he was wrong for trying to restrain her ("A man who pushes you once will soon start to hit you--leave him now" is what the latter told her). What about her culpability? She's still my friend, but she struck first and was wrong. He was wrong to not run away from it and to lay hands on her. Hitting in anger is never good unless you're in a boxing ring and getting paid millions to take a dive in round 4.
*Equating verbal attacks to physical attacks only downplays the seriousness of physical attacks. Ever heard of the old school yard taunt: sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me? There is a huge difference between bitter words and fists or weapons landing on a person. While female on male violence is much rarer than male on female violence, both are very wrong and both are trying to force another person to one's will. The whole violence issue is about exerting power over another person and the extent some will go to force their will. If a woman (or a man for that matter) only fights with words and never with physical blows or things, it is not a crime nor does it equate to the same fear elicted from someone who does throw blows.What I don't really get is why a display of male genetalia is necessarily equating all men with violence. Seems to me the heated and emotional response to the story of this particular display is more about each person's individual interpretation of the display and then saying everyone has the same interpretation. Based upon the description and not having seen the display myself, I would not have come to the conclusion that it meant all men were abusers. Now, I would have come to the conclusion that it was about men as abusers and not women as abusers, but that is a different display and for all I know, other displays may have addressed that issue. I am pretty sure tho, that victims of life long severe physical domestic abuse have a warped view of the other members of the same sex as the abuser. A lot like an abused dog will turn into a fear biter. It's what they've been taught.I won't get into the is it art debate - it was clearly a political statement and as such is protected by the bill of rights.Mary
*i I personally feel that any "art" that depicts anger or hatred toward another group of people is offensive, and should not be allowed. Period. I don't think that's the right path to take, but I'd certainly not put this kind of thing in a public library. That's the wrong venue for controversial visual art - a controversial book would be just fine. People who just want to get a couple of books shouldn't be subject to something with so much potential to offend on so many levels.did
*I think it's really a stretch to call stuff like this "art", but there's a lot of room for taste in defining art. I'm not sure that the person who did this stuff really hates men or anything. Maybe they just wanted to stir up some debate on the subject - Nothing wrong with that. But no way do I think this is an appropriate display for a public library. Art or not, it just doesn't belong there.
*Good morning Pi. Your points about relative numbers of abusers is true, but that doesn`t make female violence excusable or ignorable and that family violence site seems to do just that. After all, men are a component of families. As for statistics - which column in the statistical ledger do you think the two incidents I described go in given that in both cases the men were arrested. Which one SHOULD they go in. Your friend`s story is tragic, but I don`t know a single man who wouldn`t have stepped in to stop it had he seen it happen.Cloud, I don`t know how either of the men could have avoided touching the women in their respective situations and I`m not sure why it is acceptable for either of these women to put these guys in jail. Aren`t you transferring the blame to the victims here in saying they had no excuse for touching the attackers, that they should have just left. Does that apply to female victims as well?Tesaje, is the self-image destroying verbal abuse that accompanies most incidents of male violence against women not a component of the abuse? Does that only apply in situations where the male is the abuser? I realize that physical violence is more immediately serious, but is a lesser evil not still an evil and as such, worthy of attention?To say that women are striving for equality and then say that the prohibitions on violence shouldn`t apply equally is saying that Orwell was right, some pigs are more equal than others (no aspersions meant).
*Dick,Everything I said was to be supportive of your examples. Sorry if it wasn't clearer. That someone can instigate and then call the cops when the other defends is outrageous. What I wrote about my understanding of the law was just meant as a statement of what I've been told. The cops don't know who did what first--they're often just required by law to jail someone as soon as they're told it got physical. They don't have lots of discretion. In your cases, your friends did not call the cops. Unfortunately the instigators did and that worked against your friends. It's almost become a game of chicken: are we gonna call the cops, and who's gonna reach the phone first. No one wins.
*In answer, no I don't think self image destroying verbal sparing is a component of physical abuse. To equate it as such is to make excuses for the violence. And that applies to both men and women and even children. Disputes should never go beyond verbal. Once they do, then they are criminal. There is no excuse for responding to words with violence. If the verbal abuse is awful, then the reasonable and legal response is divorce. That's why we have divorce laws - so people don't have to stay with non-criminal or verbally abusive situations. Criminal abuse should be stopped with the full force of the law. And that is regardless of the sex of the abuser. It just so happens the vast majority of criminal abusers are men against women, but it does happen the other way around. The typical profile of a male abuser is he is the one doing the verbal abuse in preparation for the physical assault. The woman can do nothing right and no matter how meek and obediant she tries to be, he always finds an excuse to beat her again. Maybe it's the same with female abusers - I don't know.I have a brother who got caught in the domestic dispute laws. His ex-wife attacked him with something during a nasty argument and he caught her arms and restrained her from further attacking him. In this matter, he had some bruises and cuts from her kicking him, but she called the police and he was taken away. The justice system worked and the charges were dismissed once the facts and evidence were laid out. The police had no way of knowing the truth at the time and are required to separate the combatants. I believe him because I grew up with him and participated in some vicious childish taunting where we got him extremely angry as a teenager and he never, ever harmed us in any way except to make us believe he would. He, like all my brothers, was taught no matter what, you don't hurt a girl, your sisters, or anyone younger, weaker and smaller than you. And none of them ever would. So no, verbal attacks are not justification or even an excuse for violence. If it were, you'd all be bloodying one another in the tavern.Mary
*Cloud, your understanding of the law is correct. Another friend is retired RCMP and according to him, in any domestic dispute callout, someone is heading downtown. The built in prejudice in the system is that unless the woman is caught with a knife in her hand, the male gets the car ride.Tesaje, after witnessing how verbal abuse is used to gain control over someone, and it usually is a female being abused, I personally consider it an unacceptable form of abuse. The part that really saddens me is that the abused begin to believe it is true, that they are valueless and therefore deserving of the physical abuse that goes along with the verbal abuse. I can`t separate one form of abuse from the other and have no tolerance for either.
*Theodora, thanks for the link! I definitely agree we are arguing with limited knowledge of the actual display. I was under the impression that this display was arranged at the entrance to the main library. You are right, it is arrogant and irresponsible to judge art without looking at it, although the message conveyed seems obvious. I am guilty of judging it's appropriateness(?) without understanding WHERE it was to begin with. I have, and never had any problem with this being display in a gallery. My argument had to do with it's placement at the entrance to a public library. I believe I see now that is not true, and my point is moot.Art is art is art, and I welcome all kinds.Thanks for opening my eyes,Mike
*Dick, While I don't disagree with verbal abuse being a bad thing, it isn't as bad as being physically abused. Yes, the victim can start to believe it, but being physically beaten is many degrees worse. Sometimes the victim can't escape a physical abuser - he kills her and/or the kids if she tries (occasionally it is a woman who does this, but much more often it is a man). If the abuse is limited to verbal, there is always an escape if one chooses to take it.Mary
*Dick, I don't think the site makes female violence excusable or ignorable, these are just dry statistics....I have printed out the whole site and am going to ponder it when I have more time....As far as your examples, I don't know where they would fit in....I do know, from experience, that more men are arrested in domestic violence cases unless it can be proven that the women started it.....Domestic violence takes on many facets, hitting, slapping, pushing, physically harming someone with an instrument, etc......I also know that about 25 years ago, when police were called to a domestic violence call, a great many women would not prosecute which has to be done in order for any further help for the victim to happen....This is a complex issue and I hope more of us delve into this and try to understand.....Humans are complex as are the domestic violence problems......Women kill their partners only when they see no other way out or the partner threatens the children.....But, that's another topic....I'm glad the library site was finally posted as we can all see it is in a gallery where one can choose to look or not......
*Abuse is abuse verble physical, psychological period. Non of it is any good. But the worst abuse is not getting the pics we need the pics ladies... :)
*Ron,If that's the worst you ever have to experience, then you should be a happy man. Use your imagination. Most men's imaginations seem to be sufficient and reality would only dampen your fun. ;-)Mary
*And if someone wanted to display the Rebel battle flag, and call it art, then that would be ok? Most of America doesn't think it would. Sorry, but I still believe that any "art" designed to promote and progress hatred toward any group is wrong, and should not be displayed - anywhere, any time (in public). People can try to hide this hatred under the guise of art all they want, but it has no place in a civilized society. Just my humble opinion...James DuHamel
*James, I don't think most americans would object too strenuosly to someone displaying a rebel flag and calling it art. what most americans objected too was the rebel flag being flown over a state capitol.Very Big Difference
*Theodore...no. 5... have you hung out in Boulder much? No? That is why you don't know why she didn't hang the American flag.There is a reason that goes far beyond stereotyping why many Coloradoans consider Boulder a bad place. A lot of my liberal friends included.
*Well, c'mon, wet, don't just beat around the bush. If you know for sure what the reason is why she didn't display the flag, then say so. If you don't know, then don't drop such insinuations.
*Mary you could always show me yours
*She was quoted on more than one occasion as not hanging the flag so as not to offend anyone!!! That is why this whole penis issue is BS. This IS America. Which means you can say whatever you want. But if my employees want to slap me in the face they get to fund that activity with someone else's money not mine. The same applies here!
*I agree in principle, no doubt. Hate art is just as despicable, destructive, and divisive as the message it conveys.The problem is all things aren't offensive to all people, and who(or what body) would we trust to decide what has value as art, and what is crap? Banning any art from private display sets a very dangerous precedent. Getting addict-looking half naked models off busses and billboards is a different story.JMHOs too,Mike
*Ron,Yep, I could.But...;-)Mary
*Mary,Teasing me thats not fair
*Yeah, teasing isn't fair.b : )
*It isn't fair, but is it art ???
*I'd say that yes, her shorts are art, and therefore should be publicaly displayed.b : )
*It never ceases to amaze me that roughly 50% of the world's population has a penis which is so necessary for the survival of the species, yet so many people are offended by it. How did they get into such a messed up state of mind?Offensive? I find spousal abuse offensive, child pornography, pedophiles, and right wing religious conservatives who want to control the community moral standards according to their skewed beliefs. Hey, we're not that far away from the Taliban if you listen very carefully to Falwell and some of the others out there.Cliff.
*I don't purport to speak for everyone, but I think the majority of us have a problem with equating penis ownership with violence in a public display. After reviewing the floorplan of the library and realizing that the subject display is in a gallery(not at the entrance to the Library proper), I have no problem with it. I don't agree with what I perceive to be the artist's message, but she has a right to say it.Mike
*Mike, you looked and you saw.......How do you feel about censorship in any form?
*I'm not a big fan of censorship at all. With the exception being of course public safety, hate messages and riot incitement, etc. Without freedom of speach and it's variances, we've got nothing.
heh heh
Luka said #### and #######.
be #### and #######
Get a Peach full,easy feelin'.
Lol, digging up old threads today, are we?
Great fun, me thinks!
"He said "Buck up baby, it's okay. The sunlight on the floor will always fall." ~ Sarah Harmer
*
Monday, November 12, 2001 - BOULDER - The man who stole 20 ceramic penises from the public library said he might take them again if they're openly displayed.
"If they press this, I know a dozen other "El Dildo Banditos' who will also press it," said Robert Rowan, 49.
Rowan admitted on Sunday that he is the original El Dildo Bandito, who took the brightly colored sculptures from the Boulder Public Library on Saturday. He called KOA Radio that night, and the station called Boulder
police with information about where he lived.
The work was titled "Hanging 'Em Out to Dry," and displayed in honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The exhibit drew fire earlier this month after library director Marcilee Gralapp decided not to hang a large American flag in the building's entrance.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E221306,00.html