Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 February 20

= February 20 =

why do feminists put red color on their face?
According to what I understand it is common to see feminists in their demonstrations while they put a red color on their face (it can be ketchup or something like that- look here for example on minute 1:32), then my question is what is the meaning of this action? what do they means to say by this action? I never understood.93.126.95.68 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to provide a reference for Bugs' assertion, see this article about the exact protest in your video. -- Jayron 32 03:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But still I don't understand what is the purpose to put a fake blood on the face. I believe that they wanted to pass a message by this action, such as to show the proud of the women gender by period blood or something like that, but I'm not sure, it's just assuming. In this video we can see a imitation of them by women but as a non native English speaker I don't understand the spelling on 1:32 and from there on, it's not clear and kindly maybe you can tell me the transcription for these seconds (sounds something like "I'm rowdy - not I'm president"?) 93.126.95.68 (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can ascribe a specific motive beyond "drawing attention to one's self and by extension, to one's cause". Start with the null hypothesis and whatever you can't find positive evidence to support, make no assumptions about one way or the other.  We don't know whether the blood is supposed to symbolize menstrual blood, blood of assaulted women, blood of murdered women, blood of men they feel have wronged them, or any or none of these.  So we can say "it's blood" and that's that.  Nothing else needs be said unless we have direct statements by the women regarding their motives and their intended symbolism.  -- Jayron 32 04:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeeeaaahh. Or we could Google feminist blood face and see that it's typically meant to symbolize menstrual "blood". Here's one example of why they might do that and what it's supposed to symbolize. I'm not sure what you're going for, Jayron; are you supposing feminists are so alien that we can only guess at their motives? Matt Deres (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, what we're going for is the consistent application of the null hypothesis to answer all questions without evidence. I don't guess at the motives of others, because that is rude.  Like you did right here, where you invented something I never said, and then got outraged at your own invention.  I don't do that.  You do.  -- Jayron 32 23:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, they also raised their right fists, and some suggest it's solidarity with the "Black Lives Matter" movement which that neo-Nazi was ridiculing (along with feminism). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What neo-Nazi would that be, Bugs? I didn't see any neo-Nazi.  I saw someone who had come to campus to talk about being open to new ideas. --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing new about white male supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide proof that anyone in the room was advocating white male supremacy. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For one, the part of the crowd yelling "Trump! Trump! Trump!" The speaker hates feminism and hates the "black lives matter" movement. Nuff sed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough said? Really?  How do you get from hating feminism and hating the "black lives matter" movement, to white male supremacy?  Do you think there is no possible way to criticize those two movements other than from the standpoint that white males ought to be supreme?  If so, can you demonstrate that? --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The criticism itself arises from the belief in white male supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought I was clear; I asked you to demonstrate, not just to restate. I suppose this is a slightly different claim from the one I asked you to demonstrate, since you did not say that there was no possible other criticism, just that this was Yiannopoulos's criticism (I assume that's whom we're talking about).  So to clarify, please demonstrate that this is the source of the criticism. --Trovatore (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Enough ladies, let's just stich to the question, not the motives of established, good-faith editors. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it was you, but I've removed the hat. Perhaps part of the discussion is offtopic, but Jayron's first response which was hatted was specifically about the OP's question "still I don't understand what is the purpose to put a fake blood on the face" so is both ontopic and is not relating to the motives of established good faith editors. Matt's response was likewise ontopic and in fact included a reference even if it did question the comment (but not the motives) of another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "ontopic"? Is that the latest manifestation of the "No separate prepositions Movement"?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An onto-pic is a film about how things are. An epistemo-pic is one about how we find out. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, I just heard a radio reporter mispronounce bio-pic (a biographic moving picture/movie/film) as "bi-opic". Sounds like some version of binoculars. StuRat (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm 'bi-opic'...I was going with 'myopic in both eyes'! SteveBaker (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)