Amber must be so glad she’s on maternity leave.
Shortpacked! by David Willis
Toys are serious business.
Convention appearances:
Calgary Expo Calgary, AB: April 26-28
Phoenix Comicon Phoenix, AZ: May 23-26, 2013
BotCon San Diego, CA: June 28-30
San Diego Comic-Con San Diego, CA: July 18-21
SPX Bethesda, MD: September 14-15
Phoenix Comicon Phoenix, AZ: May 23-26, 2013
BotCon San Diego, CA: June 28-30
San Diego Comic-Con San Diego, CA: July 18-21
SPX Bethesda, MD: September 14-15
Multiplex
Sorcery 101
Templar, AZ
The Transformers Wiki
Hail to the Slash
80 page GIANT
Axe Cop
The Book of Biff
Butt-Taco
Comics Curmudgeon
College Roomies from Hell!!!
Diesel Sweeties
Dinosaur Comics
Dr. McNinja
Dresden Codak
Fans!
Fleen
Gastrophobia
Girl Genius
Girls with Slingshots
Goats
Hark, a vagrant
Hijinks Ensue
Intrepid Girlbot
Legend of Bill
Medium Large
Not Invented Here
Octopus Pie
Overcompensating
Penny Arcade
PhDcomics
Power Nap
Questionable Content
Real Life
Rob and Elliot
Bad Machinery
Schlock Mercenary
Sheldon
So Far Apart
Something Positive
Two Lumps
Wapsi Square
Wonderella
Wondermark
Frumph.NET
Sorcery 101
Templar, AZ
The Transformers Wiki
Hail to the Slash
80 page GIANT
Axe Cop
The Book of Biff
Butt-Taco
Comics Curmudgeon
College Roomies from Hell!!!
Diesel Sweeties
Dinosaur Comics
Dr. McNinja
Dresden Codak
Fans!
Fleen
Gastrophobia
Girl Genius
Girls with Slingshots
Goats
Hark, a vagrant
Hijinks Ensue
Intrepid Girlbot
Legend of Bill
Medium Large
Not Invented Here
Octopus Pie
Overcompensating
Penny Arcade
PhDcomics
Power Nap
Questionable Content
Real Life
Rob and Elliot
Bad Machinery
Schlock Mercenary
Sheldon
So Far Apart
Something Positive
Two Lumps
Wapsi Square
Wonderella
Wondermark
Frumph.NET
Tags
amber
animated
batman
botcon
conquest
conventions
dark of the moon
david willis
dinobot
drew
duncan
ethan
faz
galasso
generations
gijoe
guest strip
hamsters
homosexuality
jacob
jesus
joe
justice league
ken
leslie
malaya
megatron
merch
mike
ninja rick
nipple
optimus prime
politics
religion
robin desanto
ronald reagan
roz
sdcc
sg ravage
shattered glass
star wars
tni strips
transformers
transformers prime
ultra car
©2005-2013 David Willis | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress | Subscribe: RSS | Back to Top ↑
What spurred this comic?
Dudes.
Most non-triumphant.
(Air guitar!)
No, the air guitar goes with “Excellent!”. “Most non-triumphant” comes with slumped shoulders and a sad head shake.
I don’t have a sound effect for that one. Maybe the losing trombones?
(Wah wah wahhhhh!)
Air sad trombone?
I’m assuming this [and its resulting Internet backlash]
though the amount of spite money it raised is nothing short of astonishing!
From earlier Twitter convo I’m assuming the inspiration for this might have Dr. Drew experiencing a very different psychic twinge than that Arch is experiencing.
Spite is one of my favorite things. Money is also one of my favorite things. Therefor spite money is almost certainly inherently orgasmic.
I honestly hope she brings something new to the table, and it isn’t just a bunch of things we’ve all heard before, cause repeating the same arguments sure doesn’t seem to be doing much, and probably won’t stand much of a chance against a billions-dollar industry.
You’re right! In every discrimination struggle, if you simply stop asking for something, everything changes!
Ah, hyperbolic misinterpretation, our old friend. Where would the Internet be without you?
People exaggerating something far beyond proportion?
What is this, the internet?
I don’t see it so much hyperbole, as I see it as what you’re asking is patently impossible to effect any sort of real change.
But with your name, I figure it doesn’t really affect you. So you can keep whining about how it’s soooo annoying when the people it does effect, complain.
agreed. as much as i support a lot of these feminist beliefs, repetition just gets in the way of the message, and makes them seem like broken records wanting attention. (not saying that’s what they are, just mentioning how they seem sometimes)
I’m actually finding the repetition, and especially ubiquity, of stuff like this to be quite effective. Until several months ago, these feminist issues weren’t something I thought much about. Then it was suddenly in a LOT of the internet media I consume be it Facebook or the 30 some odd webcomics I read.
Now feminist issues and my behavior in regards to it are something I consciously think about with great frequency. I wasn’t a raging misogynist or anything, but there are lots of little issues I didn’t even think to consider before. I’ll mess up from time to time, but awareness of it as a problem is of paramount import. This has only occurred because of the constant reminders I have seen across the internet. The broken record is a necessity.
I hear ya, man…
This.
You know, I’ve a woman and in the last few years I’ve become more aware of what I say or assume about men and women (particularly my fellow women). The sad thing is that some of the worse sexism I’ve seen if from other women about other women. Part of that is what our culture has taught us, but it’s about time we all take more responsibility for this stuff.
I see two basic possibilites resulting from the successful completion of these videos.
1. Good End – The industry ‘gets saved’ and makes games a bit differently. Especially if they’re starting with a game modeled after Assassin’s Creed that features characters involved in/working for the Bene Gesserit.
2. Bad End – People get stirred up without just cause and start nice, secular, hyperbolic bonfires of all such media that is not deemed permissible by the soccer moms/angry schoolmarms of the day.
Yes, this basically. Repetition helps if you’re unused to the ideas being presented. Especially, different people saying the same things, but finding new ways to say them.
There are currently multiple sexism threads on the Penny-Arcade forums, started because of the Hitman trailer and possibly spurred on by the other sexist things happening in gaming at the moment. One person came up with a really beautiful analogy to explain certain things that some in the discussion were not getting:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/23297174
The analogy was so great, in fact, that people kept returning to it to stress the point. For me, it’s another way to look at the problem. And maybe for one of the people arguing that there is no sexism, it might be something that causes them to think.
That is…that is an absolutely fantastic analogy. I could hug that poster; it’s just so beautifully put!
I assume that it is moniker’s analogy to post office opening hours that you are referring to? Just posting a more-specific link here because it took me two minutes to find the precise comment.
Oh, belay that. LadyM’s mosaic analogy is even more fun.
The link I gave is *supposed* to link directly to LadyM’s analogy, I’m not sure why it doesn’t.
Oh ye gods, the amount of sheerly hateful, violent, and downright frightening things that have been hurled at that poor woman are horrific.
Is the idea of women wanting our voices heard really THAT threatening?
Apparently so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igXz_hXKUcE&sns=em
(You think he’d at least wait for one episode before joining the dog pile.)
That would require talent and insight, instead of just trying to ride a bandwagon.
I gotta admit though, I’d rather donate to something like the Hero Initiative or Brian Banks’ Kickstarter. They definitely need the money a lot more.
That’s entirely valid, you don’t have to support the project, just don’t go to endless lengths to shout it down.
This isn’t the first web series she’s done, actually. Tropes vs. Women has been making the rounds on the internet for a while now.
Indeed. It’s obviously an either/or situation. You either give money to a kickstarter about women in video games, or you cure cancer. THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!
Well, considering Static Shock co-creator Robert Washington died recently at the age of 47 and is currently sitting in a morgue in NYC because *they don’t have enough money to bury him*, I’d like to think that maybe that would be a more important issue, but apparently it isn’t.
Honestly, if I had any bone to pick, it’d be that maybe she should donate a sizable chunk of that money to charity, considering she only needed about over 20 times less than what she made to fund her project.
Obviously only the absolute most immediately pressing issue in the world today should be addressed in any form. Why are you worrying about Robert Washington when there are starving children in Africa?
I like how he’s reviewing her as yet un-made web series on the topic before it even happens. I’ll watch it. Maybe she does have enough content in mind to cover 6 episodes. I can’t imagine what, but I’d love to be surprised.
Blah, are you suggesting one make judgements based on real, fair, and ya know – existing factors instead of ones based on ones own bloated ego?
Uhg, someone here is new to the internet!
(Yes, I’m kidding around…)
*cough*LifeofBrian*cough*
Wow, so much misguided hate in that video. I signed in just to dislike it.
Don’t dislike videos in YouTube, the YouTube algorithms actually use both likes AND dislikes to make a video more popular. By disliking a video you’re actually making sure that more people are likely to see it.
Well.
I went back and un-disliked it. I just hope that’s not somehow worse.
I love how he takes a shot at her for making a video based on her “pre-concieved notions” of women in video games, while criticizing her entire web series based on his…ah…own pre-concieved notions of what it will address.
To be fair, nobody accused him of being intelligent or capable introspective logic.
It’s not very good of me to say, I know, but I can’t bring myself to think it’s a good thing her video series is being made. I don’t dislike her videos because she’s a woman, I dislike her videos because her style of analysis is lazy and either brings nothing new to the the discussion or is outright incorrect.
I mean this is the woman who made a video saying that “It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas” was sexist because of a line in which two girls expressed a wish for a doll for Christmas. In the same video she said that “I saw mummy kissing santa claus” implies that all women are cheating scumbags and the line “Say What’s in this drink” from “Baby it’s cold outside” could be read as being about rohypnol, despite the line being written some 40 years before Rohypnol was first synthesised.
Her video on the Smurfette principal was appalling. It basically just recited the TV tropes article and gave no analysis of the subject or deeper discussion than a description of it and a couple of examples.
Basically, she’s lazy and knee-jerk in her reactions. She deliberately tries to find things to get mad about and in doing so lessens her impact when she gets mad about something that actually matters. If you want to listen to video-blogs that tackle women’s issues in media in a thoughtful, insightful way you’d be much better off watching the Nostalgia Chick.
David, by any chance, do you browse /r9k/?
Where’s a Sphincter Clench generator when you need one?
0n maternity leave, apparently
But Steve, /b/ already exists for just that reason.
Does he live in an alternate blue universe where all he does is talk about men’s rights to that man all day? Is that other guy in hell, and is Arch punishing him for his misdeeds?
You’re traveling through another dimension — a dimension not only of sight and sound but of patronization of women. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of male chauvinism. That’s a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Sausage Fest!
I read that in Rod Sterling’s voice.
…
OH MY GOD HIS NAME IS ROD. XD
And also Serling
yeah, he lives in a blue world. and all day and all night and everything he sees is blue just like him, inside and outside.
Blue his house with a blue little window and a blue Corvette. And everything is blue for him and himself and everybody around, ’cause he ain’t got nobody to listen to…..
…win…
The best comment
You deserve all the win.
I have to take of my hat and bow to you.
As a woman who spends a lot of time on the internet, I waver between utterly losing all hope for the future of humanity, and being overwhelmed by the number of people like you, Mr Willis. Men who get that women’s issues are, in fact, still a thing. And that talking about them doesn’t mean I’m on my period or that I hate men.
Thank you.
I like that too. Makes me feel better when people listen to genuine greivances of women, race, sexuality, or anything really.
Ditto!
I concur.
Same here! I agree very much.
And then there’s this weird disconnect where for a little while you spend so long hanging out in the “good” spaces, where people are respectful (at least regarding gender/sexuality/race/etc), then you go somewhere else (like, out in the real world, sometimes around relatives), and then you get smacked in the face by re-learning that no, there’s still so many awful people, and non-awful people who believe some genuinely awful things.
I actually ran into that on the racism front a few years ago. (Full disclosure, I’m a white/native American woman, so it’s rarely aimed AT me). I’d been at a very liberal workplace. I choose my friends with care. I just didn’t RUN INTO IT a lot. I mean, I knew it was still a thing, but I didn’t see it.
Then I started working in a construction-based business, and had to perfect the “Stop talking in my presence this instant” look.
I don’t get why there are men who still don’t get that women’s issues still exist and are more than relevant. (Of course I am a man and I know that…)
I’ll admit I’ve been offended by stereotypes about men, but I’m also just as offended by stereotyping of women.
I’d really like to think I’m in the majority, but years on the internet suggest I’m just a – some kind of small fish in a big pond analogy…
A tiny, tiny minnow that has been swept into the Marianas Trench?
a tadpole in the pacific?
A goldfish in Lake Michigan?
Those goldfish are scary – tougher than nails [really] able to survive in the muck that is the lake and put up with pretty much anything and survive.
Way I see it, if you’re young enough it’s pretty easy to just see that you’re always asked to do the heavy lifting while the girls sit in the corner giggling about what stupid lugs men are. If you’re old enough you may have picked up some pretty messed up ideas about equality, and if you’re ignorant enough it’s pretty easy to believe anything at any age.
The problem is that issues exist on *both* sides of the fence, but most of the die-hard advocates of both the feminist movement and the men’s rights movement refuse to acknowledge that the other side might have a valid point.
Women’s issues are issues. Men’s issues are also issues. And both sides have places where their issues are in dire need of fixing. But when people focus on one gender’s issues while ignoring the other gender’s issues, is it any surprise that people start feeling a bit bitter? And of course there’s the fact that, in some places, those issues overlap or interact in unpredictable ways, and it’s difficult to compensate for them.
Women have assistance, in the form of things like affirmative action and women’s scholarships and the like, in getting into college. This was instituted because women were being discriminated against, and they’ve counteracted that. Now, women are going to school (and graduating) more than men, but they’re doing less in the STEM fields. How do you help women get into STEM jobs if they want, without unfairly hampering men’s efforts to also go to school and get a good education and job?
Reproductive issues are another situation that gets very tricky. I will be among the first to say that women should have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies. But the court system is royally fucked when it comes to parental rights, custody, and child support. So when men complain that women have the right to keep the child (and take in child support), or to abort the child, or to offer the child up for adoption, and the man (whose genetic material is 50% responsible for the creation of that child) has no say in it, there’s some merit to that point as well.
I sort of started ranting there for a bit, but what I’m trying to say is that by segregating our issues into “women’s issues” or “men’s issues” or whatever else, and then placing those issues at the forefront of discourse, you mariginalize everybody who’s not part of those issues. And by looking out for women first, or men first, you’re unfairly excluding half the population whose sole crime was being born with a certain chromosome.
Well, here’s pretty much exactly what I mean.
Some issues are easily segregated into men’s issues or women’s issues. Not all, but some. But I never said anything about that. I just thanked a man for recognizing that these issues exist and that when women talk about them, invariably, some dude’s gotta get pissy about it.
And lo, some dude got pissy about me saying that. What a surprise. I can’t even say “thank you” without it being turned into a discussion of how men have it just as bad and having my reproductive rights questioned, or being told that gender equality is a zero-sum game.
Especially since he’s saying goddamned stupid things about how men should be allowed to have a say in abortions (not your body) and how women are unfairly favored in family court (not actually true, and when it is, it’s due to patriarchy).
I do just have to say, you don’t need to be a woman to lose faith in humanity on the interwebz…
Oye, interwebz? Maybe a State Capitol is enough to do it and demonstrate the fact that women’s issues are a “thing”- thanks Michigan GOP, you godsdamned cromags.
The problem with misogyny and with misandry is that they’re only half right. Misanthropy’s where it’s at.
Malaya isn’t scared, she just needed an excuse to grab Leslie’s ass.
don’t we all?
How crude and inappropriate, considering the subject matter of this comic! I’ll have you know I don’t need any excuse whatsoever to do that!
Wait…
Harass not the Lesbian, foolish men, for Robin has proven herself quite protective fo her. I’m sure each of your heads would fit up each other’s asses.
We can call it the Human Chauvipede!
And Human Centipede 4 will have finally come to fruition.
Wait, is there already a Human Centipede 3!?
Now now, lets be fair, each is enough of an ass as it is, and they are able to bend over backwards to prove it. So make em bagels. Nobody hates bagels, they just feel sorry for the bad ones …..
I’d tell them Miss Andry isn’t here today Come back tomorrow.
her and ms. anthrope are out with mrs. Sippi
Strange, I heard something completely different from Miss Informed.
well no wonder. She got all her info from Ms. Leading
Ms. Take seems to be letting people post online again.
Meanwhile, Robin is off with having fun with Miss Adventure, as usual. That always leads her to Miss Behave.
As long as she doesn’t get Miss Understood and Miss Taken confused.
And giving everyone the grand tour of the whole thing is everyone’s favorite tour guide Miss Information.
And of cause, Miss Chief is popular with the kids.
…Ms. Anthrope is the name of a teacher in Captain Underpants.
THEY ALL HAVE NAMES LIKE THAT.
damnit…you caught me….
(avid captain underpants reader as a child)
Her first name was Edith. I never got that. There’s a pun there, right?
eat-it an throw-up
Where’s Robin when you need her?
Following Ethan and Manny around with a video camera, a boom mike, and a kiddie pool full of pudding, waiting patiently for the inevitable.
Actually, it’s just a kiddie pool now. Pudding does not last very long in that girl’s presence.
Rule #3 of the $400 Worth of Pudding Party: The Kiddie Pool Pudding is NOT for Eating.
Aw
Shouldn’t Robin be coming to the rescue at superhuman speeds about now?
She’s probably afraid she might accidentally save Malaya.
that is a legitimate fear…
But she could use Malaya as a blunt instrument to beat off the men harassing her Lesbian!
…i’m-a need to draw that…when I get home…
I hope to see it.
She is rather blunt, usually.
> beat off
Your choice of words…
The last panel has been my week, unfortunately.
The last panel has been everyone’s week, it seems. It has been a(n especially) rough few days for feminists, between that Kickstarter and that Catwoman cover have drug up all of the “But dudes too!” types from both fandoms.
Plus the “vaginas are rude!” thing. Hooray.
I’d actually forgotten about that, somehow. Walrus penis? Fine. The word “vagina”? Please remove yourself from the chamber.
The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina. They don’t like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.
+2 for the quote.
It’s all those syllables. To hard for men to parse.
Oh my gosh, the vagina thing. That was just the most baffling case of “These people don’t have brains, why are we letting them run our country” that I’ve seen in a good long while.
That baffled me. Not the Kickstarted, sadly. That was upsetting, but not surprising.
But for some reason, I really thought there’d been enough press/comics/blogs/whatEVER explaining the difference between “Male heroes idealized for power” and “Female heroes idealized as sexual objects.” I wasn’t expecting the internet to not try to justify that cover, but I really thought they wouldn’t pull out that old chestnut yet again.
Honestly, that argument’s so commonplace that I doubt it’ll be going anywhere anytime soon. Which is depressing, but since threatening the availability of drawings of boobies is a quick way to frazz out logic circuits…
Wait, I’ve clearly missed something. What cover needs justifying?
The Catwoman 0 cover. Basically she has the same body shape as the Open Heart Collection at Kay Jewelers.
http://www.themarysue.com/catwoman-0-cover/ (Not sure if links work here, but I’ll try it.)
HOLY SAGAN! What in the hell is wrong with her SPINE? That’s not just sexist, derogatory and insulting to both women and men, but horrifying.
Welcome to the ridiculousness that is comic book depictions of women.
It’s not like I’m not used to stuff like that but dayum, that’s like, 90s era bad. That’s Dark ages on its worse day.
Seems like the kind of thing that could probably face some pretty severe criticisms just on an artistic level without even touching any social issues.
Honestly, I do think gender roles in media are problematic on both sides of the equation. Men being depicted as useless at housework and so forth is part of a bigger issue that’s problematic no matter how you look at it. Men and women can get into that pissing match as much as they want, neither really have the upper hand–men on TV are stupid and horny, women in comics are objectified and contorted, etc.
But that issue is TOTALLY SEPARATE from that of women’s rights, rape culture, and women in the workplace, and far less important in the grand scheme of things. THAT’S the problem–not that men don’t have the right to bitch about what the media thinks of them, but that they need to learn to shut up when shit gets real.
(Unless, of course, the dude in question has been raped or abused. But that’s the only exception.)
Yep. As I see it, men have every right to complain about poor portrayals in the media, as do we all. It’s only when they try to make a false equivalence that I get mad. Two wrongs don’t make a right, especially when one of those wrongs is much smaller than the other.
For men to say that they’re oppressed as men is an absolute fucking joke. I stopped speaking to an online friend of mine who compared a man losing everything in divorce court to a woman being raped.
I will have absolutely NOTHING to do with men like this, and it makes me almost feel like I could hate men. At least some of them.
1. “For men to say they’re oppressed as men”?
2. Losing everything–if by everything he means everything, or at the very least the kids and the house–is pretty damn bad. Not as bad as rape, naturally, but I wouldn’t say it’s not something worth bitching about.
eehh… not quite so sure about the 2nd one being unequal…
before i go on, I would just like to mention that this IS in fact a woman’s opinion.
but losing one’s kids and home might be as bad as rape, as it’s much more long term, and the loss is far greater.
take a man that’s life goal was to be a father and raised his kids in a house he inherited from his parents. that’s the sort of thing that could drive somebody to suicide.
and I gotta say, as bad as it is, I’ve never heard of a suicide from a rape.
god i’m gonna get so much hate for this…
i would probably agree with you actually.
yes, i’m saying i’d rather be raped than have my hypothetical kids taken away.
REALLY?? THE SODOMUFFIN AVATAR??? there goes any chance of THAT comment being taken seriously…
Most of these default avatars are fairly inappropriate for the current topic of discussion.
Like mine!
We all do shitty things to each other for any reason. We just have to stop blaming others for everything, even though it’s generally true on all sides.
And this is coming from someone who likes to consider himself extremely anti-misanthropic, since it’s becoming a depressingly common trait among people.
Which brings up the case that (much like most legitimate arguments that get mistaken for false equivalence, occasional cases of false equivalence, and legitimate arguments that don’t) it all depends on CONTEXT.
A man being stereotyped as a horny idiot on TV is a bad thing. A woman being stereotyped as a sex object in a comic is a bad thing. They don’t equate or negate one another because they exist in separate contexts. They are BOTH bad things that should BOTH be criticized in their appropriate contexts.
Similarly, if a person is raped that is a bad thing that has driven people to suicide (again, context. There’s often much more to a rape story than the act itself). If a person has their long-time home and children (essentially for this person, their life) taken away by another individual, that is ALSO a bad thing. Neither option makes the other any less bad, and because the contexts are so different it’s impossible to determine which is worse. However, if the person in question does not have children, has a well-paying job to re-purchase their stuff, only purchased the majority of that stuff since marriage, or gets to see their kids on weekends, then the context is completely different from the earlier individual who lost his/her identity.
Really it just comes down to knowing or trying to find out all the information before making a judgement. Something that human beings are psychologically programmed not to do (we’re evolved to make quick decisions in case we need to do so to avoid being eaten by a lion).
Actually, rape does increase the risk of suicide attempts: http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/mentalimpact.shtml
Now, I will grant that losing your *kids* could potentially be similarly damaging. But don’t pretend the results of rape can’t get as bad as anything else.
Also…rape is THE WORST CRIME there is. Why? Because it has NO justification. None. No one ever raped in self defense. No one ever raped to put food on the table or to keep a roof over their kids heads.
At least if he lost his house and his kids, then he lost it because his ex-wife needed a house and wanted her kids. She might not be the best parent of the two, but there was a REASON.
“Also…rape is THE WORST CRIME there is. Why? Because it has NO justification. None. No one ever raped in self defense. No one ever raped to put food on the table or to keep a roof over their kids heads.”
From the moral and cultural point of view you and I probably share, you’re absolutely right that there’s no justification. However, in other places and at other times, it has been used as a means of strengthening or preserving a tribe, or as part of a legal punishment system. I think that’s a screwed up, damnable way of doing things, and I’d be tempted to kill a few people if I saw it happening, but there it is.
On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I can’t really think of a justification for ever giving someone a wedgie. It serves pretty much the same function of giving some sociopath a sense of power and control and humiliating the victim. I don’t think that makes it “the worst crime,” but I do think it shows that the criminal’s ability to rationalize their actions is not the best measuring stick for the severity of a crime.
I think the amount of harm done is a better (although still flawed) measure. Rape does long-term damage to a person’s very sense of self, not to mention self-worth and self-ownership. In my view, that’s the worst harm that can come to a person and still leave them alive. A lot of people never fully recover from it. But murder victims can never recover at all. I think that makes murder one worse.
Like others have said, maybe it’s just better not to compare.
Yeah, but why do they need to be compared? Losing your house and children is awful. Rape is awful. They’re not quantifiable. They’re both just awful.
In other words, comparing losing your house and children or rape is like trying to compare having your eyes gouged out or having your hands chopped off, both options seriously suck.
Sadly, suicides after rapes aren’t unheard of.
This is kind of how I keep saying that misogyny and sexism hurts men nearly as much as women. When we continue to only allow very rigidly defined gender roles, it screws over everyone.
Well, again, it depends on how it manifests. But by and large when it comes to physical and legislative abuse, men don’t have a decent point of comparison, unless again they’ve been subject to rape and domestic abuse–and, unless way less men are reporting it than women, there’s not a lot of that going around.
(I’m not saying that male subjects of abuse or rape don’t report for fear of being demasculated, just that the number in general probably isn’t that high. It’s not like we can do much in the way of gathering statistics.)
The last time I looked at the statistics, which was a while back, was 1 in 10 reported rapes was by a male. Considering the statistic that 1 in 6 boys is sexually assaulted before the age of 16, I’m going to say it’s quite a bit higher than 10% in reality.
That’s also just in this country. I read an article that said something like 80% of Bosnian men claim to have been raped.
A question there too though is of what gender their rapist was. It’s not completely unknown for women to rape, but it is still highly unusual. I’m not going to go looking for statistics right now (because I don’t feel like being depressed) but it seems to me that from what I’ve generally absorbed by far, most rapes are perpetuated by men, with both genders being the victims (mostly women, but as you say, a disturbing number of males are also raped).
It’s slightly less common but by no means “rare”. 80% of male rape victims are raped by a female. Here is an article taking apart the toxic nonsense surrounding how we talk about rape (namely the fact that the narrative is entirely fictional), and also explaining where the 60/40 ratio came from: http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/
Men as the exclusive or near-exclusive perpetrators of rape and intimate partner violence, just like women as exclusive or near-exclusive victims of it, is something that “everybody knows” despite being completely untrue and based on nothing but the conjecture of first-and second-wave feminists. Who, let’s admit it here, were absolutely bonkers.
Yeah, those crazy first-wave feminists! Wanting the right to vote! Laughable. And the second-wave feminists with their nonsense about equal pay for equal work. A bunch of friggin’ nutjobs.
My favorite part about comics like this one is you being just as funny in comments. So thank you for being the comedian who keeps on giving.
Second-wave feminists are generally associated with ideas the more progressive types of today would consider to be pretty bonkers, such as transphobia (ie “MtF people are not real women”) and being sex-negative (pornography is evil, all sex between men and women is rape because PATRIARCHY, etc.)
They had the right idea on plenty of things, yes, but third-wave feminists took those right ideas and threw out the crazy shit, which means that the crazy shit is all that’s left to differentiate the second wave. So yes, calling second-wave feminists of today bonkers is a legitimate claim, since that label implies that they continue to hold onto the shit that the third wave rejected. Saying second-wave was crazy at the time, that’s probably a little much, if that makes sense. And saying first wave was crazy is just dumb, of course.
Give the MRA some credit, though, at least he’s apparently capable of separating feminism into “crazy bitches who hate men” and “decent human beings who just want equal rights,” plenty of those types assume it just means the former.
“Saying second-wave was crazy at the time, that’s probably a little much, if that makes sense.”
He said they WERE bonkers. Not ARE bonkers.
Wow, that’s… really, really dishonest. It’s like you were criticizing a libertarian and he came back with “OH EXCUSE ME I GUESS I”M SO CRAZY BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT PERSONAL LIBERTY”.
I guess I was half-wrong, I was thinking first- and second-wave were sequential and first-wave was the 50′s-60′s era. Apparently I had the definition wrong and what I thought was “proto” feminism was the first wave. So I guess I am only talking about the second wave here; the first wave also believed a bunch of ridiculous bigoted untrue shit, but that was true of every single person on Earth at the time so I can’t really hold them at fault for it.
The second-wave feminist leaders were bonkers because they believed and expounded at length about things that were not true, that were unsupported by anything but their own conjecture. They don’t take anyone’s experiences into account. Second-wave theorists built up narratives about rape and domestic violence being exclusively male acts against females in order to oppress them, despite the fact this is based on nothing.
Second-wave theorists gave us truly absurd levels of transphobia that have been just accepted as normal until relatively recently; Germane Greer, Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, et al bloviate at length about how MtF trans people are infiltrating women’s spaces to subvert them, and FtM people are self-mutilating as an act to escape the oppression of being a woman, positions it is impossible to hold if you have ever talked to a trans person in your entire life. This isn’t just “an unfortunate prejudice of the times”, this shows they are just pulling things out of their asses.
Dworkin constructed elaborate theory-domes about the omnipresent oppressive nature of hetero sex, something which contradicts the experience of… almost every heterosexual woman she could have spoken to. Valerie Solanas was straight-up no-exaggeration an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic, and her SCUM manifesto was still lauded as a brilliant work of feminist satire (Solanas would claim it was satire many years and one attempted murder charge later, and at the time she wrote it said she was dead-serious).
Second-wave activism against porn and porn actresses wasn’t based in anything but conjecture — Gloria Steinem made a huge deal about how horrible snuff films were and how the porn industry was based in them, which is kinda like claiming the US government’s failure to capture and kill El Chupacabra is proof of its racism — and consistently ignored the experiences and opinions of the actual porn actresses involved, who rarely if ever agreed with the anti-porn stance.
Second-wave feminists constructed elaborate worldviews that were based in nothing, contradicted by facts, and attacked those who disagreed with them even and especially when the ones disagreeing were the ones they were allegedly fighting for. The beliefs are delusions, the process by which they are arrived at is various flavors of store-brand wacko.
You’re right. Because of the alleged actions and words of, like, five people, all of feminism in the sixties was dumb. Gloria Steinem had Opinions about porn? (Nevermind how misrepresented they are.) Well, screw all of second-wave feminism, then! We’ve found a perceived weak spot, so throw it all out.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had an affair and probably wasn’t terribly progressive about gay people, so let’s just ditch the entire Civil Rights Movement while we’re at it.
Black people? Women? Some people who fought on your behalf weren’t 100% correct about everything, so we’re sorry, but it was all bonkers.
About 10 years ago you won my heart Willis. You’re still doing it today.
You can look at the people like Steinem or Dworkin say, that was only one woman BUT you could also say, they were just the loudest of them.
Normally a leader/leaderlass? who does not say what’s supported by everybody else in the movement, doesn’t last long. But those are still admired and more importantly read on campus, and the SCUM Manifest is still found in every womens bookstore and in the bookshelf of every liberal arts college… and it’s pure hate speech, not satire, HATE!
But hey, it’s the common rule.
If it is pointed out, that some of the most read feminists writers an theorists are men-haiting mysanthorpes who express that thought and very thoroughly and that should be considered, it translates like every critism to the feminist movement: “Woman should be chained to a stove and in the permanent state of pregnancy”.
Were they actually the loudest, leaders in the movement whom other feminists looked to for guidance? Or were they the most infamous because they were the most extreme, the ones that the mainstream pundits who feared and hated the feminist movement and put great, GREAT time and effort into slandering and defaming it, seized upon and trumpeting around shouting “THIS IS WHAT FEMINISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!”
The ratio of male domestic violence victims to female victims is 50:50, and one of the reasons that data on male rape victims is so spotty is that many jurisdictions, including the US, don’t count it as “rape” unless the attacker penetrates the victim with something, and cases where someone has sex with a man against his will are not counted. I’ve heard estimates that, outside of prison, the ratio of male to female rape victims is 40:60, but I don’t know where that number comes from.
Thank you both and I apologize for my presumptions.
Ah well. Chicks still have the high ground on stuff like wages and birth control and abortion so I guess it all evens out.
The wage gap actually narrows the more factors you control for. The oft-cited “77 cents for every dollar” is controlling for no other factor; if you compare similar fields, similar jobs, similar certifications, similar levels of experience, similar hours, etc., the wage gap closes to nothing.
“This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” — US Department of Labor study from 2009
Men choose higher-paying, riskier, more demanding jobs because money is far more often their primary motivating factor; women more often pick jobs they enjoy and find fulfilling with flexible hours and benefits, etc. Whether this is society saying men’s lives are worth less and their only value is in work, or society pressuring women into lower-paying positions, you could make an argument either way, but it certainly isn’t a clear-cut “oh well women have it worse here so they have the high ground”.
And why do I think it is important to point this stuff out? Because feminism is supposed to be about making society more equitable, and to effect change requires you to understand the problem. If you try and force everything into an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy where everything is stacked against women and men’s complaints are trivial, you’re not going to actually understand what’s going on and there’s no way you can fix anything.
“if you compare similar fields, similar jobs, similar certifications, similar levels of experience, similar hours, etc., the wage gap closes to nothing.”
5-7 cents on the dollar, even when accounting for every possible mitigating factor (including several that shouldn’t really be considered “mitigating,” IMO) is “nothing”?
Why should he care? He’s got his.
It’s 5-7 cents *in certain fields*, and much much worse than that in others.
…Okay, so, quoting the Department of Labor, on the subject of labor, means I’m only motivated by “fuck you got mine”? Are you reading words, or are you skimming them and them imagining what a jerk you’d really like to tell off would say?
If anything the continued use of the “77 cents” myth is misogynist as shit — it’s disregarding the choices, values, and experiences of actual women who pick jobs for reasons other than “what makes the absolutely most money”, assuming they MUST be invalid and coerced because they aren’t making those choices the same way a man would!
No, because you were equating a smaller but still sizeable gap as “nothing.” That’s why I said that.
Also, you’re going away now, because you’re a despicable person, and this website has some standards.
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c
You’re factually incorrect.
…I can make up numbers that I don’t know where they came from, too.
Mine’d probably be more believable.
What’s funny is you posted this after I provided my source.
Uh, except it *doesn’t* hurt them nearly as much. It hurts some, sure, and things should be better, but woman still have to put up with a whole lot more crap than men.
Which is, y’know, what I was saying. Damn near exactly.
I like you. You use words economically.
Well, it’s more overt with women, this is true, but what about things like men not being allowed to show affection towards other men (and I’m talking about non-sexual affection here like hugging a friend) or cry in public or do something that might be considered “effeminate” or “weak” because, y’know, that makes them “not a REAL MAN.”
I have guy friends who are facinated by me knitting, but everytime I offer to teach them how, I tend to get a “Oh, guys don’t do that!” response. Really? Cause I kinda thought that nearly everybody wears socks, darlin’.
But I also remember an argument I had with a coworker one day after an utterly ADORABLE little boy came in with his Mermaid Barbie that he was clearly very proud of and he and I talked solemnly about how, yes, it was an AWESOME Barbie. And then my frowning coworker said (after said kidlet and family were out of earshot fortunately) that his parents shouldn’t let him play with things like that. I mentioned that I’d been a tomboy who’d quite happily played with GI Joes and Transformers and my Star Wars action figures right along with my Barbies and stuffed animals and I’d turned out just fine and she insisted that “that’s not the same thing.”
“Um…except where it totally is?”
“It’s just not, okay?”
Yeah, I didn’t see the difference either. Awesome kid, though. He unexpectedly gave me a hug before he left, so that gave me a smile for the rest of the day.
It’s weirdly double-edged. Women are just straight-up demeaned by stereotypes…men are demeaned by *acting like women*. Hugging, kissing, crying, wearing make-up, all of that.
The worst insult media can come up with for a male character is to be female.
I should note, so I don’t come off as a complete crazy, that there are some other demeaning male stereotypes in media (and far more, in real life) but they seem to save the worst/most hilarity for men acting like women.
The weird thing is it seems like that’s coming around to girls now too. I used to work with children’s media and it seemed more and more that “girly girls”, little girls who wear dresses and play with dolls and have tea parties were being written as the antagonists (and usually awful spoiled, manipulative antagonists, the most basic of female stereotypes) while tomgirls, little girls in overalls that love mud and catching frogs were being written as the protagonists.
Of course, I don’t have any hard facts on this, and it’s possible that it seemed disproportionate because I was sensitive to it. But it was something I found concerning.
I’m pretty sure that’s been going on for some time now, although it would not surprise me to see it become increasingly common. Even “To Kill a Mockingbird” occasionally pits the protagonist tomboy Scout against her more traditionally female relatives, although this is mentioned in passing anf not a major focus of the book.
As time goes on, I suspect we’ll see the dainty, dependant, manipulative, and uselessly decorative aspects of the traditional female stereotype become divorced from the concept of womanhood and femininity. That might not be an entirely bad thing.
I suppose. It’s hard for me to see it as anything but extending the trope of “masculine good, feminine bad” to an uncomfortably young age.
As long as it’s what she truly wants, I support a small girls decision to wear what she wants, be it a dress or overalls, or a bathing suit with a tutu or Spiderman pajamas with an cowboy helmet.
And I support a little boy’s decision to wear any of those same things.
I understand what you’re getting at, but if both boys and girls are expected to embrace the same traits and behaviors, and both to reject another set, then eventually the good traits are no longer “masculine” and the bad traits no longer “feminine”. The perception that the shunned traits are “feminine” will then be just an anachronistic prejudice of the old folks who were around back in the dark ages when you and I were alive.
Now, the downside there is that we risk losing the positive traits we consider feminine as well. The only way I see to fix that is to join forces with the men who complain that they aren’t allowed to be nurturing, domestic, etcetera. The two sides of the sexism debate MUST learn to work together.
Agreed. I don’t find the “men are big children and sooo bad at cooking!” as concerning as I find the trope of “Men, you need to be big emotionless brick walls or else you are disgusting homocakes. Also, you are useless if you do not own a hot women and also possibly a disgusting homocake.” I know it’s a reflection of male fantasy, but I think it also shapes male fantasy. It normalizes it for the next generation and that’s problematic.
Of course, this doesn’t hold a candle to how video games treat women, but I think it’s a factor in the mentality of the people creating those video games and the people purchasing them.
These attitudes perpetuate themselves. Someone has to shake things up and break the cycle, but being the first person to do that? That’s SCARY.
Oh absolutely. The thought be the focus of the much irrational rage is pretty terrifying.
I do think video games (and most popular media) would benefit from the examination of the male stereotypes as well as the female ones. Not in the “Wah, men are victims too” manner, which Willis references, but an actual examination of “Hey! This is what video games are defining you as! This is what they are saying about what your relationships with society should be and here’s why these stereotypes are actually harmful.” The loudest reaction to Tropes vs Women are people who just flat out think women are here to be silent and sexy and are enraged when they aren’t and I don’t know that you’ll ever reach people like that. But the lesser response seems to be “Well, why should I care? How does this affect me?” Something examining the male privilege in video games and why it’s bad for EVERYONE might have an impact on that group.
Oh! My gravatar changed! Super book, awwwwwaay!
We need more male protagonists to be like Harry Mason from Silent Hill. Maybe without the godawful voice acting though.
and game publishers are craven cowards, just like bankers and the rest … gender has nothing to do with it. Women are just as craven as men in that context – let someone else be the first and eaten by a lion ……
I know a lot of my friends would totally eat a homocake…
Avatar perfection.
I, and many other feminists, actually consider stereotypical depictions of men in the media to be an important feminist issue. They often seem to be intended as backhanded compliments to women (“Hey, ladies! Cooking and cleaning is super hard, and we really value you for doing it! Honest!” “Hey, ladies! Men are idiots driven by their base instincts, but you’re totally better than that because you’re all sensitive and stuff!”) but also implicitly reinforce gender roles and expectations, often to the detriment of both men and women (“Men are useless at housework, so it should be the woman’s job!” “Men can’t ever be held responsible for how they behave, because animal brain!”).
So I find it pretty annoying when dudes assume that this is literally some kind of zero-sum battle between the sexes, and that feminists are *in favour* of those dumb commercials which depict men as incompetent troglodytes, as if they were some kind of “win” for women, or evidence that women are oppressing men. WTF? Tone-deaf analysis of pop culture much?
Maybe if they actually read some more stuff that feminists are writing instead of breaking out the CAPS LOCK OF RAEG the minute they hit the first suggestion that maybe sexism still exists, they would realise this.
Own goal, dudes.
As a man, I agree. If we had Africa-American commercials calling all Caucasians “pale ignorant trailer-trash honkeys”, it would hardly help people stand together. “Anti-sexist sexism” is just another way to drive both sides apart.
Full disclosure: I really enjoyed Avatar: The Last Airbender for making ALL the characters interesting, and badass. It took me 3 seasons to notice that female characters outnumbered the male… because it was well written!
I can empathize with the complaints about most video games, but I will say about Halo: they at least made an effort to have female Spartans and marines, all of which were able to kick ass without it being a “OMG GIRLS w/GUNS!!!@!@!” moment. Cortana’s appearance might be pushing it, but that would be a whole other discussion.
I think the Half-life 2 series could also deserve some credit for avoiding a lot of the common pitfalls for how they portrayed women in that game too.
Still, it sure leaves a long list of problem games…
“I, and many other feminists…”
I am sorry to derail, but a comment opening with a line like this (and not with the “I’m not some kind of feminist of course, but…”) sort of makes me want to drop to my knees and cry a little bit.
Course, last time I got into an argument about the word “feminism” in the Shortpacked comments section, I ended up having to turn off my computer and go outside and play racquetball for a while.
I’m… not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me.
I’m going to follow you off the tracks for a bit.
I consider myself a feminist, even though I don’t agree with every other feminist on the internet 100% (or sometimes even a smaller percentage). I think it’s sad when people don’t call themselves feminists because they consider feminists to be shrill man-hating harpies, people who espouse the *superiority* of women over men, or some other nasty stereotype (I’m not including those women of colour who call themselves womanists instead because they’re really fed up with most feminist movements; I think they have valid points and a reasonable position).
So I would never say “I’m not a feminist, but…”.
I didn’t want to say “Feminists think this!” because there are lots of different kinds of feminists with divergent opinions, and a lot of them probably disagree with me. But I also think that this opinion is common enough within some feminist circles to be considered mainstream — and I think it’s important to point that out, since so many people seem to reduce feminist issues to “MEN VS WOMEN CAGE MATCH!1″ and assume that everyone else does the same.
Yes! This so much!
Hey Complaining Guy, I actually DO take an interest in the issue of men being constantly portrayed as inept at cooking and cleaning! Let’s have a chat about that! We can do that without comparing it to sexual assault or insulting women, can’t we?
I would disagree that those are the only exceptions- however, if women’s issue in question is rape, a male bitching about housework ineptness is not relevant. (On the other hand, if its (reasonably) comparable comparison- then go to town- but NOT to shout down)
I like how you have brought together men of various races to cry misandry there.
Sexism is uniting us.
At least until they realize that they’re agreeing with… those kinds of people.
You don’t mean liberals, do you?
I don’t know if this will have any continuation, considering that this isn’t a story week, but I’d actually be quite interested in seeing how Leslie and Malaya deal with this.
Amber’s problem is that she actually tries to reason with Arch, and he just isn’t reasonable. But Leslie is used to dealing with her parents, who are similarly inflexible in their views, and has quite a bit of feisty snark in her. And Malaya is as hardheaded and temperamental as Arch is, and doesn’t take a lot of crap.
These dudes may have messed with the wrong ladies this time, is what I’m saying.
There’s no such thing as misandry.
That’s much further than I would go. I would just say that 99% of the claims of misandry are not really.
I’d say more like 90%; those who tend to suffer from any real effects of misandry wouldn’t actually use it to try to shut up women who complains about sexism directed at her.
And even if misandry was as widespread misogyny (which is honestly – not the case) why would that somehow give men the right to shut up any discussion about sexism against women.
You’d think it’d bring people who’ve suffered from sexism together… (From what I’ve heard sometimes it does)
Hint: If you’re pulling the misandry card to shut up complaints of misogyny then you’ve never suffered the effects of misandry outside of TV – or are a sociopath completely devoid of empathy for others. That or they are blatantly sexist and just want what everyone who is a total bigoted jerkass wants – to be the victim.
Note: I’m a guy whose suffered from some misandry in my life and I know for a fact that women get it a lot worse in society in general; how’d I react to such a thing as a women complaining about sexism? By believing we need to discuss problems more and close the gender gap, not shut up the group you’re pretending oppresses you…
Then again I grasp the concept of empathy and sympathy for other peoples issues…
They are mystical concepts certain peoples don’t seem to grasp.
-By believing we need to discuss problems more and close the gender gap, not shut up the group you’re pretending oppresses you…
Then again I grasp the concept of empathy and sympathy for other peoples issues…
They are mystical concepts certain peoples don’t seem to grasp.-
So much this! ‘Problems’ are not something that is weakened by other people having them and should not be dealt with as if they must be pitted in mortal kombat with each other until only one person’s problems are left!
Thirded.
Although, honestly, that sounds like it’d be a pretty cool game.
I tried to design that game, but it wouldn’t run. Too many problems in the code.
Agreed. For example, I’ll be the first to admit that male rape is largely dismissed in our culture as not a thing, which is absolutely awful for the victim. However, it doesn’t negate or dismiss the fact that women are still largely ignored when they make the same accusations of their attacker … we still hear people use “She looks/acts/dresses like a slut and/or is just looking for attention, so it isn’t rape.” I don’t know how many times a discussion on women rape victims has devolved into “Men have it worse.” No, rape victim have it terrible across the board. Let’s work on fixing how our culture treats those victims instead of arguing which “side” has it worse.
+1 Internets for this.
The only Misandry I really recall being involved in was during the legal proceedings for someone I knew in the 90s. At the age of ~60, he was fighting for custody of his children (as the mother was unfit- first hand knowledge, there), and the legal system was very biased to give custody to the mother by default. If he hadn’t had the reams of evidence and sworn statements to support his case… things could have gone very differently.
The other thing he noticed during this time was the lack of support for single fathers. There were lots of single mother’s groups, but he was left out in the cold.
Of course, I understand why there’s so many groups to help women in trouble, but it was saddening that responsible fathers that were in trouble had so few options.
I’m going to sound like a terrible person here for a moment, but I’m going to do it anyway:
“The other thing he noticed during this time was the lack of support for single fathers. There were lots of single mother’s groups, but he was left out in the cold…. it was saddening that responsible fathers that were in trouble had so few options.”
Someone ought to make support groups for single fathers, then. Someone who’s been in that position and understands the trials and tribulations. Your friend would be a good person to start.
Those women’s support groups you mention didn’t just spontaneously form out of the aether one day, nor were they just handed down on high as some sort of reward for being female. Women made them. Women got together, saw that they were in trouble, and decided to pool their resources, time money and emotional effort, into creating support groups for each other.
It’s not the obligation of women to do that for men. It’s not the obligation of divorced mothers to create a support group for single fathers. If they think it’s something that should be done, they should do it.
I’m not really directing my frustration at you here, and I’m sorry. But this is exactly what annoys me about what happens when women’s issues discussions get derailed into men’s problems. People come into the conversation, point out “Men have problems too!” (which they do, I don’t deny,) and then seem to stop, looking expectantly at the women as though it’s their job to do something to fix this.
To use the breast cancer/prostate cancer example from my thread above (which was very quickly derailed into Men’s Problems,) yes it’s true that breast cancer gets a lot of fundraisers, awareness campaigns, etc. You think prostate cancer is a problem? You’re upset that breast cancer gets a lot of attention and prostate cancer doesn’t? Do something about it! Have a fund drive! Raise an awareness campaign! Organize a march! Pick a distinctively colored ribbon!* Don’t sit there and imply that breast cancer campaigns should put aside resources to do this thing for you!
*This may actually be a terrible suggestion, given the context.
All right, I’m done. Sorry.
No problem – I didn’t want to leave the guy’s whole life story, but he did eventually find one area that was helpful. He was asked to take part in a counseling group during the divorce that was for divorcing husbands. Even after he no longer had to go, the guy running the meetings had him come in on occasion to help out guys with their tough issues. It helped the counselor provide better advice, and kept a lot of guys from losing their shirt & their kids – especially in cases like “Well, she cheated on me, but we had good times. I don’t think I need to worry about her going after everything I own.” or dealing with spouses that were abusive, etc.
Eventually, he wrote a booklet of common advice for men facing a court battle for custody.
…to be honest, I didn’t write this the first time because it kinda sounds like I’m making him up now.
I dunno I didn’t read it that way. Yeah their friend can start one but that’s not an entirely easy task. And to be quite honest the idea of a single mother group rather then a single parent group as a whole seems kind of dumb. I think creating a group like that should be open. But that’s just me. Also the point was that no one had apparently started one before, which is upsetting. Yes it’s not a woman’s job but they didn’t say it was. They simply stated a upsetting fact. Also many single father groups do exist. It’s possible the area they were in didn’t really have many single dads.
And honestly your breast cancer/prostate analogy is flawed. Prostate cancer has all that stuff you listed. It has a foundation, it gets fundraisers, marches, telethons, all that. It’s just never going to have massive corporate backing like breast cancer. No company is going to see a reason for it. Breast cancer will always get more attention then prostate cancer because the idea of sisterhood is incredibly marketable. It’s not a man-woman thing, it’s a marketing thing. Breast cancer brought woman together. Prostate cancer didn’t really bring men together. Companies can easily exploit woman, and men, who want to help the cause. The cause gets some money, which is great, but the companies get lots of profit. Do you really think all those yogurt companies support breast cancer causes simply because it’s the right thing to do? It’s all about profit. People will buy the products that support breast cancer. Especially woman. It’s that simple.
But eh I’m probably just being a cynical jerk. Maybe they really do care. What do I know?
The other thing about marketing breast cancer is that it is a very pleasant-sounding kind of thing to put on packaging. Everyone likes breasts. Breasts are sexy, and they’re soft, and have I mentioned sexy? Everyone wants to eat a box of breast cookies. Nobody wants to eat a box of prostrate cookies.
The breast cancer awareness thing IS problematic for that reason. It’s an easy marketing thing that corporations love to latch onto. But it’s a problem because it ignores ALL other forms of cancer, not just prostrate cancer (and also because companies make massive profit off it and only donate a fraction of their “pink” product revenues).
This seems like a questionable statement.
Misandry just means “hatred of men,” and certainly exists. There are indeed people of both sexes who hate men for one reason or another.
Now, the people who claim that misandry exists as the systematic oppression of men, *they’re* crazy.
What do you mean by systematic oppression? If you’re referring to de jure discrimination then that definitely exists for men, and to a much greater extent than it does for women, who in the west only really experience social discrimination.
I’m sitting here contemplating whether I want to touch this with a stick and see if it explodes or not.
He’s probably talking about from a criminal justice standpoint. Ie men get it worse from juries and cops. Which is true. There are specific issues where women get worse treatment often (divorce courts, sexual assault) but from like a violence standpoint or theft, men are pretty much automatically the perpetrators in society’s eyes.
I was on a selection panel for a jury once and looked at the defendant (middle-aged white male) and the alleged victim (young black female) and was very clear that dude was guilty. Doubly so when he was walking by a bookstore and chill bookstore-dog decided to snap at him. So it’s for the best that I didn’t get selected. Because yeah. I didn’t know. There was no evidence presented to me yet. I just felt sure.
There is a sad truth in that – In the west a man is considered guilty until found guilty ….. after 20+ years and someone else confesses they might, only might, get a retrial and released …. but still will wear the stigma ….. I know of two such cases in my area and I guarantee there are similar ones pretty much everywhere else.
The greatest and scariest myth is women are never mass murderers and if one does get convicted they get early release, yet the guy still rots in a box as the scum that they are …… Both should rot as the sociopaths that they are.
Whether women get worse treatment in divorce courts (at least in the U.S.) depends on where you live. For example, if you are a man, try VERY HARD not to get divorced in a state like Texas.
Women get worse treatment in divorce courts and sexual assault? Are you kidding me? UK and US law don’t even recognize female rapists as a thing. They can’t be charged with the crime (or in the US, only in very specific circumstances).
It’s not just that men are presumed to be the aggressors, although I’m glad you acknowledge that. There is bias against men at all levels of the criminal justice system – they’re more likely to be convicted for the same crimes, they get longer sentences for the same crimes, and lower chances of parole. This is institutional discrimination.
“UK and US law don’t even recognize female rapists as a thing.”
This is utterly false. It may have been true fifty years ago, but rape laws (which are made at the state, not federal level) have been amended to include rape committed by women and rape committed against members of the same sex, through any means, including force or threat of force.
No, it’s not. Here in the UK rape laws explicitly state that the perpetrator must have a penis. If you’re not a man or a transman, and you force someone to have sex with you against your will, it isn’t considered rape.
Still, I didn’t realise that FBI definitions didn’t inform state criminal codes. It still needs changed, but it’s good to know this bias is not as entrenched in the law as it is here in Britain.
CharlesBarkley, from what I was told although the legal definition of rape is as you say (so legally, only a man can commit rape), other kinds of forced sex are classed as sexual assault and carry the same penalties. I’m finding it difficult to find anything specific on that though, so the only source I have is what a law student friend told me a few years back :/
Women can be convicted of rape if they help a man to commit it.
There is no such thing as the hatred of men? Really?
I’d say that thought alone probably qualifies you as a misandrist.
The lesson here, of course, is that words have definitions.
That’s kind of pedantic, don’t you think? Words also have meaning beyond their dictionary definitions. It’s called context.
When we are talk about racism and misogyny in this context, we are talking about the systems that support the attitudes described by the definition.
So when we talk about misogyny, we’re not talking about discrimination based on sex. We’re talking about how when a woman is raped, in the unlikely event the case goes to trial, the woman’s behavior is up for grabs to discredit her claim(How was she dressed? Why was she alone in the city at that time? How many people has she slept with?) Or how a woman and a man with the same education, training, and job experience working the same job with the same company have unequal pay. The man will almost always make more.(The Glass Ceiling) In this context, misandry is almost nonexistent.
When we talk about racism, we aren’t talking about simple prejudice based on race. We’re talking about the fact that under New York City’s current stop and frisk regulations, in 2011, the NYPD stopped and frisked more young black men than there actually are in the city. We’re talking about how a young black male and a young white male who commit the same crime and have the same criminal background, the black male is more likely to receive the harsher punishment. In this context, racism against white people is nonexistent.
If you cannot accept this fact, then you’re guilty propping up or encouraging the oppression.(Based on your other posts, I doubt this is the case.)
Except there really isn’t any context here. C simply said, and I quote, “There’s no such thing as misandry.” Which is untrue. And just because someone mentions sexism, that doesn’t automatically mean that they’re talking about society’s tendency towards misogyny. Individuals can be prejudiced too.
Regardless of the context, though, misandry does exist. On both a personal level and on a societal level. True, it’s not nearly as severe or widespread as misogyny, but it does exist, it is a problem, and, like all forms of bigotry and discrimination, it needs to be eliminated.
I say almost nonexistent on misandry, because it does exist. During domestic disturbance calls, the police are going to arrest the man, regardless of the situation. When taking a statement, police often ask questions like “So what’d you do to piss her off?”
During custody battles, they always favor the mother.
Men who take jobs in traditionally female occupations(elementary school teachers, librarians, etc) often find themselves fast-tracked to administrative positions, regardless of their career goals. Some men have reported actually receiving bad performance reviews for not demonstrating qualities they look for in administration. This is despite the fact that they had no intention of pursuing an admin position.
Misandry does exist, and we should address it.
But the people most often calling misandry use it to try and shut women up.
In that first example, I am obviously referring to cases where the woman has been abusing her boyfriend/husband/male partner.
This isn’t even true. I totally know a pregnant woman who got put in jail because her husband called the cops on her (spoiler alert: he was actually the abusive one, too). Domestic violence cases aren’t even taken seriously a lot of the time.
These are problematic issues, to be sure, but I’m not certain that I would call them misandry. In your third example, you say that men in female-dominated occupations tend to be fast-tracked to administration. Why? Because men are perceived as natural leaders. That doesn’t sound like hatred of men, to me. That sounds like they are deliberately propped up above women, even when it goes against the intentions and abilities of the individual.
Still not denying that misandry exists, but I still don’t see it existing on an institutional level.
The first panel made me shudder. I actually know guys like that. A guy at a writing workshop recently compared a guilt-ridden character to a raped woman, and we were all like WHOA. NO. NOT OKAY.
I find I absolutely love how this guy, prior to arriving in Shorpacked!, was just hanging out in Some Void Somewhere and not, you know, someplace in the real world.
I have misbackgroundry.
Is that similar to butts disease?
Butts disease: It puts the “round” and “back” in “misbackgroundry.”
But sometimes there are women in stuff so therefore sexism doesn’t exist!
I don’t get it.
It’s not really a joke, more of a statement.
One that needs to be made, for sure, but not really funny. (Sorry Willis!)
Wow, I’m glad I hadn’t heard about this controversy till now, otherwise I might have spent my entire week yelling at the wind. Feminist Frequency does have its problems sometimes in terms of the conclusions it draws (its rejection of True Grit for not granting its main character a more overtly feminine disposition stands out), but that’s not to say that it hasn’t earned the right to try and monetize the mostly spot-on critical eye Sarkeesian has developed. This reaction is disgusting.
Agreed. I have disliked Feminist Frequency before this Kickstarter thing for some of its conclusions drawn and the lack of research done in some videos. I’m already dreading her approaching Resident Evil since she had Ashley form RE4 as part of her Kickstarter picture since Ashley so completely does not represent the entirety of women’s roles in the RE franchise–and even her role is pretty justified in the story’s context. But this backlash against her is ridiculous and just makes me lose faith in humanity.
Luckily, the rest of humanity is AWESOME, so the feeling doesn’t last!
“Luckily, the rest of humanity is AWESOME, so the feeling doesn’t last!”
Agreed
Yeah I was worried about that myself.
I like that all the Trolls!costumers are teaming up for a greater cause. They’re like a Legion of Misandry delusions.
This guy’s superpower is kinda like an inverse Bechdel test!
I think I’ve seen people talking about that, in concerns to My Little Pony.
It never ceases to amuse me when people complain about the underrepresentation of male ponies in MLP.
If only because in an actual horse society, that’s pretty much exactly what the gender ratio would be.
I think it counts for most herde-living animals. For good reasons.
The Powerpuff Girls cartoon was sexiest! It, like, had postive role models for girls and stuff. And the three leads were totally girls! And the main bad guy was a man! Totally sexist and everything!
…sad thing is…8 year old me’d support that…then again that was during my “girls are icky” phase
Little kids getting mad over this, okay fine. Adult men makes me wanna back into a hole and stay there even if there are a billion worms unless there’s spiders or scorpions or something.
You said “sexiest” instead of “sexist.”
I… hope that was a mistake…
Right there with you, bud.
I think the underrepresentation is fine. It was the somewhat iffy fact that men seemed to be an underclass in season 1 that concerned me. But I would say that was pretty much undone in season 2.
There was a bit more diversity in background characters in general in season 2. I hope for season 3 they use real horses. That will be cool.
Honestly, I’ve been fine with it. I mean, it’s not like there are no guy ponies at all. At most, I just have a good laugh about the justification for f/f pairings. (Although, I can’t help but think about the presure on the stalion homosexuals to be with a mare)
The last panel is certainly apt, but it’s actually the third panel that I like the best. “Somewhere, some conversation is not about dude problems!
Yes, dudes have problems. Yes, for example, prostate cancer kills a lot of dudes. But do you /have/ to bring it up in every discussion of breast cancer?
To be fair, those people don’t really care about prostate cancer much. They only bring it up to highlight that the huge support of breast cancer (at the expense of funding for other illnesses) is based on sexism. Saying they’re trying to make it an issue about male-only cancer is completely missing the point.
And you are also missing mine. Actually I think you are missing ALL of the points.
Plasma, what mickeyten is saying that a comment thread about breast cancer shouldn’t end up getting derailed by people going on and on about the injustices towards prostate cancer, if you want to talk about that, start a new thread if one doesn’t already exist.
Haven’t you already used this joke before, like 10 times? I appreciate the point, but couldn’t you try to do something a little different? Entertain me while slapping me across the face with the dick of chauvinism?
MISANDRY!
he’s done lots of jokes “before”. It’s a comic, it draws from current events and the authors own perspective on the way things are and how thingscan be. Especially when its about something dumb or controversial, it usually bears repeating. Because people may otherwise just assume that it’s not a big issue, that these are isolated incidents that have no bearing on the real world. So no…he’s not beating a dead horse, he’s driving the point home. o3o
First time I’d heard of all this most recent ruckus myself, so I am not at all ungrateful.
I’ll stop talking about it when it stops happening.
This is why we love you, sirrah.
Um, “sirrah” implies contempt.
Dammit, did I miss another memo from the Internet?
No … it’s always been used that way …
Amen, sir.
Joss Whedon said something similar as to why he keeps on using strong female characters.
Who asked you to stop talking about it? I’d just like to see it generate a new joke is all. I’d hate to see Shortpacked turn into Garfield with gender issues instead of lasagna.
Link me the previous strip that this is the same joke as.
I admire your resolve sir. So . . . what is the average life expectancy in your family
What is brody complaining about? He watches a show about colorful tiny horses made for little girls…
Yeah, but he takes crap for watching a show aimed towards them, and the marketing is -GASP!- aimed towards little girls. Or something. He appeared in the sphincter clench comic too, I think.
Maybe he should stick to blindbag ponies.
I’m finding it very hard to phrase this complaint, for two reasons. One, I really like Shortpacked and I don’t want to give the impression that I’m being dismissive. Two, it seems to be an accepted social convention that anyone who calls misandry is a deranged sexist moron, and I really don’t want to be That Guy.
I am uncomfortable with the implication that misandry is not a problem. Granted, its nowhere near as pervasive a problem as misogyny, but it is definitely a real thing. (I understand that it being less of a problem is part of the joke.)
No, you’re right. Misandry IS a problem. But the point is, when the topic is misogyny, you don’t shift topics to misandry to pretend misogyny doesn’t exist. That reeks of narcissism. The topic wasn’t about the dudes, so why are the dudes suddenly making it about them instead?
This tactic is standard-issue derailing by most “dudes” when they try to silence anyone who is even remotely feminist. You can practically run your watch by it, while filling out a Bingo card at the same time.
I think I’ve seen that bingo card. The free space in the middle is “We let you vote, be grateful” or something like that.
either that or that’s the one for black people o3o
With the racism bingo card, if they ever mention “forty acres and a mule”, you automatically win.
“Win” being a highly subjective term, here, of course.
either that or that’s the one for black people o3o
Don’t forget the bottom corner: Whatever, now make me a sandwich.
Upper right corner is “tits or GTFO”.
Adult conversations about gender inequaity should be inclusive, not exclusive. As a male victim of rape I’ve had my perspective constantly dismissed and belittled by feminists due to mistaken assumptions that I’m trying to shift the balance of a discussion, The basis for the aforementioned assumption typically is that I have a penis, and since I have a penis I should “shut-up”.
There are of course alot of people on either side of any discussion about anything who want to claim they have it worse. But the reflex assumption that has become increasingly popular – that discussing the male perspective of gender discrimination in a discussion about the female persective is automatically a form of topic shifting – hinders mature dialog. Carictures like this strip only further the gulf (just as much as hyperbolic and insulting carictures of overbearing feminists are equally as damaging).
Gender discrimination does not exist in a vacuum, and there is no reason the average public discussion should be a hostile enviornment to any legitimate, related perspective of this multi-faceted issue.
The problem, I guess, is that this sort of person /does/ exist — just like here and there, there’s some women who go overboard with feminism into the actual territory of misandry and “all men are evil”. I hope nobody would ever think that this kind of argument derailing is at all comparable to your 100% legitimate concerns, just like that feminazi caricature isn’t at all related to actual feminism. I’m genuinely really sorry that you’ve encountered that unacceptable attitude from anyone, female male or otherwise.
Both of these! ^
This is exactly what I was far too nervous to express, thank you.
I remember once in gender studies class during an open discussion we’d been asked to give points that you could list to somebody for why they should care about feminist issues. I brought up the point that it hurts both men and women. The class and the teacher bit back at me saying that I was being counter-feminist and trying to shift the focus to the men.
I’m still quite sure that was a valid point. Certainly it was a point that had been brought up in the lectures. I don’t know why appealing to somebody’s self-interest is a poor conversion tactic. Seems like somebody is more likely to get worked up about something they feel negatively impacts themselves as well as others than something that just hurts other people.
That can’t just be me being a cynical asshole and failing to account for the goodness in humanity. I’m quite sure that checks out.
It was a valid point. A very valid point that your professor should have been the one to point out.
No women’s studies class I have ever taken would have shamed someone for that perspective, because it is the exact same perspective that every women’s studies prof I’ve ever had shared. That is ridiculous and awful of your professor for responding so harshly.
A lot of these comments actually sound reasonable, and many are quite spot on I think. I hope you will forgive the implications of the previous assumptions I was lead to believe when I say: I’m actually quite impressed.
The previous assumption being, that all comments would be trolls and unreasonable people (gender regardless).
The real problem is gender identity. As long as we see these cultural stereotypes as a reality (even the “soft” brainwashing like “female sexuality is more cerebral”), sexism will continue to prosper within society.
The way the women and the men are positioned, is this intended as a play on the Damsel in Distress trope mentioned in the video game Kickstarter?
… I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
There seems to be a confusion around people (and readers) on what is technically called misandry, misonginy, sexism, and patriarchy ( and I find that rather disturbing in a country where you can actually easily study it, unlike the west european one I live in). Misandry and Misoginy are hate acts or hate speeches, quite singular – that’s a part of why it’s funny here, applying a word for a singular thing to a systematic use.
Patriarchy is the dominance of male gender and values on other genders and values as a system – therefore, this is why cooking and cleaning are not seen as male, because of the economic need of the exploitation of a free labor by dominant (males).
To be a bit clearer, here in my country, which is neither the most advanced (scandinavian) nor the most religious (religion tend to empower patriarchy), women work incomes were (all data from 2002, but haven’t really change since) about 24 % less; pensions 600 euros (around 750 $) less a month ; 80 % of the working poors were women ; 85 % of half time jobs; home cleaning was done around 70 % by women.
All of this is giving a objective value to women in the heterosexual couples – violence is and has always been function of the dominance over the objet. In France, every two and a half day, a women is killed by her companion; a women is raped every two minutes; 48 000 every year (official data) let’s not talk about the legal rape that is most of time protitution. One rape of two takes place in a legal couple. To have called the police once to stop a neighbor to rape is wife, I know it’s uneffective, and I now yell and ring the door, threatening the attempting rapist husband to beat the shit out of him, they usually are too pissed against me and the publicy made to continue. So the data is underestimated – it might be a little less in the USA, but not that much less.
Okay, since nobody else actually has and I take that to mean nobody really understands why, I’m going to explain why people do this:
Complaining too much about sexism against one gender overshadows sexism against the other gender. That’s a very very bad thing.
Or, just to demonstrate: a whole lot of people know that women in the US are raped far more than men (I estimate twice as much). But very few people are even remotely aware that men are 100 times more likely to be executed in the US than women. And because of that, there’s literally no effort to fix sexism in the legal system.
The problem is that it’s very hard to define how bad each gender has it. How do you really compare stereotypes against women to stereotypes against men? Is discrimination against women in the workforce as bad as discrimination against men in the education system? Or do even women have it worse in the education system, and men in some workplaces? Men aren’t raped as much (about half as much, before anyone quotes the rubbish 99% figure), but they’ve also got it worse when they are – how bad is that? Is femininity on par with masculinity, or is it so much worse? Heck, even both pro-life and pro-choice positions in the abortion debate are both very sexist against one gender, but which is moreso?
To take an example of earlier on in the discussion – complaining solely about “Women in games” is ignoring men if male stereotypes are close to as bad as female stereotypes, but complaining equally about “People in games” is downplaying female stereotypes if male stereotypes aren’t anywhere near as bad. No matter what, people are going to complain about sexism.
And of course, David, both sides of the sexism debate complain about this equally. Judging by your past comics, you’re pretty far over on the “Women have it a lot worse” side, so it’s going to look a lot more like men are just being narcissistic.
So IN OTHER WORDS: everyone should stop whining already about how people keep calling you sexist for how unbalanced your sexism complaints are, because it can be a very serious problem with very serious ramifications and they have a real reason to object. Either actually debate it with them, or shut up.
Preach on!
This.
“How do you really compare stereotypes against women to stereotypes against men?”
Easy. Determine which has the power, and whether the stereotypes either enforce the existing power structure or undermine it. This metric goes back several thousand years under the name ‘afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted’.
You’re presuming a false equality at the outset. When stereotypes against men actively serve to limit their voices in congress, in the boardroom, in the development of media, then there would be equivalence.
Careful there. Your last two sentences are teeming with logic and common sense. You might just make the interweb explode with that sort of comment.
The number of stereotypes that relate to power are small. Very, very small. In fact, the only one that does is probably “Women are more easygoing and less dedicated than men”. And maybe “Women get really irrational once a month”, but I don’t expect people in real power to really believe that. Even massive stereotypes like “Women are worse than math at men” don’t make a difference here, because math is never required for positions of power.
I’m not saying it’s not a problem, but when people complain about the effects of stereotypes it’s rarely anything to do with congress or CEOs. There’s no point trying to make it all about that.
I don’t know, I’d say that the stereotype that women are irrational has had massive influence on women in leadership positions, particularly in areas like politics and business. Males are, by default, perceived as more rational and stable than females, and this perception runs so deep that people will ignore evidence to the contrary.
under-qualified men aren’t hired to balance the male/female ratio.
just saying.
So you’re saying that under-qualified women are? I’d love to see actual hard evidence of that.
You honestly expect to be taken seriously when you claim things like the ratio of female to male victims of rape is 2 to 1?
Just for fun, you want to try throwing a source out there for that? Because a five minute investigation on Google provides sources ranging from the FBI to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, to the Department of Justice to any number of private institutions and academic studies, all of which put the number at something like 90%.
But I’m sure the source for your “estimate,” i.e., your ass, is more reliable than all of those “biased” sources.
The DOJ’s rape statistics are specifically constructed to erase male rape victims because they only count it as rape is the attacker penetrates the victim. The victim being forced to penetrate the attacker (which is, you know, how you would expect a female-on-male rape to go) is specifically excluded from the rape statistics. The “90%” statistics are garbage, and the ratio is even closer to 1:1 than 2:1.
Aaaand once again, I would ask: source? You want to throw out the DoJ, fine; there’s still all the other sources and studies I mentioned. You find me even a quarter as many reputable sources saying 2:1 or 1:1 as there are saying 90%, and maybe I’ll think about considering your point.
And for the record, the statistics are also pretty clear that even when men are the victims, it’s still usually a male perpetrator. Every source I could find were also in close agreement about that; the attacker is a male in 99% of the cases, regardless of how you look at it.
Of course, maybe you’re right; maybe there’s tens or hundreds of thousands of men being forced to have sex against their will by women every year, and maybe every single study and survey that’s looked at it has somehow overlooked it. Maybe those cases all go unreported, while attacks against women are vastly over-represented because we all know that women are extremely eager to come forward with those kinds of allegations and absolutely never fail to report attacks, and, of course, the women are never doubted or questioned on it.
Or maybe you’re an idiot. I know which one my money’s on.
The Bureau Of Justice defines rape as “Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.”
In other words, they don’t recognise female-on-male as rape unless it involve. The FBI was the same until they fixed it last December (twice, actually, because the first revision was still wrong), but their last rape statistics report was with the old definition.
So yeah. That’s where the “Men don’t get raped nearly as much” statistic comes from. Actual studies, that aren’t based on number of successful court cases, puts it closer to 1 in 6 or so, but that might be an exaggeration in itself. So I just say “About 33% of rape cases’.
Oh right, sources. I’ve seen a good few, but all I can say is http://www.1in6.org, because I honestly can’t remember the names of any other studies. I’m not an active feminist.
The 1:1 ratio is from the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Although it also refused to count female-on-male rape as rape, it did include a category called “made to penetrate” (which is rape) which was equal to the amount of women who were raped in that year.
That was a good comment Plasma. Really, it DOES NOT MATTER which gender supposedly “has it worse”.
Claiming problems don’t matter in the light of larger ones does not fix problems. Both genders suffer inequalities and prejudices and all of those problems need fixing, both big and/or small. End of story.
THIS
Uh. It does not matter which gender has it worse?
I… am not sure what to think of this, when women’s bodies and reproductive rights have been under attack all over the USA for the past several months. When women try to have conversations with EACH OTHER over representation in the media, and are slammed with threats of physical harm and rape just for talking about it.
Look, I’m not denying that there are no problematic issues that men face in society, but pretending not only that there is no inequality, but that if there is inequality, that it does not MATTER, is kind of deliberately ignoring the reality of the situation.
Of course it matters which gender has it worse.
In a perfect world, we’d just fix all the problems of both genders and be done with it, but this is far from a perfect world. So, instead, a reasonable person would have to say that the problems that are more pervasive, more devastating, and affecting a greater number of people are the ones that should get the greater share of attention and advocacy.
This isn’t to say that discrimination against men should be ignored; no one who says so could truly be called a feminist; the entire point of feminism is equality. However, it does mean that when you have people who can’t resist bringing up men’s problems every single time an issue of discrimination against women comes up can be said to be hostile to women’s issues in general.
Think of it this way: if your house were on fire and my cat were stuck in a tree, and I were demanding that the fire department spend an equal amount of time solving both problems, wouldn’t you think my priorities were just a wee bit out of whack?
Spirit and Charlestonian you make good arguments, perhaps I did go overboard on the wording of it.
I do believe women face much more serious and numerous issues, and of course the more serious issues should receive more attention and support than the smaller ones. My main point should have been that no issue should be COMPLETELY dismissed in light of another. You do recognize that however, so I guess I’m sort of preaching to the choir. XD
http://feministing.com/2012/01/20/anti-feminist-victim-blamer-in-my-own-backyard/
Not that dudes have an exclusive on barging into conversations about prejudice against the other gender and trying to redirect it.
I like how just pointing out that not all men are guilty is “victim-blaming”, despite the entire premise being that sometimes there isn’t a victim. I especially like how the blogger says she’s never heard of men accused of rape being publicly shamed for their sexual history, when the blog’s previous post on the Duke rape case which she links to tries to do exactly that. “Oh, they hired strippers? They must be horrible people.”
But if a guy comes into a discussion of rape wanting to discuss false accusations, he’s branded a misogynist. The response in the feminist blogosphere to the Duke Lacrosse decision was broadly either to a)stop discussing the matter entirely, b)blame Mike Nifong, c)say they want to talk about how it’ll affect the credibility of future rape victims. Note how none of those include talking about how blind support of the alleged victim was wrong, or even the victim herself. Most of that was done by less-mainstream blogs, including the same Cathy Young mentioned in the post on the guilt-presumption seminar. And then there’s this.
The Feministe post I linked to even has the blogger refusing to take back her remarks damning the girls at Duke for proclaiming the players’ innocence. In fact, she describes merely admitting she’s wrong as “shaming”. If you read the comments, you can find a woman who was raped have her experience ignored, repeatedly, when she said the effects on her then-husband being falsely accused of rape were comparable to those of being raped. This wasn’t dismissed as “anecdata”, this was just out and out ignored.
And then there’s the whole Penny Arcade Dickwolves thing. For some reason, people took offense to Mike and Jerry responding snarkily to accusations of condoning rape after they explicitly denied that they condoned rape. One popular feminist blogger, well known for deleting contrary comments on her blog for “trolling”, complained that Penny Arcade wasn’t listening to contrary opinions, in what is actually a typical display of her blinding lack of self-awareness.
And don’t even get me started on Tumblr.
But hey, if you want to talk about areas where men are disadvantaged, lets talk about the higher suicide rate. How women being raped is a tragedy, and men being raped is a joke. How men are considered likely sexual abuse perps, despite the numbers of women doing so being comparable. How men are less likely to be believed when reporting domestic abuse against them. How a woman isn’t responsible for her unwanted pregnancy, but a man is told he should’ve kept it in his pants and is liable for child support.
“How a woman isn’t responsible for her unwanted pregnancy, but a man is told he should’ve kept it in his pants and is liable for child support.”
Really? A woman who has an unwanted pregnancy is branded a whore and a welfare queen. Women with pregnancies are having an almost impossible time getting an abortion (even a medically necessary one) in most states because of this.
As for the rest… yes, men are disadvantaged in terms of child custody and in being victims of sexual assault. This is a societal problem and it’s roots lie in sexism. Yes, some people on the internet of both genders are prone to victim-blaming and ignoring evidence to contradicts their views. This is a societal problem as well and a problematic one.
I don’t really get what point you’re trying to make though. That bad behavior by one group makes bad behavior by another group okay?
I don’t understand the point your trying to make. Two wrongs don’t automatically cancel each other out and make a right. Everyone suffers. You can’t just dismiss things because other people also have it bad or “worse”. (There’s no point in comparing discrimination).
I think you may have missed the point on some things. Also, there are appropriate places to talk about certain things, and to mention certain things.
For example, when people are talking about rape culture and you mention not all men are guilty, that’s obvious, and not worth mentioning in the discussion. People are likely to missed interpret you intent, it’s possible your comment people may think you believe that some aren’t in the wrong when they rape someone, it was the victims fault because of what they were wearing, etc.
Men being raped would be relevant, not false accusations. Or, maybe the negative impact these false accusations have people trying to file a report or being taken seriously.
I also don’t understand the overall point you’re trying to make, but am really interested in some of the smaller points you make.
YES our society has a horrible double standard towards abuse. Female on Male abuse (rape or otherwise) is typically treated as a joke in popular media, which adds another level of trauma to male victims of abuse of any kind.
YES there are lots of areas where men are disadvantaged. You touched on a few of them, thanks for that.
YES there are a lot of self declared feminists out there who will ignore or lambaste a male who tries to get into a conversation about rape, rape culture, sexism or victimization. I hadn’t realized the response to the Duke Lacrosse case was that one sided, thanks for pointing it out.
BUT I have no idea where you’re going with this. Are you saying feminism is bad? Feminism by definition does not exclude males from the conversation nor does it promote the exclusion of males from any context (many self-declared feminists have sadly skewed that definition). Are you saying that feminists have gone too far? Are you saying that the comic is one-sided? Please clarify. I want to know where you’re going with this.
……wouldn’t mind a Batman joke once in a while……
…would Batman talking about misogyny count?
I believe in equal opportunity regardless of gender/ethnicity/sexuality/nationality/social hierarchy/religion/physical appearance.
Because I’m Batman
Brave and the Bold taught us that the hammers of justice are unisex.
Captain Hammer taught us that the hammer of justice is his penis.
There are times when I suspect you’re a Pharyngulite. But hopefully the rest of the Internet also deals in slapping down the dude-bros.
Rather it may be PZ Myers who is a Shortpackedite
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/20/the-threat-of-misandry/
Ugh. You know, I’m fully in support of the recent “Hey, portrayal of women in comic books is not just sexy, it’s over the top ridiculous impossible and unrealistic sexy and that’s pretty lame actually” stuff, but the tendency of such things to head into “All guys are sexist woman-hating assholes, am I right girls?” territory is kind of off-putting.
Here’s the point where I’m told since I’m a guy I can’t understand, and shut up.
You know, because just saying I don’t appreciate having my entire gender portrayed with a broad brush will be turned around into saying I am PROVING the point made by the comic here. (SOME guys are sexist woman-hating assholes to be sure, I’m not saying they aren’t.)
The real sad truth of it all is that people seeking equality seem to have a hard time doing so without spending time tearing down whichever group is the oppressor. That’s not equality, that’s just escalating the fighting. I get it, sure, some people have difficulty expressing their grievances without sounding bitter, hell, they have every right to BE bitter. But it doesn’t contribute very well to the dialogue that is necessary to move forward.
I guess… to sum up, yes, when women complain about portrayal of women in comics, guys who say they just hate men are assholes, and yes, these assholes crawl out of the woodwork. However the vocal minority is always more visible than the silent majority (especially on the internet) and shouldn’t be mistaken for a majority. I’ll give Willis the benefit of the doubt and that he probably doesn’t actually think the vocal assholes are the majority, but due to the constraints of the comic format here it can certainly give one the impression that he does.
I think you kind of missed the point of the comic by again making it about men’s problems. I don’t even think you realize you’re doing it. And I’m not saying “you don’t get it because of gender” because yeesh, that’s a defeatist attitude for anyone to have.
Vocal minority or in-power majority…what’s it matter when the point is that when women try to address issues of sexism, they get shot down with “won’t somebody think of all the ways the world is unfair to MEN on occasion?”
What you’re doing is just a slightly more apologetic version of what these guys are doing. That “now, everyone, let’s be reasonable here” approach is much more patronizing and much more diminishing than you realize. Willis is complaining about people who do this (and do it in droves). You’re coming in going “but not every man does that!” (Which is a great way of sort-of erasing the problem when it’s brought up.) Which is not the point. Enough do it that it is a constant problem.
Well said.
Very true, but it’s also important to remember that every argument has multiple sides (it’s like a dodechahedron! dodecahedren? I can’t spell) and that pointing out that not every dude is a sexist-woman-hating-asshole is a way of pointing out the systemic sexism of our society that broad strokes paints women as victims to men.
I honestly believe that the best way to bring about change is to highlight the positive and say “Let’s have more of that!” as opposed to highlighting the negative to say “Dont’ to this thing”. One promotes and enhances good things, while the other gives undue credit and attention to something that should go away. (slightly a naive approach I’ll admit, and far and away not the only solution. Just my preferred method)
SO Ray Kremer, I applaud you for not being a sexist woman-hating asshole. I applaud you more for treating people who are different from you with dignity and respect (I assume, I don’t know you dude, I only know 3 paragraphs of your life). And I would like to follow up on your comment by asking David Willis to please showcase a non-sexist-asshole-dude. Maybe a feminist-dude (feminist-dudes are sexy, fyi)?
It’s a nice idea, I’ll give you that. But there’s a whole history behind why suggesting that women may want to complain less tends to go over badly. “Stop complaining and know your place” isn’t quite how it’s phrased, but it’s still not considered “lady-like” and the attitude is still very much there.
I know that’s not what you meant, and that you’re referring to problems in general, rather than specifically sexist situations. It is a pleasantly optimistic approach, but unfortunately, putting it into application smacks just a little of “sit down and shut up” which is an attitude women get way too often.
I’m of the mindset that complaining is how you get things done. Civil rights didn’t happen because people said: “Oh, hey, look at that nice thing, let’s have more of it.” They happened because a lot of people got angry and said: “No. No, we’re not doing this anymore. We’re not taking this any more.”
I will gladly praise any comic or movie that does a good job with female characters (or is just a good movie/comic, but they tend to go hand in hand). Hell, I still haven’t stopped talking about the Avengers and everything Joss did right by his audience in that regard (starting with making a movie with the mindset that half the audience may well be female).
But I won’t just stay quiet and demure when I see something awful. I will point out when characters are being treated purely as sexual objects, I will shout when a video game decides a rape scene is the best way to make men like a female character more. Because the mindset in society is that These Things Are Okay. These things are, as Willis once brilliantly put it, the background radiation of our lives–insidious in that most people don’t even notice them, or just accept them as The Way It Is.
And it shouldn’t have to be that way.
The status is not quo. So when it comes up, I’m with the people who make a fuss, because those are the people who get things done.
How did Joss do right? Widow’s entire story focused around a male character (And lot of her dialogue is in regards to him. That which isn’t really doesn’t show much character. Unlike the big four her dialogue is almost always story related. Very little is character related. Though at the very least she got off better then Hawkeye who has no personality all in the film), there were only two females in the film and neither ever talk to one another, and while Widow was physical strong she never does anything special. Her big scene is holding a stick to close a portal… Selvig could have done it. It might have been the most worthless part of the final battle. I just keep seeing everyone praise how strong a female character Widow is and I just don’t see it. I don’t see anything special about her other then the fact that she’s a female comic book hero who made it on the big screen. And Joss wasn’t responsible for that anyway. Marvel was. They picked her years ago. It’s why she was in Ironman 2. I don’t really get why so many people thank him for something he had no part in. Four of the five male characters also do a lot more throughout the film. Widow kind of just sits in the background for most of it. She and Hawkeye are very much not important the overall film. Hawkeye’s role in the first half could have been given to any high ranking SHIELD agent from the comics, and Widow’s entire role could have been either cut or worked into Maria Hill’s character. For her big part in the final battle the staff could have been held by Selvig. At least Hawkeye was making calls from the roof. But without Widow… Well Selvig was already in the right location and he was the one who knew what to do…
…Sorry it’s just been getting to me. I needed to vent… I just really hated the way the film treated Hawkeye and Widow. They were so worthless to the over all film…
Well, firstly, Widow doesn’t strike me as the sort of character who would have a lot of dialogue anyway. Secondly, I wasn’t expecting her to have as much to do as the Big Four, since they are the main characters. But I really thought Joss did right by her. She does a hell of a lot more than Iron Man. Her big scene…you say Selvig could have done it, but, well, he didn’t. In fact, the big defeat of the aliens comes down to just two people: Iron Man flying the nuke out, and Widow closing the portal. Hulk smashes a space whale, but Thor, Cap, and Hawkeye pretty much just Fight Things. Nat gets the one-on-one with Loki.
I find it funny that you say her story is focused around a male character, because I left that theatre practically skipping because there was an action movie with a female character in the main cast who didn’t have to justify her presence with a romance. I’ve got no problem with her showing enough of a human side to be concerned about a friend. That never came off as her driving force, just something else at stake for her. I also find it odd that you keep saying they could have just taken her out of the movie. They didn’t. They could have used Hill instead? Yes, maybe, but instead we got two ladies in the movie, and no, why would Hill be doing half that stuff? Selvig could have wielded the spear? Sure, or Captain America could have. If there wasn’t Black Widow, I’m sure Cap could have shimmied up there himself. Might have even made more sense to the fanboys–have Cap and Iron Man save the day. Joss wasn’t responsible for her? Eh, not for her being in the movie, sure, he wasn’t responsible for anyone being in the movie, just for their treatment in it, and I thought he did a pretty good job with all of them. As you say, Widow’s character could have been much smaller, or even eliminated. But it wasn’t. She was there. She was there and she was doing stuff, and she did stuff awesomely.
But hell, Widow isn’t the big thing that had me all excited anyway. Yeah, it’s a shame the movie doesn’t pass the Bechdel test, but we did have both Maria Hill (who was awesome) and Black Widow, again, neither in roles that needed a romance to justify their existence.
In terms of the guys, yup, there sure were a lot. And Joss, thinking “hey, the audience probably doesn’t only consist of straight dudes,” was pretty equal opportunity with the fanservice. Or did you think it was just a coincidence that Captain America is introduced to the audience with the camera focused squarely on his super-soldier posterior while he works the bag? (I will admit to this shallowness: I liked Hawkeye’s character fine; he was a soldier, he had a very quiet-but-vulnerable moment, but while I can understand why he can be viewed as worthless to the plot, I was too busy being distracted by his thews, which that costume was cut to show.)
The biggest thing I liked about the movie, though, in terms of women’s representation in action/super-hero films, is actually a very small thing:
Half the staff on that helicarrier were women. And not just hot young things in skin-tight suits. Women of various ages, all wearing the same agent gear. Women on the bridge, women in the halls, one nice touch where you just see two women in work-out clothes (real ones, not sexy-work-out), walking down the corridor, looking like they just got out of a gym.
In other words, at SHIELD, being a female secret agent isn’t something Super Special. It’s normal. There’s not only one or two who somehow proved themselves to be “just as good as a man.” SHIELD status quo doesn’t even seem to take gender into account.
It’s a small choice, but it’s one that had to have been deliberately made on Joss’s part, just because of all the action/spy/hero movies where that isn’t the case, where all the background characters are men, because a woman would have to somehow justify her presence in a spy agency, and background characters can’t do that. It’s the sort of thing ten-year-old me, who totally wanted to be a secret agent, would have loved to see.
“She does a hell of a lot more than Iron Man”
Meant to say “Captain America.” Tony kind of stole the hell out of the show. Cap was the one who felt a little extraneous to me, especially in the last fight scene. Good thing he was there to give Nat a boost, though.
Supposedly Whedon had to fight with the studio to get Black Widow and Maria Hill into the movie at all; initially they didn’t have any female characters in the story.
I also like that Hawkeye gets the damsel-in-distress role.
Willis protraying a non-sexist-asshole-dude: Ethan.
Laura,
The best part is you said exactly what I predicted.
I’m not at all trying to say that men are so poor and downtrodden because the mean old feminists are badmouthing them. I’m saying the feminists need to target the men who are the problem without alienating the men that agree with the feminist cause. Probably most of them do exactly that, but it doesn’t always come across well.
Case in point, Willis here is a guy, taking the side of women against the guys who are a problem. He’s been doing it a lot lately. In the context of any one of these strips by itself, they pretty much have to stand as they are to make the point. This strip in particular is a metaphor for internet forums and there’s not really room here to properly represent the guys in the forums that aren’t shouting “misandry”, plus it would ruin the comedic formula here.
But pointing out the problem over and over isn’t a conversation towards solving it, it just makes it look like Willis thinks men overall are irredeemable. Men aren’t the enemy here, the enemy is the sexist and exploitative mindsets held by a significant portion of them.
I don’t think the problem here is really specific to the issue of feminism. All causes involving righting systematic injustice have people that take it a little too far and start alienating people who otherwise agree with them. And all internet arguments give birth to trolls that swoop in en masse with fantastically stupid and mis-aimed attacks. I think what I’d like to see is more focus on what can be done to reduce over-the-top sexism in comic and less focus on “internet trolls exist therefore men are horrible people”.
You are incredibly valiant to speak for all of the doubtless infinite folks who will misconstrue this comic. You’re not one of them, obviously, as you yourself say you understand what is going on, but it’s incredibly important to only speak on behalf of this clueless and way-more-important group you’ve fabricated, at the cost of addressing the actual message.
What an insidious way to be “for” the message while also acting mostly against it.
No one with even the slightest hint of common sense could possibly think this comic, “makes it look like Willis thinks men overall are irredeemable.”
The fella doth protest too much, methinks.
There’s no commentary about “all guys” here. It’s about guys who exhibit specific behavior. Why get defensive and pretend to be a victim if the shoe doesn’t fit?
That’s perfectly fine, IF YOU GET IT. You get it, I get it, but someone else may not get it, and think that that is “all guys”, and while you can say “big deal, it is JUST A COMIC” (not that you necessarily will), you’d actually be surprised how much opinion can be shaped by what’s intended to be humor.
What?
It’s not even about there being humor. It’s about a scenario where people say: “this happens” and some people feeling the need to say: “but not ALL the time!”
Right, so let’s immediately start dumbing down all humor for the lowest common denominator.
Ugh.
Next, on the LCD Shortpacked! Ethian compaires the various generations of Transformers to types of farts. XD
Pretty much. We wouldn’t want some moron’s opinion to be shaped by anything more thought-provoking.
You make a sound point. Could have done without the sarcasm, but sound none the less.
Like all the “get in the kitchen” and “MLP is for men” jokes I see?
The mere fact that it’s a man making this comic strip already underscores not ALL men are like the men in this comic strip.
Protesting after that is just being disingenious.
Wait a minute, Willis is a man? All this time, I thought he was an Otter.
That and this man is derailing/trivializing a man’s genuine troubles in the first panel.
But noooo, some men are bad so this is the misandriest thing ever made.
*this man meaning the character (Arch?)
Posting for the first time to say “THANK YOU” for this comic and all the thoughtful, generally epic discussion that goes into issues like sexism.
And Batman.
Buckets of blood dude: you’re my favorite.
Pretty sure that’s a different guy.
Chin-stash dude who reminds me of the Buckets of Blood dude: you’re my favorite.
his name is Arch
Chin-stash dude named Arch who has always made me reminiscent of the Buckets of Blood dude: you’re my favorite.
I have just gotten an idea for some epic fanart. EPIC I tell you.
Alright, having read through the comments I actually feel I have something to add:
As someone who genuinely believes that his past service in the military served to protect freedom and rights, I should point out that these conversations are exactly the things we SHOULD be having. It’s the stretch marks of growing pains! We should be thankful that we can have these conversations and differing viewpoints. We should be thankful we have a culture that tolerates vastly differing viewpoints and allows grounds for discussion instead of bloodshed.
Point being that when discussing things of this nature it helps to appreciate that you even -can-, and as Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
What I don’t get is, why are video games the last holdout? There’s no denying that there’s plenty of misogynist things, both intentional and unintentional, in TV, Movies, Comics, and Animation. But they all (eventually) found ways to provide entertainment that appealed to both genders. Why are video games a different case? I’m honestly curious, as my last system was a Dreamcast and I haven’t really been following games for a long time.
Are they the last holdout? Or do people maybe focus on that medium due to the excess of testosterone and knuckle-dragging among gamers? I’m kinda thinking that games aren’t any more of a holdout than comics. Despite all of the people that condemn Lara Croft for being TnA, I know women who admire her for being strong, competent, and independent. Despite all of the flack Samus Aran has taken for her single moment of weakness, fans who understand what she’s about remember the scores of times when she was fearless and strong. Both accomplish their strength without being the equally derided “dude with tits” stereotype.
And despite how male-dominated the market is supposed to be, games like Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing seem to be doing well enough to keep making sequels.
I’m not saying that a couple of examples counter an entire industry of generally hypermasculine protagonists and themes. I’m not saying that complaints about the same two characters I mentioned are entirely unfounded. I’m saying the perceived severity of the problem is a matter of perspective and how people choose to interpret (or in some cases spin) what’s presented to them. Two feminists are not going to agree on which female characters are negative, or which games are for a unisex audience despite a male protagonist. Video games may be toward the sexist end of the spectrum but they’re not ALL THE WAY at that end, and not necessarily the closest medium to it. Comics might be closer. Action movies might be closer. I don’t honestly think it matters which is worst. What matters is gradually fixing it.
Well, to be fair up until a few games ago, one of Harvest Moon’s big game play elements consisted of find woman, give woman items until she marries you, woman never leaves your house again. Granted, they’ve been changing up the games, for a while there were the separate but equal “For Girl” or “Cute’ titles, where you could play as a girl and change clothes, and one of the Japanese Cute titles let your girl character marry her girl best friend, which makes me question who that version was actually aimed at.
Most of the current titles you can just choose to play as a girl or a boy, (minus the Rune Story franchise) but Harvest Moon has its issues.
Animal Crossing is grand though!
I was including Harvest Moon as an example of games that draw a mostly female audience, as opposed to games with worthwhile female characters. I suspect Natsume found that niche initially by accident and embraced it later.
On a related note though, I like how the player’s chosen gender in Legend of Mana has essentially no effect on the story.
“One of the Japanese Cute titles let your girl character marry her girl best friend, which makes me question who that version was actually aimed at.”
Yuri fangirls?
People think it’s manly I guess, except “girly” games like Sims (never mind that a lot of people just play that to be a cruel god). There’s a whole nerd fight that never ends going on about who’s a “Real Gamer” (someone who plays violent stuff) and who’s not, and female gamers can be met with sandwich jokes.
Games should come pre-programed so that if someone makes sandwich jokes their character dies automatically.
I don’t know much about games, but I keep coming back to Portal, a game where the PoV character is female and fully clothed and never even seen enough to be sexed up. She wasn’t a girl for any reason except that that’s who the character was (as opposed to a character being female because they needed a girl in there for plot purposes and/or sexing).
It’s just one game in a slew of so many, but it…it worked so well. It seems like that should have been a signpost for other companies (in more ways than just gender portrayal).
It will be, eventually. People are slow.
This comic mostly makes me curious about what Malaya and Leslie were talking about, as I last remember things being awkward between them. I clicked the previous comic button hoping I’d missed a page, but it was not to be.
Does it matter? It’s not like they were talking about MEN!1
HOW DARE THEY!!
That’s exactly the problem! Y’know who always complained about men? Batman! It was always “The Joker” or “The Penguin”. Y’know what he complained about when it wasn’t men? Punk! And I think we all know how much everyone loved that!
Also, hey there Mongoose. I like your name! You have an awesome name! The only thing that would be better is if you removed everything after the second A.
I think I will stick with my Plasma Mongoose handle as I use it whenever I comment in an article, forum or webcomic.
My handle is based on the possible codename you would give to someone whose job it was to eliminate Solid Snake.
Plasma > Solid
Mongoose > Snake
Hence Plasma Mongoose.
Plasma’s all well and good, but it critically botches on double 8 to double 10.
Sounds like you are refering to some kind of RPG…
That’s awesome.
I did wonder a bit…
The more you know…
tl;dr this whole thread
That’s too bad. I’m still catching up, and it’s been worth the trip.
I like how people are making this comment section about men, too.
If you say that people are trying to make the conversation about men, you’re missing the point. Which is about men. As all conversations are.
You’re right. The other day I tried to talk about cats but found myself saying nothing but “men” over and over again. I hope I ended misandry.
The problem is that both problems are true.
We live in a male-dominant society were womans are not trully equals in a lot of fields, and more work is needed.
On the other, is also true that there is a lot of “Misandry” in the so called complains against a macho-society.
The truth lies in the middle, both extremes are kind of idiotic.
Oh god. This is the second time this week I had to elaborate upon this topic, and yes I feel the need to even though it will get lost in this huge wave of comments. I’ll try to keep this short.
1) It is ABSOLUTELY stupid to try and justify or belittle the issues one gender faces by pointing out that the other gender faces an apparently similar problem. That clearly fixes neither of the problems and suggests that such problems should have to be endured, when they really should not, and it completely derails the discussion about the issue at hand. Such is the punchline of this comic.
2) However, it is unfortunate that this joke will be lost on many who will make the unjust assumption that real MRAs behave in such a stupid manner (not just the idiotic false ones) . A true MRA will never attempt to belittle women’s issues as such things would only damage their cause, and vice versa (not to mention, of course, sticking up for human rights for any gender is the right thing to do).
This WAS in fact the shortest I could put it.
The concept of “Men’s Rights Activists” is entirely absurd. Full-stop. There is no need for someone to advocate for the rights of men. They already have all the rights. This “No True Scotsman” argument that there are somehow “good” MRAs are out there is kind of silly. The core thesis of the movement is already flawed.
When are we gonna get a White History Month?
I though White History Month was every month except Febuary.
RAAAAACIST!
Mr. Willis, if you are implying what I think you are implying I’m rather disappointed and somewhat disillusioned with my original views of you.
Not only are you making a mockery of my kind (not presuming sound) input without provocation, you are derailing a discussion of sexism by bringing in one of racism, which is not much unlike what the foolish characters in your comic are doing in changing a subject of women’s issues for men’s issues.
Pardon if my conclusions are incorrect, but that seems rather hypocritical. (Not that I would come to the defense of those characters.)
Also, if I am reading your comment correctly, you are implying I am resentful or jealous of the progress feminism has made, which is in direct contradiction to the point I was making.
Here’s the thing. Rights movements get started because some majority group are horrible people against some other minority group. The minority group wants better treatment and equal rights. That’s great! I support that. It’s a slow process, but they have some victories, and the culture actually changes. Not all at once or universally, but slowly, in bits and pieces. Maybe you can’t tell the difference over 5 or 10 years but when 50 years have gone by things really are much improved on the average. Fewer and fewer of the majority group think of the minority group as not equal. However, the idea that the majority group are horrible people is still there. After all, the rights movement spent a lot of time convincing them of it. At some point the idea that the majority group are horrible people (which is increasing) is as strong as the idea that the minority group are not equal (which is decreasing). Now you have the opposite problem. People in the majority group that are not horrible are thought to be horrible. This manifests in MUCH smaller ways than the discrimination that the minority group suffered 50 years earlier, but it does manifest.
All of which isn’t quite the same thing as the issue of comics portrayal of women, which is moreso a product of “sex sells” than it is pre-sufferage sexism. However, it is “sex sells” used in completely inappropriate and irresponsible manners that misrepresents and poorly portrays the female gender. Of course all forms of “sex sells” get some complaints from people who think that giving teenage boys images of pretty girls trains them to think that girls are nothing but sex objects. The people selling the images, though, really care more about selling as many images as possible regardless of what the images ARE.
But when the majority group does, in fact, continue to act in horrible ways? No, it is not all members of the majority group who do this, or even most members. But if a large portion of men are doing something sexist, and another large portion of men do not contemn their actions, then what are women to think? Are we not going to, at the very least, be a little bit jumpy around guys when this topic comes up?
I can recognize that some women would feel that way. It’s no surprise really, considering what women have, and to this day, continue to suffer at the hands of some stupid people and those too cowardly to speak up against them. I hope for myself that I will not be one of the silent ones when put to the test.
Thing is, people in the majority think that sexism (or racism, or homophobia, or transphobia, etc.) is totally over so therefore (minority group) should stop complaining, and never say anything ill about (majority group) because it’s (pick one-ist) against (majority group.) Sure, things were better than they were a hundred or so years ago, but it’s hardly a great society of flowers and candy and sparkles where everyone treats everyone equally.
I’m not gonna address that mess of ad hoc historical revisionism in the first paragraph, except to offer you an exciting opportunity! For a modest membership fee*, you can be a part of the White Rights Movement! Just 9 months ago, minorities’ growing hatred of whites surpassed whites’ dwindling hatred of minorities. Tragically, millions of whites across the US are already feeling the sting of oppression, which is partially as bad** as the initial oppression minority groups experienced before the civil rights movement. But with your help, white people can be free once again. Please join today; gays’ hatred of heterosexuals is already swelling, and if we don’t act, these combined forces may be enough to destroy the majority entirely.
*$150 USD, Paypal only
**18% as bad, it turns out. We measured.
All right, time to be serious.
Profitability is not a justification for sexism. Claiming that comics are just following the old adage of “sex sells” ignores the fact that by doing so, they are making profits a higher priority than any concern about gender equality in pop culture. So yeah, I’d say that’s sexism.
And yes, the audience enables sexism in comics. But that won’t change if everyone just shrugs their shoulders and says, “Whaddya gonna do? Sex sells.”
Why is it anytime this comic talks about gender issues, I’m lost?
You probably took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
You’re not overly knowledgeable regarding gender issues? Which isn’t a great thing, but props to you for admitting it. I’m in much the same boat.
Damn, the misandry mob is the least favorite part of my day.
Hang on that guy on the left makes me sense something….
MISOGINGERY
or as comedian Tim Minchin puts it.
A couple of G’s an R and an E, an I and an N.
Six little letters all jumbled together whose damage just never ends.
Only a Ginger, can call another Ginger, ginger.
Unless she’s a movie star.
Or if her name is Ginger…
Oh goddamnit, Willis.
Either explain what you’re addressing in the news post or stop doing comics like this.
Because the irony of this comic supposedly addressing the problem of dudes claiming feminism is misandric while being itself a clear example misandry isn’t lost on me.
For instance: Ray Kremer above. Who says, in direct response to this comic: ‘I don’t appreciate my entire gender being portrayed as ‘. Which this comic does.
Ray’s addressing a genuine issue for their gender in response to something that is itself a clear example of that issue. Posters of the opposite gender then immediately start complaining that Ray is missing the point and that this is not an issue for Ray’s gender, but for theirs.
Why am I keeping this gender neutral? Because Ray’s a dude.
Yes, this comic is supposed to be about the way that women are shouted down for being misandric when they speak up for their own rights. But it does so in a completely misandric way. Ray’s grievance is a genuine one.
No, it’s about how every time people try to talk about women’s rights – people starts complaining ’bout misandry and divert the conversion from the issue.
Suggesting dudes can’t monopolize other folks’ conversations with stuff about themselves is MISANDRY, dude.
I love your avatar
He made it himself.
“For instance: Ray Kremer above. Who says, in direct response to this comic: ‘I don’t appreciate my entire gender being portrayed as ‘. Which this comic does.”
No, it doesn’t. Show me where in the strip Ethan touched you with his cry of “Misandry!”
No? How about Mike, then? He’s not there either. Good grief, even Faz avoided this display.
The attitude shown here is real. It is not presented as universal, as should be evident in how none of the major male cast is a participant in the display.
I just noticed, this is the first time in about a month since Malaya got any screen time.
… That’s all. Just something I noticed.
I don’t understand all the people complaining that this comic makes it seem as if all men do this. Is Ethan here? Is Jacob? Even Mike and Faz, are absent. The men who are shown are all characters who have been shown to be inconsiderate and unpleasant in the past. Conclusion: inconsiderate and unpleasant men do this. And guess what: this kind of thing does happen a lot! I read a lot of discussions of feminism on the internet, and inevitably someone shows up to derail the conversation and insist that sexism isn’t real because Men Have it Hard Too. This is not helpful behavior! Complaining about this behavior isn’t a critique of men, it’s a critique of people who do this specific thing.
This has to be the most rational, intelligent conversation on any subject that I have ever seen on the internet. The topic makes it even more impressive.
I applaud you all.
For a second I thought this comic might be a response to this: http://www.avclub.com/articles/how-girls-challenges-the-masculine-expectations-of,81266/
I guess I’m spending too much time in the Girls discussion thread since you can’t go two seconds without someone throwing out the word “misandry!” in response to the pretty disturbing and at times deeply sexist backlash to that show.
I’m female. I am a -huge- feminist. That does not mean men don’t have problems. I may not consider them as widespread or as serious as women’s problems, but men do have problems, and it’s childish for any of us to pretend that they don’t.
Just because you’re at the top of the pile doesn’t mean the weather’s nice up there.
No, not at all. She simply caught 4chans attention. Which was basicly a pay dirt explosion for sympathizer backing.
Bravo 4chan, you sure showed her. Showed her all the way to the bank.
Most of the organized harrassment effort has little to do with the subject at hand, as this is simply the way 4chan acts towards ANYONE they’ve decided they are going to harrass.
This case is actually rather mild, I remember the kid who told 4chan to grow up had his computer hacked personal information released online, and this same brand of oh so witty insults and death threats on his home phone.
So this is a standard issue of the internet being morons, and not really about a female talking about sexism in games. If you catch their fancy right theyll give you the same treatment over liking waffles better than pancakes.
As for her actual product, if its anything like any of her previous work, its kinda lousy, especially for a documentary.
Its extremely dead horse beating, no documenting whatsoever, just her pushing her personal opinions, theres no providing equal unbaised information and letting viewers think and decide for themselves. Its extremely one side loaded in presentation, so anyone who could possibly have any other opinion would look like a sexist maniac.
Its designed by and catered to people with a set in stone pre concieved notion. And as such, regaurdless of subject, makes for a logically flawed execution. This leads to a perfect party mix of the following:
Preconcived notion fanatics, blind and screaming for their cause, which the product happens to be about, screeching and clawing at
anything that doesnt parrot what they say without bothering to hear whats being said.
Rational people on the products side. They are typically irritated by the poor representation of the topic important to them and feel the preconcieved fanatics and the product are detrimental to the actual movement. They argue against the product, the inane screeching of the preconcieved notion fanatic, the arguments of the rational disagreements, and the mirror preconcieved notion fanatics.
Rational disagreements. These people pose logical, rational disagreements in opposition of the product. Not necessarally the subject, but the product. They argue against the preconcieved notion fanatics, the Rational people on the products side, and mirror preconcieved notions fanatics, who they feel are so foolish and inept that they are detrimental to their own side.
Mirror preconcieved notion fanatics are permanately and blindly planted on the side against the product. Screeching and clawing at anything they percieve as disagreeing with them without bothering to actually realize what they are disagreeing with. These are typically your moronic 4chan one liners.
This cocktail mix is a self renewing energy source for web traffic and attention.
Which is exactly what we have here. Most of you didnt even know who she was before this…. Cause her product kinda sucks.
But the controversy of web harrassment thrust her into the spotlight in ways her product never could.
I knew who she was before this. I watched a couple of her tropes vs. women videos and remember being mildly annoyed with her video on the manic pixie dream girl for using Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Summer Finn from (500) Days of Summer as examples when the entire point of those characters is that they’re meant to be deconstructions of the manic pixie dream girl. Honestly everything she said in the videos were touched upon already by the Nostalgia Chick who did a better job of it in my opinion. That being said she has a right to discuss what she wants to discuss and I cut her some slack for at least trying to do something worthwhile with a five minute video even if I feel she could have done it better.
This is going to get lost, what with an update in a couple of hours, but I find it ironic that men are treated as poor cooks when it comes to domestic cooking. But in the professional world, it’s woman who are treated as poor chefs.
But I guess that Arch doesn’t know anything that’s not in a TV commercial.
The comic itself makes a pretty tidy statement, I think. There’s no value assessment of either problem in it, it’s just about people who can’t not be discussing themselves. I mean, it still works if you flip the genders around, or if you remove gender entirely and swap in ‘republican’ and ‘democrat’.
The comments caught fire, though. And I’m guessing it’s being oversensitive to even implied criticism. It’s like a conditioned response-the topic of women’s problems come up, I don’t know how to address it. What am I supposed to do about the wage gap, or the horrible way rape victims are treated, or any other of the very serious problems facing women. Seriously, I got NOTHING.
But women I like, and respect, tell me that MY gender rules the world, and that somehow that makes me share in responsibility, like I have to do something about it right now, it makes me a little frustrated and defensive about the entire topic. So…I guess I’m saying I can kind of understand where the ‘shut up dudes have problems too’ thing comes from. It’s definitely not the RIGHT response to genuine concerns. But speaking as a guy who wants to do the right thing, can we stop dividing the human race into teams that each gender present has to answer for, and discuss the SYSTEM as something that needs to be overhauled by both men and women? I mean, realistically-if we want real equality between the sexes, and not just having the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction, men and women will BOTH have to sit down and hammer something out, right?
Of course, this is just my ignorant, non-college educated opinion, and I’ll probably be called out on it. Lucky a new update is coming soon, so it’ll probably be missed.
What you can personally do is listen and understand. I think that’s all anybody asks. Nobody’s actually asking for you to change the world. Just don’t make it worse.