Okay, so, this will likely get ignored or downvoted all to hell based on the rest of the posts in this thread, but here's an explanation of why people think the original is sexist for anyone who really can't understand.
So, the initial comic requires, as a premise, that women:
Dress provocatively
Get pissed off when they don't get attention because of it
Claim, hypocritically, to get pissed off when they DO get attention because of it.
The author's response to this argument is "No, I'm only criticizing THAT SORT of person who does that!" (Example comment) but that doesn't really hold up because if he's saying that there's only a small percentage of people who do that, it's a really shitty joke. Like, imagine if I make a comic about how people named Greg are always lying. Yes, I know one guy named Greg who's a habitual liar, and the comic might be funny to me and his ex wife, but it's not going to be generally funny unless there exists a stereotype that Gregs in general lie a lot. There's a stereotype out there in the world that women, in general, really want male attention even if they say they don't. That's clearly the basis for the humor in this comic.
(It would also work if this was an ongoing comic strip where the female character had been characterized as being like that. But as it's just a one-off comic, you can't do that)
Furthermore, this Part 2 comic actually drives home that point--imagine the original comic with the genders reversed, or with the characters replaced by two beings of unknown gender. Does the joke still land? At all? No, it really doesn't, because it's based on a stereotype and there's no stereotype of men who get really ripped and then pretend to get upset when women notice them, and there's no stereotypes at all of beings of unknown gender.
And also, if you accept the premise that it would be just as funny with the genders reversed... why did he go with a man and a woman, with the woman being the hypocritical one? Do you really think he just flipped a coin and this is what luck of the draw gave him?
Now, if you accept my argument above that the comic is, in fact, based on a sexist premise, you might still argue that there's no harm in that because it's just a silly joke. And I'll agree that it's a pretty minor offense in the grand scheme of things, but it does reinforce the stereotype, even if in only a small way, that women dress how they dress just to get male attention. And even worse, it reinforces the extremely harmful stereotype that women want that male attention even when they specifically say they don't. This little comic in and of itself won't make a man go out and sexually harass a woman, but the sort of man who's already primed to do that will look at this comic and laugh and the neural pathways that say "All women really want it, and if they say they don't, they're lying" get reinforced.
I don't think the author of the original is necessarily a bad person. He's just a guy that was raised in a culture where this stereotype pops up a lot--e.g., in comics exactly like the one he posted--and it's human nature when someone says "Hey, I'm upset about this thing you did" to get defensive and try to show how the thing you did is NOT offensive. Especially true when people are coming out you reeeeally hot (e.g., "At worst it exposes you as a bitter, immature misogynist who is out of touch with reality and has no capacity for empathy or emotional maturity."). The right way to deal with someone being offended by your actions would be to take a step back and really evaluate yourself and see if you're doing something shitty. It's not always the case that you're in the wrong, and it's not true that you should necessarily change your art just to make sure you don't offend anyone ever, but if a whoooole lot of people are coming at you and telling you that the thing you did was offensive, it might make sense to listen--really listen--to their complaints.
Do you truly think that a version of the original comic would have gotten that same 32,000 upvotes if the genders were reversed, or are you willing to accept that the humor, such as it, relies on a stereotype that women specifically try to get male attention but say that they don't want it? And do you truly not understand why, in a world where some crazy high percentage of women have been the victims of sexual assault by men, it might tick some people off to make a comic that reinforces the idea that women don't really mean it when they ask men to leave them alone?
You're fighting a losing battle in this comment thread due to the change in tone. But I actually agree with your point, but you'll just have people arguing semantics and being generally pedantic.
After seeing a lot of his other comics I can't help but think that the artist is severely depressed and has a general hate/animosity towards women. It appears to be a reoccurring theme in his comics based on what I've found so far. Examples:
By themselves these comics aren't that bad but when you put them together it really paints a picture of a person who has some issues, especially when it comes to women. Neckbeard/nice guy extreme right here.
I absolutely love the flak you're catching for this comment. Not because I disagree, but because it displays the obtuse, defensive, and insular nature of the people who look at this comic and ignore any undercurrents it has.
Great write-up and I totally agree. A lot of humor, now and throughout history, is based upon offensive stereotypes, which some people really like and some people really don't. What pisses me off is the fact that OP legitimately thinks he's not working off those sexist stereotypes and this is an original thought. Totally clueless.
I'm gonna level with you. I agree with 100% of the analysis you just did. I clearly see why the original was problematic. I honestly just thought it was funny regardless and upvoted. I think it's ok to simultaneously enjoy media and be critical of it.
Thank you for this post, it is a solid attempt to explain the sentiment without getting aggressive. I can see your angle based on your explanation, but I disagree with a lot of your supporting statements.
So, the initial comic requires, as a premise, that women:
The comic does not require that all women do the things you bullet listed. It requires that some do, and not necessarily even many of them. For the joke to be effective it'd have to be at least common enough that many readers would have encountered a person like this at least once, which from the comments we can gather they have (or at least perceived that a person had these properties).
but that doesn't really hold up because if he's saying that there's only a small percentage of people who do that, it's a really shitty joke.
I disagree with this just utterly. Think more on this point, you're basically saying the only non-shitty jokes are observations of general truths. That is definitely one type of humor, but many jokes are based on the absurdity of unusual cases. Do you think for example that there cannot be a good joke about people who cut in line for things? Surely line-cutters are only a small percentage of people who need to wait in line. But due to people having a few frustrating experiences with line-cutters in their lifetime a joke poking fun at line-cutters could be quite funny.
You further this point by saying a joke about Gregs being liars can't be a joke unless there is a real stereotype that Gregs are liars. I continue to disagree with you. I think in order to have a joke about Gregs being liars be funny you might only need to have one friend named Greg (whether or not he's a liar, you might laugh and show him the comic). I think you don't even need a Greg, you'd only need a friend who was a liar, and you'd show your other friends the comic and say "Greg?... I think they mean Brett!" Frankly, I don't think you need a Greg OR a liar, the absurdity of a claim that all Gregs are liars could be the vector for humor itself.
There's a stereotype out there in the world that women, in general, really want male attention even if they say they don't. That's clearly the basis for the humor in this comic.
I agree that is not a very funny premise, but I disagree that was the basis of the original comic. I think the original comic was poking fun at a type of person that is an exceptional case.
Take out the speech bubbles and just leave the joke as the physical comedy, and it's a perfectly fine comic. So why did he feel the need to add in the "I'm saying no, but I CLEARLY MEAN YES!" aspect?
To add to this, I don't really buy the author's response, because this is by no means the first time he's used stereotypes against women as part of a joke (often, the only part of the joke). I'd go as far as to call it a recurring theme in his work. This comic, for example, is basically a "LOL, women can't figure out the remote" joke.
Your entire premise that this cartoon is necessarily about women in general is flawed. The example of Greg is a good one. Enough people know of a lying Greg, or a similar person in their life who is a habitual liar (the name being the same is not necessary), that they could relate to a joke about a person named Greg who lies a lot. The stereotype in this comic is obviously a comment on a certain kind of woman, who enough people are aware of (especially in the sphere of social media), that it lands for a general audience. It does not require that the cartoonist or the audience who finds it funny thinks that ALL women are like this ( just like a joke about a habitually lying man would not be taken to mean all men are liars). Not even close. The fact that you wrote an 800 word essay on the matter is incredible to me. Stereotypes have been used for comedy forever, because they're a way of relating to others who notice similar silly behaviors in people. To stretch this stereotype of an attention craving woman into a comment on victims of sexual assault is absurd. I kinda hate myself for having read your entire diatribe, and for responding to it. But sometimes when you write something really long, people might think you have a good point. You do not. It was a joke. Calm the fuck down
The validity of the criticism of the comic doesn't rely on the distinction between it addressing some women or all women. I don't even know if anyone criticized it in that way, it would be absurd. It also doesn't simply rely on women doing what the woman did in the comic, but rather a dismissal or skepticism of women who are genuinely uncomfortable with sexualized attention ("they really want it").
The other half of your paragraph is empty chest thumping about how long the comment is and how they don't have a good point and its a joke, calm the fuck down. This is all just useless as it does nothing to address the point and via projection shows that you are offended, its just a discussion about art, calm the fuck down.
Society as a whole should work for the improvement of society as a whole. Saying I got mine, and if someone else isn't happy, that's their problem makes us all worse off.
There are a lot of people that do a lot of things that hurt others in subtle ways. We all do those kinds of things from time to time. We all need to point out those things to each other so we can be aware and maybe not do those things next time.
No one is a bad person for making an offensive joke. We all do it from time to time. But we should strive when someone says, hey, that hurt me, to then say, "sorry" and mean it, and try a little harder next time. Refusal to do that is what makes a bad person. Care about each other.
We're all responsible for our own actions. I think people should save their anger for the people that actually oggle women, not the comics that joke about women that want to be oggled.
And I think the majorly hypocritical aspect is that people do not give half a shit about a comic using stereotypes in their humor if the joke is hilarious, but when a joke falls flat people get offended. People are willing to suspend it while they're laughing their ass off, and stereotypes are used by lots of comics.
But if it falls flat, suddenly that comic is responsible for the actions of many? Fuck that. It's just a comic, and if it wasn't that funny and just reminded you of a negative stereotype, that's not the end of the world and it's not like he should stop making comics like that. Maybe the next one will be funnier and no one will give a shit. In the end, someone oggling women is responsible for their behavior, not the comic they might have read.
Society isn't any worse off due to a 3 panel webcomic that depicts a stereotype and it doesn't deserve lengthy commentary on society just because someone didn't laugh enough.
It's also the problem of the women they harass because they've been socialized to believe that when women say they'd rather not be harassed, they don't really mean it.
So people live in a bubble that never harms others? This is one of the big problems with internet culture. People forget, for all posturing about the internet not being a 'safe space', that the internet is a disconnected bubble from reality. And that in reality, people have power over others when they take actions that harm others. My problem will eventually become someone else's problem, no one lives in a world outside of context.
And a bunch of entitled neckbeards think that every woman who won't sleep with them is that "certain kind of woman" you're alluding to. That's the problem with the original comic; however innocuous its intent, it reinforces a narrative of male entitlement to women's sexuality.
You and many of the people who enjoyed the original comic might not be misogynists who feel entitled to sex with women. I'm sure this describes most of the people who enjoyed the comic. But you'd also have to be living under a rock to not recognize that there are a lot of Nice Guy dudes who really do hold these misogynistic views. The original comic and its positive reaction reinforced their worldviews that women are prudes denying Nice Guys the attention and warm reciprocations those Nice Guys deserve; the follow-up comic that OP just posted is now reinforcing the views held by those Nice Guys that they're not actually misogynistic for thinking those things.
The stereotype in this comic is obviously a comment on a certain kind of woman
I like that you're at least on board that this comic is talking about a specific type of woman and not a specific type of person, as some other commenters have tried to argue.
who enough people are aware of (especially in the sphere of social media), that it lands for a general audience. It does not require that the cartoonist or the audience who finds it funny thinks that ALL women are like this
Right. Okay. So I'm with you this far.
Now, consider the possibility that a lot of the women that readers of this comic are thinking of, which make them find the comic relatable, actually aren't like the woman portrayed in the comic. Consider the possibility that they're legitimately asking not to be objectified and that guys keep on doing it because they think the woman actually does want to be objectified. Consider the possibility that comics like this reinforce that stereotype that there are lots of women how there who don't really mean no when they say no. Do you see how that can be harmful?
I like this comment, I think most people agree on those first bits and think the other side doesn't see it.
As for your follow-up problem, there are millions of harmful things in culture. People need to be able to deal with them in healthy ways, and that's another issue. Every day we are bombarded by adds designed to make us obese (buy calorie-rich foods), or adds to make us smoke. This is incredibly harmful, but is something we need to learn to deal with in other ways than just shutting down the outlet.
Perhaps if men seeing this as a license to harass women is a major issue, we should launch national campaigns against it, or maybe set up workplace training sessions. But the comic is not the issue, and is still fully applicable to a small subset of assholes (often female) who do this.
You'll notice that in the comic, the male character is not objectifying the woman. And therein lies the joke. Now is it possible that some people reading the comic might take it to mean that women who say no to advances really are saying yes, even though that isn't shown in the comic? I guess it's possible they could twist it into a reinforcement of their own sexism, yes. But they would have to do nearly as many mental gymnastics as you are in analyzing this 3 panel comic.
Furthermore, the premise that a joke that could be harmful should not be told, is just bad logic. Let's consider another joke with this premise. Could Louis CK joking about his suicidal thoughts, be taken as an endorsement of suicide by depressed people? Sure, it's possible, even more possible than your hypothetical I'd say. But for many other depressed people it's relieving to hear someone joke about such subject matter and find humor in it. I do not think he should censor that joke because of a possibility of harm. This is a fairly extreme example, but I'm sure we could play this game with most jokes when you get down to it.
You'll notice that in the comic, the male character is not objectifying the woman. And therein lies the joke.
Therein lies PART of the joke. The other part of the joke relies on the idea that the woman WANTS to be objectified even though she's SAYING she DOESN'T.
Imagine the comic if the woman wasn't acting like she really wanted to be objectified. There's no joke--just three panels of two people standing slightly near each other.
Imagine the comic if the woman was acting like she really wanted to be objectified and her speech matched her actions. Again, no joke--just a weird comic of some strange woman sexually harassing a guy.
Now is it possible that some people reading the comic might take it to mean that women who say no to advances really are saying yes
That's literally all the comic is saying. That women are SO likely to be saying no to advances they really want that they'll even say no to advances that aren't even happening.
And I think it's noteworthy that about a third of the people are coming back with "Yes, it's clearly offensive, but offensive jokes are fine" and a third are coming back with "There's no possible way to see this as offensive" (with the last third agreeing with me that it's offensive and also not finding it funny because of that).
(And, I'm sure if this comment hit Redpill or something, I'd get a new group saying "No, this comment makes perfect sense because deep down all women really do want to be raped, regardless of what they say")
for many other depressed people it's relieving to hear someone joke about such subject matter and find humor in it.
Do you think there's a lot of sexual assault victims out there who find it relieving to hear someone joke about how a lot of them really mean yes when they say no?
consider the possibility that a lot of the women that readers of this comic are thinking of, which make them find the comic relatable, actually aren't like the woman portrayed in the comic.
But still, they should be aware that there are a lot of women like this.
Consider the possibility that they're legitimately asking not to be objectified and that guys keep on doing it because they think the woman actually does want to be objectified.
As a man, I would like not to be objectified as "all men are cheaters", yet I don't get offended when there's jokes about it, for me jokes like that say more about the person saying it than the subject of the joke, and sometimes I can still laugh at them.
EDIT: Also, this does not imply at all that "they (guys) think the woman actually does want to be objectified". The joke is not for them, it's for everyone around them, including other women, who may also dislike this sort of person.
Consider the possibility that comics like this reinforce that stereotype that there are lots of women how there who don't really mean no when they say no.
I don't really know what to say here, I honestly don't see how one gets from this joke to what you're saying. The joke is about attention grabbing, the discussion about "she was asking for it" excuse for sexual assault is entirely different, which personally I think only a maniac would agree it's a valid excuse. I just don't see how this is argument is relevant.
The joke isn't that literally every single woman who has ever lived is an attention seeking slut, only some of them! So it's fine!
I mean, you claimed to have read their entire diatribe but I'm convinced that's not actually true. Also, it's a tad ironic to end a rant with "calm the fuck down."
Even though it's not about women in general it is playing into a sexist stereotype which can make it sexist. Like if I made a comic about black people stealing and eating KFC that would be racist even though it's not about all black people in general but just about black people who steal and eat KFC.
People are always saying "I can't say this or that because of PC culture," but that's never true. Your freedom is not being limited here, it's just that with freedom comes the responsibility to use it wisely. You can make jokes that reinforce harmful stereotypes if you really want to. You're just being asked not to. Very politely and with ample explanation, I should add.
Reinforcing stereotypes with jokes like this ends up being a tragedy of the commons type of thing. Just like plastic bottles that litter our beaches and parks, each individual comment is essentially harmless by itself, but those small things add up when thousands or millions of people are doing it. Even if this one small thing won't impact things on a large scale, do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?
The point is that the implication is that it's not a niche topic.
People aren't reading that comic and going "Hah! I don't know any people like that, and I don't know anyone who does, but I've heard that there are people like that somewhere in the world and so this is really funny!"
No, the upvotes that that comic was getting were from people going "Hah! Yeah, I know a woman just like that!"
(And, despite what a few people have commented, I would bet a nickel that in their heart of hearts, they were specifically thinking "a woman just like that" and not "a person just like that" and certainly not "a man just like that")
And the thing that's harmful is that I am 100% certain that not all of the women that dudes are thinking of when they went "Hah! Yeah, I know a woman just like that!" are actually like that. I am 100% certain that most of the women dudes are thinking of legitimately would like not to be objectified, and have legitimately asked not to be, and comics like this one reinforce the belief that they don't reeeeaaaalllly not want to be objectified.
What if I'm a woman who read this comic and didn't get offended in the slightest, and actually found it funny, because I knew the comic wasn't a direct attack on my gender in general? I feel like all your comments depend on it being a guy who found this comic funny originally because of all his deeply reinforced gender stereotypes...
Am I sexist and objectifying my own gender because I found this comic funny? Or could it be that the joke was just, "This girl thinks he is objectifying her butt but also wants him to look at it, but the guy isn't interested so now she looks silly." Emphasis on "The guy in the comic isn't interested," which was a key part of the joke.
I think you're projecting issues onto a three panel comic that aren't really there. I think you are using "women" too often, when the premise of the comic was clearly "woman," and that there's zero reason to automatically jump to the conclusion that it's implying that all women are like that.
No, just when you joke about it understand that you're reinforcing a negative stereotype, and it will make people justifiably angry. It's the cigarette version of a joke, just because it's bad doesn't mean it should be banned, but let's not pretend it's healthy.
I don't think I'm the best looking guy. I also think I don't stare(too long). I haven't run into women who have been angry at attention from me, but I've also run into women who either don't care or who seem to like attention from me. Personally, to me, this is the type of stuff I hear jokes about but I've never personally seen.
I'm not saying I attract women because I'm attractive, far from it. I've gotten indifference plenty of times. However, I've never experienced someone actually upset at me either paying attention to them or the opposite.
So it was funny lmao. You are trying SO hard but getting nowhere. The joke was funny, 90% of people liked it, the joke landed, and you're so upset about it you're trying to make an argument about why people don't enjoy something...
You seem to be projecting some. I'm not terribly upset; there are far worse things to get upset over.
Saying that a comic is based on a sexist premise doesn't mean it's the end of the world; all it means is that, here's another case where we could have been a little more thoughtful about what we want to communicate and how people might be effected by our choices. This is a minor thing, but because there are so many minor things, it's helpful to point them out.
Obviously the author isn't evil, and he's probably not sexist. But he, intentionally or not, wrote a comic that perpetuates a sexist stereotype. All I want is to point that out so that he doesn't do that again, so that he learns.
It's not a big deal and I have no idea why you think I'm freaking out about it.
Actually, I think the author's follow up showed that he doesn't see the sexism portrayed, or understand why care should be taken with this kind of thing.
The XKCD comic linked in this thread is a wonderful illustration of the problem. Women's sexuality has been shown in a negative light for centuries. A joke based around a women's sexual misconduct, no matter how well intentioned must grapple with that history or risk being misconstrued. Here, the author shows no understanding of that history, as his attempts to correct the issue don't discuss that history at all.
Yes, it sucks that centuries of sexism have ruined making fun of an individual woman's sexuality for the rest of us. So let's correct it by letting the stereotype completely die and be forgotten, and then we won't have to treat the subject with kid gloves anymore.
Hmmm, perhaps we see jokes in general in somewhat different lights. I certainly see what you're saying about it being a tough issue to joke about without being sexist.
At the same time I make off-hand racist jokes to my friends, or jokes about killing babies.
Now whether making sensitive jokes in general is good or bad for society I think is a FAR more contentious debate. Also a debate that would require much more fleshed out theses and data, so one I'm not inclined to have in the morning. :P
This comic does not require one to assume anything about women, only THAT woman. Anything else is something you brought to the table. Art is funny like that.
So, the initial comic requires, as a premise, that women:...
I differ from you on this point. I feel like the author was more playing on broader stereotypes: the jock, the nerd, the delinquent or, in this case, the female who may or may not dress in a possibly provocative way in an attempt to maybe or maybe not draw attention to herself. We all know someone who fits these generic stereotypes. That's why the joke had impact. Everyone could relate (or well, the +-32000 people who upvoted, at least).
So, imo, the joke did not play on the stereotype that all women dress how they dress just to get male attention, but on the stereotype that at least most of us know one or more women who do. I agree with many of the statements you made, but I must also say that I think a lot of people just felt offended because they did no stop long enough to think that the reason they understood the joke was because they too knew someone who dressed for attention.
I'd argue that the people who were offended are offended because they don't know anyone who dresses for attention and are left with nothing but prejudice as a baseline for understanding. I certainly don't know anyone who dresses for attention - that just doesn't happen in my social circles.
And I know a lot of people who say women dress for attention when they actively do not, so I am slightly biased to assume the dude is just being a shithead.
Like when someone starts telling me about their crazy ex.
It's concerning how many people are trying to argue against this without actually reading all of it and cherry picking details. It was well-written. Kudos.
To those who have been in that situation, it emitted a quick chuckle and then we moved on with our lives.
That's about it. Doesn't mean that every person is that way, but some are, and the one woman in the comic is one of those people.
Just like all the webcomics showing women getting catcalled by random men isn't saying the literally every man is that way, or even the majority. Just that it does indeed happen.
Im going to upvote not because I agree but because you gave a solid point that was well thought out.
I agree that the original relied on a hurtful stereotype. But I also believe that finding comedy within sterotypes is important because it allows us to not only have these conversations but also think about how ridiculous they are.
In the comic, I never thought it supported the idea that women are attention seeking even when they say they dont want it. I found it ridiculous that thats how some guys think it is and that hopefully by putting it to this extreme maybe they have the opportunity to be self reflective.
Its easy to forget that this is art and comedy that does more to tell us what we think about a subject rather than the motivations of the creator (in most situations). This is a comic making fun of a stereotype. What you get out of it is chiefly in the eye of the beholder.
Could this be hurtful? Yes, but it could also do good. And its easy to forget that.
I mean, you don't have to agree, but I get the point they are making and appreciate the effort they put in to explain how some might not like the comic.
I guess you are just a bit of a shitty person after all to just kind of dismiss all of that with your reply.
And you lost a lot of potential fans by being so butthurt about the reaction to your comic. Had you said nothing and just continued drawing other comics, most of the "offended" people would've never given it a second thought. But you made a follow-up, then the "lel feminazi" neckbeards frothed at the mouth over it, and now you're replying to dozens of critical comments with the equivalent of "lol don't care". It's embarrassing.
When you react so strongly to every tiny bit of criticism, it's a very bad look.
Its amazing how many people have gotten upset by a three-panel comic. Its like they have no sense of humor about themselves or the world around them.
Personally, I know women who crave attention but act like they don't want it. At the same time, as Im sure you do, I know girls who aren't like that and can see that the comic isnt a commentary on EVERY WOMAN EVER.
If the genders were reversed then one could get offended by a man shoving his butt in woman's face, insisting she wants it when she doesn't. Oh, whoops, now we've made a joke about sexual harassment.
But wait, why then aren't people saying the man is being sexually harassed in the original? Men can and do get raped by women.
The reason is because there are typically differences in men and women, men typically are interested in viewing a ladies sexual characteristics than the opposite. Women tend to display those characteristics far more often then men do. When is the last time you can think of where a man wore shorts with their butt cheeks exposed, or clothing that hugged their penis?
So, if a woman insists her skimpy clothing is not because she wants to be ogled, that is funny, especially if exaggerated. Some women do this thing. If a man insists his skimpy clothing is not because he wants to be ogled, that could be funny, but not relatable.
"All women really want it, and if they say they don't, they're lying" get reinforced.
Yes some people would use this comic to reinforce that thought, but the comic does not explicitly state this. It only pokes fun at the way some women act. Anyone who reinforces their misogyny here would have to be misogynistic already.
Imagine another cartoon where a pretty lady is being ogled by a man who says, "Hey lady, cover yourself up." While putting his face right up to her cleavage. One might say this joke would fight misogyny since it points out a bad behaviour in some men, however, under the arguments you've made, this is reinforcing the stereotype that all men want sex regardless of what they say. In both cases, the jokes can only be called sexist if one chooses to take them that way, and trying to make it is so that a joke can never be taken the wrong way should not be the job of a comedian. Yes, if the actual message of the joke is intended to be racist or sexist, we should call them out, but not if there is only a possible interpretation. It gets people tired of, "political correctness" and cold to actual discussion about the subjects. If we want to stop sexism, we need to actually go for the sexists. Attacking anything that could be implicitly sexist may just make those with sexist attitudes worse.
What, the same thing wouldn't happen if a joke was made about men and 'I'll fix it later, lol actually he means six months' that people wouldn't have the reaction of 'Yeah, haha men are like that!'. It would hapen. no one would give a shit. 'cuz it's funny.
I sincerely can't understand what you're trying to say, but I'll assume it's along the lines of "no one would complain if the roles were reversed." I think you're right… because the joke would fall flat. Perhaps it would work if you depicted the guy as flamboyantly as possible, but then you risk critique from the LGBT community.
The only way for the joke to be completely inoffensive is to attach it to a well-rounded (or at least well-established) character. You need continuity for that.
Ok, but lets look at some other comic by the same author. For example, we have this one that makes fun of religious people, saying they are all stupid and/or suicidal. I didn't see anyone enraged because of that.
Possibly because that comic didn't get 32k upvotes? Anyone who'd care probably didn't see it. Larger audiences usually mean more people who are willing to criticize you.
Oh come the fuck on I watch tons of offensive humor that I find funny. This was just a really shitty joke to many people. I don't get why so many people are clutching their pearls at the thought of others finding the comic both offensive and unfunny. And it's not even offensive like "WTF IS WRONG WITH UUUUUU Y U DO THIIIS?!?!" it's more like "Well, that's a dumb sexist trope."
Is it not possible that the comic is about a woman, not women.
I addressed this argument pretty early in my post.
If the comic is about "a woman", then it's not a very relatable comic and wouldn't have gotten 32,000 upvotes. People wouldn't find it funny. There's no joke there without the baseline stereotype that this is a thing that a large number of women do.
Lighten up dude, jokes can be offensive and funny.
I understand and agree with that. The author of the comic and a hell of a lot of posters in this thread, however, don't seem to understand how the original comic could have possibly been seen as offensive. The whole premise of this Part 2 comic, for instance, is that the original would have been just as funny if it had been two dudes, or two non-human ungendered characters, or an old man and a snake, etc. That's clearly bullshit. The joke is only a joke if you start with the idea that there are a lot of women out there who really mean yes when they say no, and that when a woman dresses provocatively she's asking for it, and that's textbook rape culture.
If you're going to make a good, funny, offensive joke, you need to be at least aware that it's offensive and aware of why it's offensive. Otherwise, you're not making an offensive joke. You're just being offensive.
Are you naturally this obtuse, or do you have to work at it? It's a good thing you went into drawing pictures; reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit.
He's just trying to pretend he doesn't understand exactly what people are saying to run away from the fact that he actually needs to apologize for something he's done. I've found other ways to amuse myself about him at this point.
Don't worry, I noticed. Now he's asking me questions about what I think the woman in the picture is doing or what she wants, as if he filmed an interaction in the world of a living thing that has wants at all, instead of using his agency to create a picture that is now drawing criticism. You'd think a visual artist would have some idea of the advantages and problems with symbolic communication, but then again, that would require him to act in good faith. A tall order, to be sure.
Does it seem to you that I'm interested in giving an answer? This comment only exists because you've already shown yourself to be incapable of responding reasonably to criticism. Your earlier reply to me is a total non-sequitur. Now you're soliciting my interpretation of what you've drawn, even though you, for hours, have been smugly deriding the interpretations given by everyone else in this thread. Do you think this is the first time I've seen someone use leading questions, that age-old rhetorical ploy favored by two-faced sophists? Why would I try to engage you sincerely when all the evidence suggests that you won't bother returning the favor?
No, the issue is you feeding a fire that doesn't need feeding by creating comics like this. What the man or women did in the comic doesn't matter; it's that you made the comic at all and continue to be a real smug smart as in all these comments.
the fact that you keep asking this question over and over like it somehow proves you're right is really weird and confusing and ultimately shows that you somehow, impossibly, still don't get it.
to "answer your question without changing it": nothing. the man in the comic did nothing wrong. no one is claiming he did? which is the weird part.
maybe you should read that gilded post you couldn't be bothered to get 4 letters into. it's pretty well written.
If you're going to make a good, funny, offensive joke
Your entire argument is "I don't personally approve of your joke" so yeah no ones taking you seriously and downvoting.
You don't ever explain why your critique is something that shouldn't be immediately ignored in the first place, or why you feel someone should even have to listen to a guy bitch about something that doesn't matter. Instead you get upset people are reading a 8 paragraph ramble with 0 arguments.
And I'll agree that it's a pretty minor offense in the grand scheme of things, but it does reinforce the stereotype
That isn't an argument, it's just your personal opinion. That's why you're being ignored.
Did you read that comic and think "This is about one specific person. I don't know anyone like that, and I've never heard about anyone like that, and I couldn't imagine anyone like that ever existing, but this hypothetical person is funny!"
Or did you read the comic and think "Hah, yeah, I know a woman just like that"?
My point was not that a story about a single person can't be funny. My point was that the humor in that comic is predicated on the notion that "women really want male attention even when they claim they don't" is a common enough stereotype for people to find it relatable.
Actually worried to jump in here with all the downvotes whizzing overhead, but this comment seems to point out something you missed. Let me give you an example.
I draw a comic about a guy. This guy is wearing a tight shirt and it shows his muscles. I then go on to play off the musclehead stereotype. While this comic is about stereotypes, it is not meant to portray all men.
When I saw the comic, one of the first things that stood out to me was how prominently the woman's behind was drawn. The stereotype I saw here was of someone who worked hard to achieve a particular appearance, and then was "upset" about being objectified for it, not that "this is all women".
Just my two cents, not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but sometimes when we are focused on an issue, we fall victim to Hanlon's Razor.
The stereotype I saw here was of someone who worked hard to achieve a particular appearance, and then was "upset" about being objectified for it, not that "this is all women".
Quote-unquote-upset. Exactly.
The stereotype here is that the woman really DOES want to be objectified even though she SAYS she doesn't.
Which is barely a step away from "When women say no to sexual advances, they really mean yes". I.e., rape.
Like, it looks like we agree on what stereotype is being discussed here. I'm saying that's a bad stereotype to advance.
I don't think we do agree on what stereotype is being referenced. My thoughts lead towards the stereotype that people who work hard on their appearance expect to be "checked out" as it were, coupled with current events pushing a narrative that people shouldn't be objectified (in general). My "musclehead" example would fit the scenario as well as the booty-forward female in the comic.
Also, I'm very hesitant to agree that the comic is a short step from literal rape.
Also, this wasn't a woman saying no to a sexual advance, as the male character quite clearly was engrossed in their phone. It was more of a play on perceiving sexual advances where there are none.
What happened is this. Yes "some" women are like that. Some men are like that too. That's how people work, we are individuals.
So even if the comic is about one particular female who actually did the above (even crawl on dudes head) it wouldn't be enough. Simply depicting a woman in any negative light is too much for some folks.
So, like I said to the dude. The only way to please them is to delete women from any comic, show, movie etc. Cause the moment you show any woman in anything other than a positive light, you suddenly are saying all women suck and you are misogynist.
I appreciate the effort you're going through here, but frankly reddit's not smart enough to appreciate semiotics or have a nuanced and good-faith discussion. The fact that people here are pretending like signification doesn't exist and that people don't generalize (on the same site where "SJWs" are routinely criticized as a class instead of as individuals, no less) should be a warning sign that you're probably wasting your time.
No, I think you're coming from a good place and I think it's great you took the time to form a proper argument on Reddit, but I think you're missing some key points and is taking a rudimentary point of view regarding the issue while also being a bit self-serving with your points.
Now, if you accept my argument above that the comic is, in fact, based on a sexist premise, you might still argue that there's no harm in that because it's just a silly joke. And I'll agree that it's a pretty minor offense in the grand scheme of things, but it does reinforce the stereotype, even if in only a small way, that women dress how they dress just to get male attention.
That right there I think, for me, is a great summary of everything I feel off with your argument and the presentation of your argument and the philosophy behind your argument.
Two of which seems to boil down to:
"If what you say offense someone you shouldn't say it."
""If what you say can POSSIBLY have negative influence for others, you shouldn't say it.". (except with this, within your own argument is degrees apart from the speaker, listener, and then to the potential victim).
Those are incredibly dangerous, borderline fascist (damn I hate using this word after the political fiasco behind it in the current US) ideologies that's not only inherently against the idea of free speech and free exchange of ideas but against art as well.
I'd love to take the time to break down everything you've said line-by-line, not because I'm appalled by your argument but because it's refreshingly nice to see someone take the time to formulate one, but I'm doing this instead of work right now :(
Maybe I'll get to it tonight instead of watching The Defenders.
In fact, it's the opposite of Fascism. Because (as the article explains) Fascism arises when dissenting viewpoints are forcibly silenced. The OP has the right to say what he wants, but I can also tell him to shut up, because that's my opinion, that's my dissenting viewpoint. Likewise, you have the right to tell dissenters to stop dissenting. Free speech isn't about freedom from consequences, especially seeing as Reddit forums are not the government and I am not a governmental entity (really, that's all 'free speech' means legally and definitionally). Fascism arises when the Government silences voices by force. No one is doing anything by force, just saying that we'd rather not see this sort of thing.
Let me wrap up by asking what is the intent of your argument? Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to say things that you consider 'borderline fascist' or 'dangerous'? Isn't what he says a part of that 'free exchange of ideas'? Or does that only apply to ideas and art that you like? I do not mean to attack you, however, I would like to know what your goal is and what you are trying to accomplish here. What are you trying to say?
You should look into the Dickwolves controversy. It's fairly similar, come to think of it - the original comic wasn't really offensive, but the creators kept doubling down on their stance.
Similar as in a bunch of people tried (and failed) to raise a huge issue about it, and it largely hasn't affected anything since because the idea that it was a serious issue was a complete joke?
I get what you're saying, but it was absolutely not worth your time to write it or my time to read it
Which is why US politics have gone off the deep end. The comic is silly, it's simple, the message is easy to understand. Why somebody would object to its contents, however, is nuanced and fairly complex. If the message isn't simple, people are simply unwilling to listen to it.
/u/JimKB is a comic. Did you seriously think he meant it literally? Look at his comment history and note his style of repartee. You're trying to have a rational debate with a stand-up comedian at his show - a venue where you'll find few people interested in having a discourse on such a serious topic.
The female character here is a bad depiction because it appears that she wants attention but any fool can see that she really doesn't?
No, the female character here is a bad depiction because she is saying that she DOES NOT want attention but any fool can see that she DOES.
Which reinforces the stereotype that a lot of the women out there who SAY they don't want attention actually DO. I'm sorry if you don't think you're reinforcing this stereotype, but look through a lot of the angry comments in reply to mine and you will see DUDE AFTER DUDE saying, basically, "Shut up, I know a woman just like this," and "Women like this totally exist," and "Why are you such a bitch?".
Your comic is fueling those douchebags. I'm sorry, truly sorry, if you didn't mean it to, but it 100% is. I will even grant it, if you really want to make this argument, that you don't think there are any women in the world like that and this character is entirely fictional and you think you came up with the idea of a woman who says no but really means yes entirely on your own without any outside influences, but if all that is the case, you should be ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIED at this point that people who ACTUALLY believe that there are lots of women out there who say no but mean yes are now looking at your comic and going "Yep, that's just like all those sluts I know".
Because if that really wasn't your intention, if you weren't looking to connect with those douchebags, you have really missed the mark. You are on the side of misogynists. If you don't want to be on the side of misogynists, I hope you're spending as much time going through these comments and responding negatively to the awful guys who agree with you as you are to me.
You keep demanding that I intended to draw a symbolic representation of a gender and I drew a couple characters in a situation.
Actually, I think you unintentional did that; your comic is a symptom of the problems, and your inability to see that your mind is being influenced by sexism in society just underlines the point.
Well, I mean, that's the thing. You did draw it with a woman doing this to a man knowing exactly what reddit would think of it because you know the sort of people reddit attracts when it comes to this topic.
Okay you can't just convey an absolutely shitty and misogynistic message and then tell people that you know more about it than they do. That's like presenting yourself as an arrogant asshole to everyone in the world and then getting angry when they call you an arrogant asshole while claiming that you're in the right because you know more about yourself than they do.
Intention arguments are the weakest sort of arguments. You know the old one about where intentions can lead to, right?
You may have intended something innocent and silly (and I can even see where you were going with it, however, instead of apologizing for making it seem like you were attacking a certain "type" of woman", you've gone and done this and fucked it all up) but you've upset and hurt a whole lot of people and incited a bunch of assholes (do please check the post histories of many of those supporting you, it's gross) to say some really disgusting things about women.
That was talking about one type of person who does hypocritical things. The fact that this is specificity about a woman who dresses provocatively doesn't mean it's saying all women do.
If that's the case, what's the problem? Those kind of women do exist.
The problem is that the comic implies that more of those women exist than actually exist. It reinforces a belief in a certain kind of man that, when a woman is saying "Please stop staring at my ass", she's really saying "Please keep staring at my ass, but I have to keep up appearances by telling you not to". And while I will totally admit that that type of woman exists, they are vastly outnumbered by the type of women who say "Please stop staring at my ass" and actually mean "Seriously, please stop staring at my ass".
Comics like this one make the no-means-yes type of woman seem a lot more common than they actually are, and that is harmful to the no-means-goddamn-no type of woman who make up the vast, vast majority of women.
Your argument is well written I have to say but you seem to have missed the point of both comics spectacularly. In all honesty a lot of this read like a person who is going out of their way to be offended by a joke that has a certain type of women as the punch line. Any joke can be offensive to the right person, a lot of humour is based upon the preconceptions we have as people based on our own experiences, no matter how wrong they can be and generally comedy historically over exaggerates and mocks far and above what the reality might be.
Is the original comic offensive? To me no, have I met people who are like that, hell yes! Do I see all women collectively as behaving in this manner. Of course not and this kind of humour would never change my mind about a gender as a whole, of course not, it would be ridiculous to assume such a thing. Did it change my opinion on women in general, not a single thing has changed.
Had the joke been the opposite way round and it was a guy trying to get female attention by acting like the character from Greese slicking back his hair and trying desperately to be cool and then being offended then hell yea it probably would get a similar amount of up votes if it was actually done by a comedian of suitable fame like this post. (I realise this isn't a funny, I'm not funny enough to come up with good ideas)
There are some fights that need to be had and I agree women do have some inequalities that need addressing a decade, a century or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Comedy in this state isn't one of them. The pay gap is a major issue that needs to be discussed openly and rationally. The oppression is various countrys of the world should be the top of a lot of peoples agendas. The thousands of years religion has made second class citizens of women should be a battle we all fight and to crush the stigmatisation that it's bred into our societys. Fighting a man making a small and sorry not a massively funny joke about a kind of person I've met a few times before isn't even close to where the fight is.
You say you know someone like this. I think there's a pretty good chance you know someone who maybe occasionally posts sexy pictures of herself on Instagram and is happy to receive compliments but doesn't want to get a bunch of dick pics and comments like "Ay bby i wanna cum all over your toes and then stick my foot in your butthole".
And so when she gets comments like that, she maybe complains about it. So you think she's a hypocrite like the girl in the comic, but she's actually making a pretty valid point about dudes crossing the line.
And the dudes who are posting the "cum on your toes" type comments and sending the dick pics are reading comics like this and saying "Yeah, she might have said she didn't like that comment I sent her, but she's just like this girl. She definitely wants it."
Yes, I think the comic would have gotten upvotes regardless of the gender, or at least I know I would have upvoted it. To be quite honest, I interpreted it entirely differently from you - I interpreted it as a joke about people looking for a reason to get offended, and I think people do search pretty hard to find examples of objectification of women in many cases because real examples of objectification aren't so easily cut and dried. I don't see her as dressed provocatively either, but it's a cartoon and I guess she's wearing tights so maybe she's intended to be dressed provocatively
I also think this is the same author that made this http://www.gocomics.com/jim-benton-cartoons/2017/04/22 comic, and a bunch of others I vaguely recall that don't necessarily enforce gendered stereotypes and call out racism and sexism in society etc. Your own point is that context is important. Well, there's some context for his comics...
Stereotypes are based on reality, even if they distort and simplify it quite a lot. A joke about ripped men showing off their muscles to an uncaring girl would have conveyed the same message: shut the hell up, I don't care about this. After all, anyone's got on their instagram obonoxious pictures of people screaming 'Look at me I'm so beautiful like meee'. It criticizes a narcissistic-type behavior, and wouldn't be offensive to ANYONE who is adult and mature enough.
471
u/allankcrain Aug 25 '17
Okay, so, this will likely get ignored or downvoted all to hell based on the rest of the posts in this thread, but here's an explanation of why people think the original is sexist for anyone who really can't understand.
Original for reference
So, the initial comic requires, as a premise, that women:
The author's response to this argument is "No, I'm only criticizing THAT SORT of person who does that!" (Example comment) but that doesn't really hold up because if he's saying that there's only a small percentage of people who do that, it's a really shitty joke. Like, imagine if I make a comic about how people named Greg are always lying. Yes, I know one guy named Greg who's a habitual liar, and the comic might be funny to me and his ex wife, but it's not going to be generally funny unless there exists a stereotype that Gregs in general lie a lot. There's a stereotype out there in the world that women, in general, really want male attention even if they say they don't. That's clearly the basis for the humor in this comic.
(It would also work if this was an ongoing comic strip where the female character had been characterized as being like that. But as it's just a one-off comic, you can't do that)
Furthermore, this Part 2 comic actually drives home that point--imagine the original comic with the genders reversed, or with the characters replaced by two beings of unknown gender. Does the joke still land? At all? No, it really doesn't, because it's based on a stereotype and there's no stereotype of men who get really ripped and then pretend to get upset when women notice them, and there's no stereotypes at all of beings of unknown gender.
And also, if you accept the premise that it would be just as funny with the genders reversed... why did he go with a man and a woman, with the woman being the hypocritical one? Do you really think he just flipped a coin and this is what luck of the draw gave him?
Now, if you accept my argument above that the comic is, in fact, based on a sexist premise, you might still argue that there's no harm in that because it's just a silly joke. And I'll agree that it's a pretty minor offense in the grand scheme of things, but it does reinforce the stereotype, even if in only a small way, that women dress how they dress just to get male attention. And even worse, it reinforces the extremely harmful stereotype that women want that male attention even when they specifically say they don't. This little comic in and of itself won't make a man go out and sexually harass a woman, but the sort of man who's already primed to do that will look at this comic and laugh and the neural pathways that say "All women really want it, and if they say they don't, they're lying" get reinforced.
I don't think the author of the original is necessarily a bad person. He's just a guy that was raised in a culture where this stereotype pops up a lot--e.g., in comics exactly like the one he posted--and it's human nature when someone says "Hey, I'm upset about this thing you did" to get defensive and try to show how the thing you did is NOT offensive. Especially true when people are coming out you reeeeally hot (e.g., "At worst it exposes you as a bitter, immature misogynist who is out of touch with reality and has no capacity for empathy or emotional maturity."). The right way to deal with someone being offended by your actions would be to take a step back and really evaluate yourself and see if you're doing something shitty. It's not always the case that you're in the wrong, and it's not true that you should necessarily change your art just to make sure you don't offend anyone ever, but if a whoooole lot of people are coming at you and telling you that the thing you did was offensive, it might make sense to listen--really listen--to their complaints.
Do you truly think that a version of the original comic would have gotten that same 32,000 upvotes if the genders were reversed, or are you willing to accept that the humor, such as it, relies on a stereotype that women specifically try to get male attention but say that they don't want it? And do you truly not understand why, in a world where some crazy high percentage of women have been the victims of sexual assault by men, it might tick some people off to make a comic that reinforces the idea that women don't really mean it when they ask men to leave them alone?