Pharyngula

Posted by: Virgil | November 24, 2009 12:59 AM

Goes back to when Mr. D clashes with Lucy and virgins. Great episode. :D

Posted by: 20tauri | November 24, 2009 1:09 AM

Hmmm...are they really satirizing religious attitudes, or simply taking cheap shots at women with the most ridiculous stereotypes ever? Too bad they missed a golden opportunity here. Instead, they just make fools of themselves.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 24, 2009 1:17 AM

are they really satirizing religious attitudes, or simply taking cheap shots at women with the most ridiculous stereotypes ever?

Is this "stupid bimbo" stereotype really any more ridiculous than the "stupid dork" stereotype they had for Adam? Go watch that video again. This is total satire!

Posted by: Rorschach | November 24, 2009 1:21 AM

he's satirizing religious attitudes.

Hm, I'm really trying to see it.The stereotype I get, but how does it satirize religion exactly?

Posted by: 20tauri | November 24, 2009 1:29 AM

@science pundit: I don't know...I think Adam was portrayed as a pretty normal guy who just happened to fall for the girl on the iPhone at the end. He wasn't flailing around pumping out his chest and being anywhere near as stereotypically "alpha male" as Eve is portrayed as a "drama queen" here. Plus, the way they tried to have Lucy mimic Eve's "girly" personality at the end fell pretty flat - that's not like Lucy at all. Believe me, I'm a big Mr. D fan...I just think this one missed the mark.

Posted by: Vincent | November 24, 2009 1:35 AM

Okay, seriously, that video was soooo spot on. Almost every woman I know is capable of acting like that, and some of them behave that way habitually.

Posted by: hznfrst | November 24, 2009 1:56 AM

"Your results may vary" - love it!

Posted by: Alwimo | November 24, 2009 2:41 AM

Stephanie Reibel, who played Eve, stars in a web series called Rose By Any Other Name. I didn't realise it was her until I saw her name in the credits.

That other series can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/user/fencesitterfilms#p/c/1480F27A3206E9FF

Posted by: RamziD | November 24, 2009 3:11 AM

I'm pretty sure stereotypes about women AND men have been used in comedy since human language was first invented. Don't take yourself too seriously, people.

Posted by: catsnjags | November 24, 2009 3:50 AM

Brian Dalton (Mr. Deity) met Bill Maher at the AAI Convention in October. Maybe he could meet up with him and get an alternative fix to his illness or the recommendation of a good hemopath in the area.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 24, 2009 4:01 AM

I thought it was the male/female stereotype of the man being easily flumoxed by the woman and panicking. Which mightily amused me since its happening to "The deity".

Posted by: Colin Meier | November 24, 2009 5:00 AM

And, hey, they do the whole 'design sense' stereotype of gay men. I'm gay. I don't care. It's funny.

Posted by: Colin Meier | November 24, 2009 5:27 AM

Richard - yeah, I suppose in some ways 'design sense' is a 'positive stereotype'. Certainly compared to the way, say, that Bergman idiot describes homosexuality on his website (which to my mind makes anything he says completely ignorable).

I've also gone back to wearing glasses since becoming a writer, for the same reason. :)

Posted by: luna1580 | November 24, 2009 5:39 AM

on another note,

watch some UCLA students call out kirk cameron on that "new intro" origen thingey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EjEqrmUBMA&feature=player_embedded#

Posted by: Colin Meier | November 24, 2009 5:43 AM

I have a question. To those who insist the portrayal of Eve was a negative stereotype : what portrayal would you have been happy with?

Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com | November 24, 2009 6:21 AM

ummm, Im sorry, but what stereotypes?

Thats a typical fucking day in my house.

kill me.

Posted by: Whatevermachine | November 24, 2009 6:40 AM

#29:

Well, it might've been cool to have a discussion about why she mustn't eat the apple of knowledge, and for them to have an argument about it. I would've liked to see Deity try to defend that one.

I totally agree with another poster who said, you guys are supposed to be the 'good guys', and yet you still don't get why sexism is wrong, even in the case of comedy. A racial stereotype is wrong in the case of comedy too, as long as it is the race, sex, whatever that is being mocked, and not those who believe in the stereotype. And why is it that when some people want to analyse a piece of art for its deeper meaning, others have to come along and go, 'why are you analysing this? it's not worth analysing, get over it'. If you don't want to participate, then don't. And arguing that 'Well, I wasn't offended' doesn't matter. Good for you, you weren't offended, but clearly other people have an issue with it. And as for 'well, you can't please everyone', again that's not the point. I doubt anyone is seriously affected by it, but it's a shame that they have to be so cliched and basically unfunny, and it all adds up to a bigger problem. No single 'gay joke' or 'woman joke' or anything joke is causing much damage, but all together, they just perpetuate damaging stereotypes.

Posted by: Bobber | November 24, 2009 7:20 AM

Nope. This one doesn't work. I don't see where there's any satire of religion at all, actually. You can stretch it and say there may be some satire about the attitudes of some religious believers, but that's a major stretch. It wasn't funny, it gave me the impression of a 1950's-era "even God can't control demanding females, ha ha ha" skit, and it wasn't funny (yes, I said that twice).

Posted by: Sigmund | November 24, 2009 7:42 AM

Although the idea of an irreverent comedy is one that appeals to me I'm afraid I have to admit never quite getting the appeal of Mr Deity. It tries too hard to be clever yet frequently forgets to be funny. This particular episode doesn't even manage to be clever! The only thing that raised a smile for me was the bit at the and about them trying to draw it out as a TV series!
By the way, it was clearly using the traditional ditzy female stereotype in this episode. I actually mistakenly presumed this was for some sort of ironic purpose right up until the end (thats six minutes I'll never get back....grrrr!) - at which point I realized that, no, it was the usual boring sit-com woman joke.
There are some brilliant internet comedy series out there ("You suck at Photoshop" springs to mind) but unfortunately Mr Deity is not one of them.

Posted by: pikeamus | November 24, 2009 7:50 AM

I stopped watching after about 3 and a half minutes. I just don't find gender sterotypes amusing at all, regardless of their direction. I also didn't see what any of that first section had to do with satirizing religion.

Posted by: Sigmund | November 24, 2009 8:09 AM

"I really don't get what people are so up in arms for about this video"
I'm not up in arms about it. I can forgive a lot in comedies so long as they have good jokes. Its not even as it writing religious jokes are particularly difficult! Look at digital cuttlefish and smoggy batzrubble from this site, the Landover Baptist Church, Edward Current or Jesus and Mo. Just watch Ricky Gervais doing the book of genesis on youtube.
Now compare any of those to Mr Deity and the latter ends up looking about as funny as a Charlie Sheen sitcom.

Posted by: wistah | November 24, 2009 8:15 AM

There seem to be a fair number of satire-challenged people on this site. What part about the religion-sanctioned sexist and paternalistic narrative that treats and objectifies women as essentially brainless sexual toys and vessels don't you get? Holy shit.

Posted by: Zeno | November 24, 2009 8:27 AM

I promise not to watch football this weekend. Or any other weekend.

Posted by: Flea | November 24, 2009 8:44 AM

My guess: MrD will reveal the catch in this episode in the next one.

Posted by: supernorbert | November 24, 2009 8:49 AM

@R-Tram #42:

To kick someone while they're down is not comedy

Posted by: madbull | November 24, 2009 9:05 AM

Hey isnt today the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin, no celebration ? :(

Posted by: Stagyar zil Doggo | November 24, 2009 9:10 AM

I've loved every other episode of Mr. D I've watched so far, but this one simply grated. Like Sigmund @37, I kept waiting for the twist at the end which never came. All there was was more of the same tired stereotype. Encountering the most re-used and hackneyed sitcom joke while looking at allegedly brilliant internet comedy is a bait and switch that's not easy to forgive.

Let's hope its a rare off week for the writers, or better still a setup for the next episode.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | November 24, 2009 9:16 AM

I thought the whole thing was a set-up for the end when Lucy comes in and says she'll take Eve down to the garden and show her around. That makes the whole thing a very cute dig at the whole Adam and Eve story, answering the question "why did God put the serpent there?"

It's also a perfect follow-on to the Adam episode that had the contract with all the caveats.

I thought it was funny. It was satire and it made sense in the grand scheme of the show.

Posted by: AJ Milne | November 24, 2009 9:32 AM

I honestly could not watch more than the first few minutes. The bubbleheaded bit got on my nerves way too fast.

(/Mebbe in a few more hours. Too early in the morning here for this kind of thing, here... It's not just the ditziness bit, it's the sheer level of cheeriness. None of that before the sun is over the yardarm. Please.)

Posted by: DonRocko | November 24, 2009 9:36 AM

The show makes fun of everyone and everything - you'd think this audience would be less sensitive to obvious satire. I don't remember anyone being so concerned when PZ called men "barely able to groom themselves..." on the show, and they shouldn't be concerned. Again, it's a satire.

For the record, at least one person here thought the episode, like its predecessors, was funny.

Posted by: R-Tam | November 24, 2009 9:43 AM

"Are women down?"

Hm, a few decades worth of little steps out of thousands of years of worldwide institutionalized bigotry? Having just achieved equality before the law this century? Still heavily underreprested in the government? Underpaid? Their bodily autonomy still up for grabs and, in fact, just thrown under the bus by spineless democrats? Gee, let's think.

And that's the US. Do you want me to get started on the Congo?
And should a question as dumb as yours actually get dignified with an answer?

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 9:43 AM

Yes, dear.

Posted by: TGAP Dad | November 24, 2009 9:59 AM

Having been married for more than 20 years, I can tell you this is more documentary than satire. All men should use a detached woman as a consultant a'la Lucy, to keep them presentable, whereas women need to have a detached man at the ready to explain the subtle nuance and artistry of fart jokes, the The Three Stooges, and a zone read offense.

I have been watching Mr. Deity since its beginning, and am a big fan. I think it's funny, gently satirical satire.

Posted by: Rob Monkey | November 24, 2009 10:04 AM

Alex Magd, is it that hard to draw lines between a comedy skit that nobody has to watch vs. institutionalized lower pay for women? I think your comment was well-written and intelligent, but that one part is sticking in my craw. It's the pragmatist in me, but at the risk of sorta repeating myself, is it sexist for men to be portrayed as ignorant slobs, and if it is, is it really all that important? It seems obvious to me that while it can be offensive to intelligent, non-slob men to see Tim Allen as their representative, it certainly doesn't hold a candle to a woman being told that her body is only PARTLY hers to control. I definitely understand the idea of the drops and the flood, but at some point I think we need to separate actual sexism from plain old gender humor. I can appreciate that not EVERY woman loves shopping and not EVERY man is obsessed with power tools and action movies, but the occasional joke pointing out the particular foibles of either gender? Seems ok to me, I may not find it that funny, but I won't immediately label the comedian a sexist.

My brother's a big guy, 230 lbs/6'3", but he goes nuts if a woman he dates even asks about football or other athletic pursuits, cause he thinks that must mean they think he's the stereotypical "dumb jock." I keep trying to point out that they're probably just trying to fish in easy conversational waters and give him a compliment, I'm sure they don't label him as a dumb jock, but it's how he always sees it. I've often wondered how many girls he's driven away that would have been only too happy to find out they won't have to watch him sitting on the couch all weekend glued to the TV.

Posted by: Die Anyway | November 24, 2009 10:12 AM

Ok, it wasn't entirely funny. But... if we can't joke about the tension between men and women, about the differences between men and women, then our lives are going to be pretty dull and stodgy.
And besides, it's an unfounded value judgement to assume that the characterization of women (via EVE) was 'negative'. What is wrong with behaving that way? Quite possibly that is the correct and most appropriate way to behave. It's the Deity and Larry who were being inconsiderate a-holes. That's a negative stereotype of men that annoys me, as a male who would never act that way. And even if I did, I don't appreciate being stereotyped that way. It's not right I tell you, not right.

Posted by: Levi in NY | November 24, 2009 10:25 AM

Don't forget to vote for Mr. Deity at the Podcast Awards, people! If there's any poll we want to Pharyngulate, it's that!

http://www.podcastawards.com/

Posted by: rawnaeris | November 24, 2009 10:33 AM

@ AJ Milne: I have some Bawls, if you'd like. Can't stand coffee.

@Everyone: Seriously, is it really gonna ruin everyone's day if we don't agree on whether this weeks Mr. D is funny or not? There have been others that have fallen flat IMO.

I do have to admit to the "You're wearing that?!" comment coming out of my mouth occasionally. Usually in response to my other half wanting to wear worn out flip flops to a nice restaurant.

Posted by: Carlie | November 24, 2009 10:54 AM

I'm not overly offended, it's just not smart. It's not witty. It's "ha ha, women are so hard to understand". Gee, that joke hasn't been done before. I love the Mr. Deity episodes for the way they skewer religion, but this one is just banal.
And what Olly said.

Posted by: Eric Dutton | November 24, 2009 10:58 AM

I think that Olly's comment @ #72 should be required reading for future commenters on this thread.

Posted by: Donna | November 24, 2009 11:13 AM

I've been a huge fan of Mr Deity, but this one is a piece of disgusting misogyny. There is no satire here, just a cheap shot based on a (non-religious) stereotype. What could they possibly have been thinking?

I am tempted, contrary to the appeal at the end of the piece, to unsubscribe in youtube. And I won't be recommending the series to any friends if this is the stuff they will see.

Posted by: MonkeyDeathcar | November 24, 2009 11:17 AM

Um, I don't know about sexist, but this particular wasn't all that funny except for the very last line. Lucy is easily the smartest, most rational character in the whole thing. The Deity is easily the least rational and most ignorant character. He always needs to rely on Lucy to take care of his creations he's so inept. Except at the beginning where she's "ditsy", which I interpreted as a result of just being created, Eve is somewhere in between. The men, in this episode, are portrayed as uncontrollably horny and stupid.

Actually now that I think about it, the entire series has been negatively stereotyping males and has portrayed women pretty much in a completely positive way (although they are underrepresented), and most of them have been funny, IMO.

Posted by: rwtwm | November 24, 2009 11:30 AM

@ #78
Bravo!

Hands up who didn't laugh at PZ's comments (in an earlier episode) on masculine styling ability.
Anyone with their hand down complaining about this is a hypocrite.

Posted by: chgo_liz | November 24, 2009 11:33 AM

Sorry about that HTML fail in #82. I'll just copy the link as it stands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4F5z8cVux0

Posted by: Anomic Entropy | November 24, 2009 11:39 AM

OK. I'm a feminist AND I thought this was hilarious.

Underneath the satire of Mr. Deity and Larry (the representatives of religious thought) expecting a beautiful, charming plaything is the reality that Eve is not controlled by them. I'm very interested to see how they play developing relationships between Lucy and Eve and Eve and Adam.

I also wonder if it might be significant that Mr. Deity's "oblivious male" stereotype is the catalyst for Eve's "hysterical female" stereotype. Isn't that actually a great statement about how our paternalistic culture cuts both ways? Feminism isn't just about elevating the status of women. Correcting harmful gender biases directly benefits men, too.

So, the way I see it, this episode mocks both gender stereotypes equally... All framed up in the religious thinking that is (in my opinion) the main support of continued misogyny.

Yeah. I think it's smart and fabulously funny. But to each his/her own. :)

Posted by: mrgenius | November 24, 2009 11:52 AM

best episode ever.

some of you need to refill your "iamnotadick" precriptions. . .

Posted by: red rabbit | November 24, 2009 11:56 AM

Another feminist who thought it was funny.

Hell, I'll even admit to behaving like that once or twice, although usually for shits and giggles.

Posted by: D'oh! | November 24, 2009 12:01 PM

I found this amusing, but largely because I interpreted it as a "be careful what you wish for" tale, with the joke being mostly on the guys.

Mr. Diety and Larry are at first quite pleased with Eve, who gushes over them and makes them feel very good about themselves, without having had to do anything special to earn it. She is all about positive emotional support, the ideal helpmate.

Until, of course, they discover that a being that values emotional support not unsurprisingly expects it in return. And, yeah, there is a bit of religious parody here, because it satirizing the unrealistic, narcissistic "woman as helpmate" role promulgated by Bible.

Posted by: Sil | November 24, 2009 12:37 PM

I'm confused. This episode satirizing the misogyny inherent in religion by... showing it in a religious (satirical!) narrative. This is exactly how I would expect Mr. Deity to approach this topic.

Posted by: Tristanm | November 24, 2009 1:03 PM

Mr. Deity, being the misogynist god of the bible, creates Eve in a manner you would expect of him, making her the overly stereo-typical, emotional being she appeared in the episode. That then backfires on him, leaving him overly confused in the end. How is that not funny?

Posted by: Colin Meier | November 24, 2009 1:10 PM

And I also think some people here are guilty of our old friend, confirmation bias. Having read PZ's introduction (which was not neutral), you watch the episode with your antennae twitching and, of course, if you seek you shall find.

Posted by: Anomic Entropy | November 24, 2009 1:20 PM

@ toomanytribbles #96

it has little to do with common patriarchal mindsets that the religious often have -- as in that a woman is chattel or the male is the head of the family and the female must obey and... have zillions of babies, or even that women are ultimately responsible for sin.

I think it's been set up perfectly for Mr. D to begin fumbling through each and every one of those issues you've listed. After all, it seems necessary to establish the "caricatured" thinking before people could believe that any of those ridiculous religious expectations of women could be perpetrated. I'm hoping that we'll get to see Adam as confused and appalled by Mr. D's increased misogynistic commandments as we, the audience, are intended to be. This can change the focus of what is too often a gender war into a schism of humans against a banal and clearly unhelpful deity.

Posted by: toomanytribbles | November 24, 2009 1:32 PM

@colin meier

... some of us have subscribed to mr.deity and had already seen it before hopping over here for some witty conversation.

Posted by: AJ Milne | November 24, 2009 1:37 PM

Well, having managed to watch it through, now, I can say I sorta get why people are a bit miffed at the portryal, sure...

But really, more than that, having actually been the clueless guy who has occasionally had stuff oh, just a bit like that happen, oh, now and then ('She's mad about what, now? And why? And where the fuck did this come from? Umm... mebbe if I can have someone create a distraction I can just get to an exit and get the hell out of here... There must be a parachute somewhere on board this thing...') I'm mostly now cringing too much from watching that ever to go near that episode again...

I need beer now, not so much coffee. Or mebbe somethin' a bit stronger...

(/Something numbing, anyway... Oh, hey, look, a heavy, wooden mallet...)

Posted by: Colin Meier | November 24, 2009 2:00 PM

@105 - Yup. And it's not just (some) women. I've had that happen to me with a guy, and sometimes I've been that guy.

Which is why it's funny - it's the truth factor : we laugh at comedy because otherwise it would be painful.

Posted by: vicars_daughter | November 24, 2009 2:06 PM

*snort* I thought it was funny!

I don't know whether it's "letting the side down" but steroetypes tend to have some basis. I know I'm more than capable of exhibiting some female stereotypical behaviour in certain circumstances. Ditto male stereotype stuff for my BF. But I'm also a geek who loves tech and gadgets, my BF loves clothes shopping. We're multi-faceted beings. This was comedy. It was not serious hurtful sexism.

Posted by: jennyxyzzy | November 24, 2009 2:13 PM

OK, as a lesbian, I have to say I have had that conversation with girlfriends in the past - no, not every woman is like that, and more importantly, I don't think anyone is like that all of the time, but my experience of the world says that there are plenty of woman that act like that some of the time.

On th subject of misogyny:
Misogyny is when a woman is paid 20% less for the same work. Misogyny is when an experienced woman is passed over for promotion all of the time. Misogyny is when your taxi driver stops the taxi half way to the airport and refuses to take you any further unless you give him your mobile phone number. Misogyny is beating a woman.

This is not misogyny. Calling the clip misogynistic just diminshes that word.

Anyway, I found the clip quite funny. The bit I liked was when Larry and Mr Deity start wondering if they've maybe broken her.

Posted by: cm | November 24, 2009 2:19 PM

devnull73.myopenid.com #31 said:

ummm, Im sorry, but what stereotypes?
Thats a typical fucking day in my house.
kill me.

That is funny. And sad. And I believe you.

If you view Eve as a type and not a stereotype, maybe you can find a bit of humor in this rather innocuous cute little sketch. There are women like that, just as there are lunkhead men and all sorts of types. That anyone would act like that should strike us as odd, and yet women (and men) do overreact, and thus there's the (admittedly rather light) humor.

Posted by: Don | November 24, 2009 2:30 PM

This is meta-satire. I can't believe you guys didn't get that.

Posted by: roro80 | November 24, 2009 3:23 PM

Someone above asked "what stereotype would have been funny?" -- can't find which comment it was. But here's a gimme answer: How about, instead of making fun of women for being stupid and over-emotional and ridiculous, how about go with the actual point of Mr. D, which has been in the past to expose the stupidity of religious views? It would have been easy as cake to pick a few of the awful mysogynies in the Bible and of modern churches and riff off of that. I really thought that was where they were going when she was talking about being an equal partner. They could have talked about women getting to drug and have sex with their fathers, about how women's job was to procreate and populate the world, about how when she was thirteen she would get purity ring and pledge her hymen to her dad, about how she'd have the privilege of being a maidservant to Adam and make sure to deliver his beer nice and cold in front of the TV, about how bad birth control is, how her girly bits and what was inside it really belonged to her husband, about how she would get stoned to death if she was unsatisfied with Adam's junk and looked for satisfaction elsewhere. It could have gone in a million directions that weren't "heehee girls are dumb".

Not to mention that those who are saying "duh! it's just satire" on this thread also seem to be the same ones saying "OMG that's totally what women are ACTUALLY like! That's why it's so funny!" That's why the women on this board don't think it's funny.

Posted by: Whatevermachine | November 24, 2009 3:36 PM

#44 // "I guess to me this is sexist just like Everybody Loves Raymond is sexist against men. It's not like ELR is holding men back in society, but if you watch that show (or Home Improvement, etc.) you'll get the idea that men are just grunting idiots who need to be babysat by their wives."

Yes, but the people who write these scripts, direct these shows and come up with the concepts for these shows are almost certainly men. Most writers for TV and the overwhelming 95% of directors are men. Why they choose to portray themselves as idiots baffles me, too.

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 3:49 PM

Yes, but the people who write these scripts, direct these shows and come up with the concepts for these shows are almost certainly men. Most writers for TV and the overwhelming 95% of directors are men. Why they choose to portray themselves as idiots baffles me, too.

Every man on television is not a portrayal of every man. And every woman on television is not a portrayal of every woman.

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 3:59 PM

So I don't think it's fair to blanket the whole sex with one opinion.

Wouldn't that be .... sexism?

Posted by: roro80 | November 24, 2009 4:06 PM

And suddenly *I'm* the one painting all women with a broad stroke. Good one.

Posted by: roro80 | November 24, 2009 4:12 PM

Because there are women on the board who thought it was funny?

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 4:20 PM

Because there are women on the board who thought it was funny?

Only if I knew you knew that. It wouldn't be the first time someone commented without reading the entire thread.

I retract my criticism, but at least acknowledge how someone might be misled into thinking you meant what you typed.

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | November 24, 2009 5:11 PM

Actually, there are a lot of women who act like Eve. There are lots and lots women who are jerks just as there are lots and lots of men who are jerks. But feminists are not allowed to acknowledge that because, after all, we don't want to be sexist. So we must only talk and write about men who act like jerks because that is the opposite of sexism.

The idea that Mr. Diety & co. are satirizing the attitude that religious people have about women rather than making fun of a certain type of emotionally abusive woman is totally unsubstantiated by PZ, which is typical as he seems to be in the habit of automatically dropping his critical thinking skills whenever feminist issues are raised. This makes sense as he is a professor and noting the incredibly poor critical thinking skills of feminist or bad behavior of some women is just not healthy for the career of anyone working in acadamia these days. Better to pretend that there isn't any serous problem. And even if his somewhat dubious assertion turns out to be true, the fact is, Eve comes off as very real and recognizable thanks to the fine acting involved by the woman playing Eve.

Posted by: Jason | November 24, 2009 5:57 PM

It made me lol.

My girlfriend and I have been in similar situations a few times in our 6 year history, but I've never been in this spot with other guys. I know that not all women and men are like that, but it's a funny situation when you're not stuck in it.

*shrug*

Posted by: Russell Blackford | November 24, 2009 6:49 PM

I don't know any women who are like that. I realise that stereotypes often contain a grain of truth, but the grain of truth here seems to be more that this is how women are often portrayed on television than that this is how women often actually are.

I think it's going a little too far to call it misogyny, but it's sexist humour. At the very best it's blokey humour, but I do actually think it's sexist.

It satirises the things that we blokes supposedly have to put up with. It's similar to the popular portrayals of blokes as thick-headed insensitive lunks. There may be a grain of truth SOMEWHERE in such forms of stereotype-based humour, but they tend to reproduce ways of seeing people of the opposite sex as stereotypes rather than as individual complex people.

Is it a big deal? Well, maybe not. If some men see women in this way, and if some women see blokes as thick-headed insensitive lunks, then maybe it's best all round if they are allowed to express it. Maybe it even has some value if these perceptions are expressed honestly though light-heartedly. On the other hand, it's also damaging if it encourages us to accept the stereotypes portrayed, so I can understand why some people do actually think it's a big deal.

In this particular case, I don't see that the stereotype is ironically distanced from us in any way. What, exactly, in the material tells us to think that women are not really like that and to take our reactions to some sort of meta-level? We see her various nutty reactions for ourselves; it's not as if they are narrated by someone who is portrayed as unreliable.

So let's call this what it is: it's blokey (at best) humour satirising what is supposed to be (typical? common? recognisable?) female behaviour. The Garden of Eden narrative is used as an enabling device for the blokey humour. There's no satire of any religious doctrine here. I found it a bit disappointing.

Posted by: CriticalAtheist | November 24, 2009 8:28 PM

Everyone really needs to lighten up. If someone would like to enlighten me as to how they justify the special treatment of women in comedy (i.e. don't hurt their precious little feelings), I'd like to hear it. I would say something about heat and a kitchen but some people might take that the wrong way.

Many of you are getting a little too liberal even for me (a self-professed liberal).

I didn't like the episode either and the stereotype was pretty overplayed. This was all more annoying than anything else. It's not the end of the world, no one is being "held back" or "put down". It's an old played out joke like the dumbass husband always getting into hapless shenanigans and the wife who is far too good for him. Blah blah blah, lazy comedy not disgusting misogynistic behavior.

Let the firestorm of hate come my way!!!

Posted by: Phro | November 24, 2009 8:34 PM

I'm not sure how people are missing the satire on religion...but here's some of the things I saw that struck me as mocking religious beliefs about women...

1) The very moment they wake Eve up, she immediately goes for the first man she sees (Mr. Deity) and then the second (Larry) assuming that they must be her beloved. She hasn't been imbued with ANY critical thinking skills (i.e. she doesn't even ask if they are Adam, she just assumes). Along those same lines, she expresses no curiosity about what the hell a "post-op" is and focuses instead on the romantic aspects of a her creation, because she has been created for one thing only: to love and serve her man. Eve is an offering for Adam, she is his property and is programmed to love being so.

2) The show is clearly making fun of Larry who is both lonely (when Eve hugs him, Mr. Deity says "I'm gonna let you have this for a moment) and sexually deprived (he has to be warned not to touch her breasts). I wonder what that says about the Holy Spirit? Or maybe the religious attitude towards sex, where in men and women are so segregated that the only way they know how to interact is through the male sexual exploitation of women?

3) "Can I see him, please, please, please?" HOW DOES THIS NOT SMACK OF THE IDEA THAT WOMEN ARE NOTHING MORE THAN MINDLESS LOVE SLAVES TO THEIR MEN???

4) Isn't there something in the Bible about women needing to be put on a pedestal and taken care of? I don't know with certainty if it's there, but I DO KNOW with absolute certainty that it's the excuse that most religious people use for the lowered status of women. The belief is that women are weak and unintelligent and need to be pandered to and taken care of because they are incapable of doing so themselves. So when Eve starts talking about this being a special day for her, she's echoing the assumed voices of all women who have been "put on a pedestal", instead of actually being given equality. (Unless feminism is about being put on a pedestal...only True Christians know how to put women properly on a pedestal....)

5) This is woman as the creator designed her to be: insipid and confusing. This is NOT THE ORGANIC MODEL. (They say that in the very beginning.) This is woman as the religious people think she should be...it's expected that women will be confusing and full of double talk and platitudes. ("The way that you dress is the way that you feel about something.") Woman is expected to be frustrated over the small things because she's not supposed to be able to think about or discuss larger issues. (Like, maybe, why the hell Adam hasn't woken up yet. Or what exactly went into the whole creation process.) So far, everything I've mentioned, reminds me exactly of a midwestern, good-old-American, ditzy Christian housewife. It may not be in the Bible, but then neither is the bit about sports from the first season, or the bit about talking to Bush. It's as much lampooning contemporary assumptions of women's roles and attitudes as it is about historical religious attitudes.

6) "Cheese. And. Rice." Hah! She can't bring herself to swear, because that'd be unladylike!

7) After being unable to deal with Eve (as he created her) for a few minutes, Mr. Deity puts her back to sleep. !!! The alpha male of alpha males can't deal with wimminz, but it's okay because he can just ignore her. He can just put her to sleep, creating the foundation of how men are expected to deal with women...nod, say yes dear, and complain to his friends as soon as she's out of the room. Good Christian husbands do not talk to their wives. They ignore them, acquiescing when convenient and hoping they'll go away then it's not.

Probably no one's going to read this, and I've already spend too much time on it so I'm done for now.

Posted by: Phro | November 24, 2009 9:05 PM

Science Pundit: Thanks for reading it! I took more time to write than I expected it to take so...I'm really glad someone read it!

Posted by: Phro | November 24, 2009 10:10 PM

Sigmund, I see what you mean about using traditional sitcom roles, but, even if that's all they did, I still think it was funny. I will say that I also love any demeaning humor, when I know it's not intentional. For example, I love telling racist jokes to my black friends. The humor for me comes not from the joke itself, but laughing at people who think it's funny.

So, I think we can agree that the intent was not sexist. After that the issue is purely a matter of taste.

Also, I'm not sure occam's razor should be applied to art. Often the most complcated answer is the better answer . At least that's been my experience with literature.

Posted by: grolby | November 25, 2009 12:44 AM

For example, I love telling racist jokes to my black friends.

You obviously meant to say "For example, I'm a racist asshole."

The episode, not especially funny. To address just a couple of the tiresome objections to the complaints:

1: Yes, some women are really like that. What you don't seem to get is that women who act like that don't exist in a cultural vacuum. Crap like this doesn't HELP the situation. But there are also men like this - probably just as many as there are women. But it is not recognized that people like this of either sex exist; this stereotype is about relieving men of the emotional responsibility to communicate effectively. And then it says that having 100% of the responsibility for the emotional and empathetic aspects of human interaction, rather than being an honor, makes women crazy, dumb and impossible to deal with.

Add in confirmation bias, and men will are ready to attribute any miscommunication or their own failure to listen to this stereotype. But when men say one thing while communicating something else through emotion or body language (something that ALL PEOPLE do at times), it's not acknowledged, or at least recognized as normal rather than confusing and manipulative.

As for the dopey sitcom (and commercial) dads, it's not good for men, but it's not misandrist, since it's about the happy-go-lucky, clueless but lovable goofball vs. the humorless, boring, buzz-kill harpy. Yeah, that makes women look GREAT.

I love Mr. Deity, and I GET the joke here, but it really fell flat for me. It wasn't effective satire. Hey, it happens. Acknowledge it, point it out, move on. I hope that they will continue to do their normally very clever, funny work.

Posted by: bastion of sass | November 25, 2009 2:36 AM

I've seen all the Mr. Deity episodes, and this is the first one that fell totally flat for me. It could have been so much more.

What an missed opportunity to mock the religious treatment of women by showing it is stereotypically at odds with the basic equality of their design and nature.

Instead, Eve is portrayed as an emotionally overwrought hysterical ninny. How could such a creature be deserving of respect--by the Deity or man?

I finished this episode neither amused nor challenged in my thinking. A real disappointment.

Posted by: Carrotman | November 25, 2009 6:44 AM

Just because it's Eve and Lucy it doesn't mean they're satirising all women as a whole. Lucy is far from this stereotype throughout the various sketches. They're satirising a specific kind of behaviour. Stereotypical or not is irrelevant and I personally hope it's not as common nowadays.
Obviously many people (including myself) find this kind of behaviour ridiculous and worth mocking, so they enjoyed the satire of the sketch.

Those who found the sketch insulting, was it because you find the portrayed behaviour acceptable, or because you (erroneously in my opinion) think it's criticising women as a whole?

Posted by: ronys | November 25, 2009 7:12 AM

I dunno - I found it pretty funny.

My only quibble is that Eve was supposed to have been created nude .

Posted by: Carrotman | November 25, 2009 8:42 AM

Sigmund, there's nothing wrong with not finding it funny. Tastes vary and certain jokes are only funny so many times.

It's people finding it offensive/sexist whom I don't agree with.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 25, 2009 9:46 AM

Yeah TSG I find triggering peoples PTSD really funny too.

Nothing like making people uncomfortable by pinning them in that awkward position of being outted or ousted by showing that they have no sense of humor.

What you're describing isn't humor, it bullying. Bullying often makes people laugh. That's what makes it insidious.

Go ahead and call me a humorless feminist now. Coming from you it'd be a compliment.

Posted by: TheLady | November 25, 2009 11:30 AM

Ol'Greg, it's not feminists who are humourless, it's comedians who aren't funny. If you rely on offending a proportion of your audience for material that is disntinctive enough to get a rise out of the rest of 'em, get a job you're good at.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 25, 2009 11:50 AM

Oh well, I'm not trying to start trouble. Just a slow day today...

Posted by: TheLady | November 25, 2009 12:13 PM

There is humor in shock value.

By that definition, a joke that is funny because it is shocking should be shocking in order to be funny. A woman (with long glossy hair, pink top, cleavage and a squeeky voice - so that there'll be no doubt that she's a real woman) being portrayed as overemotional, demanding, irrational, shallow, superficial, clingy, dependent and easily ignorable is so coma-inducingly banal as to, by your very definition, deprive this sorry mess of a skit of any pretentions it might ever have had to humour.

Alternatively, rehashing tired old stereotypes could be totally daring and cutting edge, and feminists could just be too dumb to get that. Because we're emotional and shrill like that, prone to overreaction and hysteria. In which case this still isn't funny, because it's not shocking - due to being true.

If you get a tingly feeling that makes you giggle when you see women crudely caricatured and mocked, then be a mensch and own that. Laughing at trite old sexist (or racist) tropes and then trying to defend these cantankerous antiques as "shocking" is plain pathetic.

Posted by: TheLady | November 25, 2009 1:59 PM

But let me ask you this: why do you assume the caricature of Eve is describing every woman?

At the risk of producing more prattle, I would venture to suggest that in fact the very problem here is that this caricature does not "describe" every woman. If it did it would be neither a caricature but a simple statement of fact.

Now, I realise that it's way funnier to just hurl insults around, and of course the mental effort of delpoying actual empathy and theory of mind is not one we can demand of everyone; people have their limitations. But if you will indulge me in assuming that you are, contrary to available evidence, a thinking human being and not an anti-feminist bot, then you might consider the possible implications of characterising the Proto Woman as a snivelling nincompoop, with regard to what message that sends to female viewers as to their fundamental psychological and behavioural properties.

Or you could, you know, try continuing to "prove" that it was, in fact, funny. Which it wasn't. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2009 3:03 PM

At the risk of producing more prattle, I would venture to suggest that in fact the very problem here is that this caricature does not "describe" every woman. If it did it would be neither a caricature but a simple statement of fact.

Fine. Then why do you assume this particular caricature is meant to describe every woman and is therefore sexist.

Or you could, you know, try continuing to "prove" that it was, in fact, funny. Which it wasn't. Which is what I've been saying all along.

I'm not trying to prove it's funny. I couldn't care less whether you find it funny.

Posted by: bastion of sass | November 25, 2009 3:16 PM

tsg wrote:

But let me ask you this: why do you assume the caricature of Eve is describing every woman?

Maybe because Mr. Deity satirizes religious belief.

So, is this supposed to satirize the beliefs of those religious who believe that all women are to be treated with less respect than men--and ta-da, here in this episode we see why: god (albeit unintentionally) made her a whiny irrational ninny?

Or, is does the portrayal of Eve in this episode have no value as religious satire at all, and is just a poor "even the Deity can't understand woman, so how could a poor mortal man ever do so?" joke?

Is there anything in that episode that could lead viewers to the conclusion that Eve does not represent every woman?

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2009 3:40 PM

Is there anything in that episode that could lead viewers to the conclusion that Eve does not represent every woman?

Maybe, just maybe, it's the situation.

A good number of people have been in that exact situation. Thousands and thousands of men have been in his position and been just as confused, shocked and befuddled. Thousands and thousands of women have been in her position and been just as frustrated that he didn't get it. It's a comedic look at the differences between men and women and how they sometimes cause friction. Unless you're going to redefine "sexism" to mean "pointing out the differences between the sexes", this isn't sexism. And if you are, then it ceases to be meaningful.

Now, the only way I can see that someone might think this episode is sexist, by any definition of the term that makes it harmful, is by assuming that the caricature is necessarily being applied to every woman and that it is necessarily critical of the behavior. I didn't see that. Some women do act that way sometimes and some men do react to it that way sometimes. That's it. Men, in general, just want to be told what the woman wants. Women, in general, want the man to figure it out on his own. No one is saying which side is right.

If you're going to interpret it in the most offensive way possible and presume it's the only reasonable interpretation, of course you're going to find it offensive. But that says more about you than it does about the show. If you're dead bent on finding sexism, you will whether it's there or not.

But I'll tell you what is sexist: promoting the idea that women are to frail or sensitive to take a joke.

Posted by: bastion of sass | November 25, 2009 3:48 PM

And another reason this episode fails for me as humor:

Discriminated-against groups making fun of the stereotypical behavior of favored groups: acceptable.

Discriminated-against groups making fun of the stereotypical behavior of their own group: acceptable.

Favored groups making fun of the stereotypical behavior of discriminated-against groups: not acceptable.

Think of ethnic group jokes. Not funny at all when the majority group makes them. But it's OK, although maybe not particularly funny even then, when the ethnic group members pokes fun at the stereotypes assigned to them.

Posted by: bastion of sass | November 25, 2009 4:03 PM

tsg wrote:

It's a comedic look at the differences between men and women and how they sometimes cause friction.

So you believe that this is nothing more than yet another re-hashing of the old Venus v. Mars issue?

Isn't Mr. Deity satire of religion? Where's the religious satire in this episode? If it's missing, then that's a huge disappoint to me. If it's there, then the message is a huge disappoint to me.

Men, in general, just want to be told what the woman wants. Women, in general, want the man to figure it out on his own.

Oh, really? And this statement is based on ?? Evidence please.

But I'll tell you what is sexist: promoting the idea that women are to frail or sensitive to take a joke.

This woman is strong and smart, which is why I will not "take" jokes like this anymore.

Eve is reacting emotionally and no one is saying there's anything wrong with that.

Yeah, there's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking "emotionally" as opposed to "rationally"--like a man. *rolling eyes*

Posted by: bastion of sass | November 25, 2009 4:50 PM

tsg wrote:

But, what if the satire is that even the Deity can't understand women?

...and so what hope is there that mortal men ever can?

What if it's saying the fact that men don't understand women is because there's something wrong with men? You know, like, man was made in god's image and god is an idiot.

Yes, the Abrahamic god is, among other things, inept. But "there's something wrong with men?" Yeah, that's a so much more tolerable and hysterically funny message.

And the conclusion I'm supposed to draw from your interpretation is that Eve's behavior is a positive one?

Men, in general, just want to be told what the woman wants. Women, in general, want the man to figure it out on his own.

Oh, really? And this statement is based on ?? Evidence please.

My own experience. If you don't want to believe it that's up to you. It doesn't matter in the slightest if you don't.

So wait...what? Are you now taking the position that the behavior of Eve in the episode is in fact typical and representative behavior of most women?

And, your evidence to support your position is you? Well, I certainly find that evidence compelling and convincing. *more eyerolling*

the joke wasn't directed at you. You're the one asserting the joke is directed at all women.

And yet it seems to me that you're the one that's asserting that the joke describes the behavior of most--in your experience--women.

The simple fact that you interpret "like a man" to be saying "the way it should be" speaks volumes about you.

No, I'm not saying that to be like a man is "the way it should be." To be clearer: I'm saying that our society for thousands of years has claimed that "to be like a man" is "the way it should be." And therefore, men were worthy of more rights and respect than women were. I hardly agree.

But I will say that I believe that, in general, rationality trumps emotionality. But rational thinking isn't a behavior limited to men.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 25, 2009 4:56 PM

Thousands and thousands of women have been in her position and been just as frustrated that he didn't get it.

So... this isn't supposed to be about all women but it's funny because that's how all women really are. That's what your argument boils down to?

What a joke.

No. I have never been in her place. Her place doesn't even exist because she's portrayed as a sensless twit. I'm sorry to hear about your personal problems with women, but this argument and the views of women you're supporting with it probably contributes a lot to your problem.

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2009 5:20 PM

So... this isn't supposed to be about all women but it's funny because that's how all women really are. That's what your argument boils down to?

What a joke.

No. I have never been in her place. Her place doesn't even exist because she's portrayed as a sensless twit. I'm sorry to hear about your personal problems with women, but this argument and the views of women you're supporting with it probably contributes a lot to your problem.

You know, I knew I was going to regret it as soon as I got into this argument. They always go the same way: assertion of sexism laced with righteous indignation followed by accusations of being sexist toward anyone who dares disagree that it's sexism. I really don't know why I bother.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 25, 2009 5:34 PM

accusations of being sexist toward anyone who dares disagree that it's sexism.

Well when defending something against "accusations" of sexism {I like your diction there!) it helps not to fall back on sexist statements to defend yourself. It is, de facto, sexisism I think? I don't understand what there is to argue about other than the definition of sexism and how this satire applies or doesn't. Rather than address that you seem to be baiting women for not "rolling with the punches" and arguing from your own personal problems with communication.

What is sexism?

I've always defined it as such:

Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination.

Yeah I copied that from the interwebs. From the feminism 101 blog, because it's basically the definition I use. So the argument here is whether the show promotes that stereotype or doesn't.

You seem confused, even in your own argument, about how to answer that question.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 25, 2009 5:42 PM

Or rather in some posts you seem to be arguing that those stereotypes are valid and that's what makes them funny. So, how is that not a sexist argument in and of itself?

Yes there is some grain of truth to perception of stereotype, but it's all in who's doing the perceiving. So if you're arguing that this is sexist, but that's ok because you as a viewer with privilege get to escape the unpleasant aspects of this stereotype and can relate then I get you, but don't see where you get off feeling so sorry for yourself or being annoyed that people who actually face this kind of discrimination might not find it funny. In essence then you're arguing that the viewership is meant to share the view that this stereotype is valid.

Now that doesn't gel with your argument that this stereotype isn't meant to be seen as valid (it's not meant to say all women really are like that), that it isn't sexism. Is it or isn't it? And if it is why is that ok?

Sort your own arguments out before you cry victimization.

I'm confused by this conflict.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 25, 2009 6:00 PM

Hmmm... still addressed to amy here.

Yeah I think what bothers me is that while that's the "biblical idea of woman re Eve" which the show is satirizing, it's also pretty much accepted as the "comedic idea of women" and furthermore by many as "women" so there's the root of the problem in my mind when satirizing something religious that is still commonly held even by the non-religious as a valid stereotype.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 25, 2009 7:23 PM

Same to you buddy.

Your argument is still confused and your unwillingness to clarify your position isn't helping.

Eve's behavior has the problem I outlined above. Directly above your post. I don't see the need to type it again.

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2009 7:49 PM

Because your entire position hinges on your belief that her behavior is necessarily a weakness and can only be depicted as such. It is not supported.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 25, 2009 8:07 PM

Oh.. I'm sorry I see you already responded so I'll say this.

Ok, at least I get what you're saying now. So you're saying that her behavior is not meant to be a weakness, that it is not negative?

The problem then is that I don't see where that behavior has not been burdened with negativity. Yes the show is satire, but rather than interacting with eve on some rational level as with adam, eve is completely beyond that.

This stereotype is carried out without irony, and is a standard in comedy. It is essentially a perspective only from a confused outsider, which deprives the female of any stake in the matter. Even if Eve had been portrayed as having the same concerns but given some reason to behave that way then it might have made more sense. It's only from the perspective of the confused male that women, stereotypically, seem so crazy, vapid, and impossibly emotional.

The understanding is that if you are a male who feels that way about women, or a woman who feels that way about women, then you will relate.

The problem then is that the very stereotype is used in a real way to discriminate against women, to marginalize their concerns.

Women are objectified in all sorts of media with this same quality of outsider viewership.

We take it for granted I think.

I've never seen a woman behave anything like Eve, I've only seen women become emotional in response to factors in their life, mental states, and responses to immediate triggers.

I apologize if this is not clear, I'm trying to type quickly since I already said I would leave.

Posted by: tsg | November 25, 2009 8:51 PM

Ol'Greg, when you have time, read my explanation in #176 and you'll understand what I mean.

I saw it as Eve having an arguably justifiable emotional reaction (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and the Deity and Larry not being able to understand it which is proffered as a humorous explanation for why the stereotypical man can't understand women. More accurately, why men sometimes have difficulty understanding women. What it's saying is that if the religion is correct and man is created in god's image, then maybe the reason men have difficulty understanding women is that god himself is an idiot. I believe the episode is responding to the assertion "the problem with women is that even god can't understand them" with "maybe that's a problem with god".

But to understand that you have to drop the preconception that emotional reactions are necessarily a weakness.

Posted by: Sigmund | November 26, 2009 9:24 AM

When you are doing the sorts of men/women jokes that Kent Hovind used to use in his talks its pretty clear that your religious 'satire' needs some improvement.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 26, 2009 5:01 PM

I think I see where you are coming from tsg when you say that you see the reaction Eve is having as justifiable. That's the key for me.

You say I need to

drop the preconception that emotional reactions are necessarily a weakness.

My problem is not with any depiction of emotion, or that portraying women as having emotions = portraying women as weak, but that as a tactic in humor and in discourse overlooking all aspects of a woman but her emotional reactions however they may appear is a standard schtick for dismissing and demeaning women. So the problem here is that I don't see that the show was portraying Eve in such a way that the audience was meant to see her emotional reactions as justified. Rather I think the intent was to show that her emotional reactions were un- justified, hysterical, impossible.

The complete bafflement of Mr. Deity and co when dealing with her, the way that Lucy adopted the demeanor, the way that she "broke down" into little girl whines, the way that she had to just be shut down and no one could figure out what was wrong to her.

To me those aspects conveyed a strong signal that she was not meant to be seen by the audience as having a justifiable emotional reaction, but was meant to be seen as being crazy and impossible.

So it isn't that I have a problem with portraying emotions, I think it would be very odd if I did. Women have emotions, women do cry, women do get angry. However my problem is that in the premise of the show I see that the expectation that the show sets up allows the humor to fall on tired and destructive stereotypes. These stereotypes are not that women are emotional, but rather that women are out of control, useless, impossible due to their emotions.

You're arguing that if there were not preconceptions as such then there would not be a sexist element to the show? Well then I agree, but because there are sexist preconceptions of woman, and they are used in such a way to act as if women are nothing but bags of emotions and that is a negative thing... that preconception exists! It isn't only in my head, and acknowledging it's presence doesn't make it so.

So in this episode, for the reason I've said at the start of this post, I see Eve as being portrayed in a negative light, and her emotions being used as a part of that negativity due to those preconceived notions.

If racism didn't exist than racist observations wouldn't be racist. This is true.

If sexism didn't exist then comedy that poked at the sexes would be neutral, it wouldn't be offensive anymore.

However it's not going to help to deny the problem in order to ignore it I don't think. It isn't my fault for being aware of the destructive preconceived notion, and if the show falls onto that notion and your argument is that it isn't negative, why is she presented so negatively overall during the episode?

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 26, 2009 6:55 PM

I thought exactly the same thing when I watched it. Did you feel those guys were acting right with her, given the circumstances?

They were dressed as they were for adam and as they usually are. Why would I expect them to change their dress for only one single new character unless I also subscribed to the belief that women care about fashion more than men inherently?

Posted by: tsg | November 26, 2009 10:24 PM

tsg, you really are a vile little troll.

Would that I gave a shit what you think. I already know from your writings your opinion is not well thought out.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 26, 2009 11:21 PM

As for your #199 and #200, it looks to me like you're trying to find reasons to hold on to your initial reaction.

Not at all. What I'm trying to do is find any reason not to.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 27, 2009 8:19 AM

Oh this is getting silly. You're going to argue that every stereotype is true now?

There's a huge difference here.

I adore fashion. Look, I majored in an aesthetic field. I have lots of shoes. HOWEVER, that preconception that women (as if they are a single separate species defined by consumer tendencies) are OBSESSED with fashion is sexist.

You're getting ridiculous here and I just don't think I have time to argue with some one who's starting to sound like a troll.

You are deliberately overlooking the point in my statement, and I'm afraid I'm done wasting time with this discussion.

Goodbye troll who denies sexism exists. Enjoy your lulz.

Posted by: Dania | November 27, 2009 11:12 AM

Why would I expect them to change their dress for only one single new character unless I also subscribed to the belief that women care about fashion more than men inherently?

Some do, some don't. Maybe women care more than men about fashion generally. Whether that has a biological or cultural explanation doesn't matter here. Eve did care about how they were dressed and made that relatively clear when she asked them to go get ready.

And there's nothing in that episode suggesting that all women are like that. Eve may be presented as the "proto-woman", but she's not the organic model. She represents how God envisions woman. And yes, God is sexist. That's were religious satire kicks in.

Goodbye troll who denies sexism exists.

WTF? Where, on this or other thread, did tgs deny sexism exists? Do you always throw that kind of unfounded accusations at everyone who disagrees with you?

Posted by: Psyc Chick | November 29, 2009 10:40 AM

Yeah, not a big fan of this particular episode. These may be the attitudes of "religious" people, but they are also so prevalent and still so oppressive that I don't think that it's very funny. Are they going to do similar stereotypes of African-Americans, Jews, Latinos, anyone else...?

Posted by: Dania | November 29, 2009 1:40 PM

When I attend Skeptics in the Pub meetings, the vast majority of attendees are men. Even at these meetings when I contribute to the conversation, sometimes there is a silence after I speak, and the conversation continues as if I wasn't present. Further, at TAM and other meetings, the vast majority of presenters are men and female attendees are small in proportion. I recall Steven Novella stating that they were seeking female presenters, but I wonder, what steps did they take? What are the reasons that this is an issue, to get female representation?

See, that's an example of a topic we should, as a community, be discussing. The underrepresentation of women in these meetings is a problem and we should be talking about it, discussing the causes and possible solutions. I agree that's a critical issue.

But a comedy sketch, the sexist nature of which is highly debatable to say the least? "Lighten up!" doesn't seem like such a bad response. You don't think it's funny, fine. You thought it was sexist? Some people here clearly didn't and decided to not let sexist claims go unchallenged. Look what happened...

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 29, 2009 3:51 PM

I guess what I'm trying to say is this is a subjective matter. It has to do with perceptions, with culture, and with what our experiences bring to the table. This is art, not science, people.

What bothers me is that I'm open to growing and changing, but having my own experience with this piece or any other invalidated, being told to shut up, or that I don't have a RIGHT to feel or see what I do pisses me off. There's no way tsg or anyone is going to change my mind that way.

And yes, that tactic is trollish.

Posted by: tsg | November 29, 2009 9:56 PM

What bothers me is that I'm open to growing and changing, but having my own experience with this piece or any other invalidated, being told to shut up, or that I don't have a RIGHT to feel or see what I do pisses me off. There's no way tsg or anyone is going to change my mind that way.

I never once said you don't have a right to feel or see what you do. I questioned why you felt that way, gave you a perfectly reasonable interpretation that wouldn't make you feel that way, and you responded by trying to find something else to be pissed off about and called me a troll and a sexist. Well fuck you, too. You have the absolute right to see and feel what you do. What you don't have is the right to blame me for it and expect me to sit here and take it.

See sexism everywhere you look if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect anyone to care.

Posted by: Darren | December 16, 2009 10:51 PM

D'oh! Nevermind. Commented on the wrong post :P