Pharyngula

Posted by: Doktor Zoom | October 29, 2010 5:55 PM

The only problem with this comic is that it doesn't say anything about the discrimination faced by creators of comics who only want to call attention to the human rights violations involved in male circumcision.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 29, 2010 5:58 PM

Oof. It's like that comic was written specifically for us!

stupidity is so tiresome...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 6:01 PM

DagoRed, er, did you read the previous thread, you know, the one which caused this one?

Posted by: Philip Legge | October 29, 2010 6:02 PM

And predictably, the third comment on Gabby's page is a whiny complaint from a mansplainer who totally misses the fucking point. Arrrrghhh!

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 29, 2010 6:05 PM

And predictably, the third comment on Gabby's page is a whiny complaint from a mansplainer who totally misses the fucking point. Arrrrghhh!

As is the fifth comment here. Sigh.

PZ rocks.

Posted by: Jason A. | October 29, 2010 6:13 PM

A comment there:

notsexist says: October 29, 2010 at 5:30 pm I am a man and I am offended. I do not act this way. I think it is sexist when you judge a whole gender just the same -note the absolutes with which you start on the first panel-.

And I am not being sexist when I say I do think your point of view is lesbic: you seem to despise all men and love the women kind. Just like a macho who thinks all women are stupid and only men are good is actually hiding his homosexuality.

Good luck with men, I don’t think you’ve had a lot.

Posted by: t3knomanser | October 29, 2010 6:15 PM

I've been on the Internet for a long time, and I know for a fact, that there are no girls on the Internet. There are trolls and commenters, but no girls. Or guys.

Posted by: DagoRed | October 29, 2010 6:16 PM

#10 -- ah, self righteous idiots are never a shortage around here! I agree with the point in the comic, you asshat.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | October 29, 2010 6:19 PM

I've been on the Internet for a long time, and I know for a fact, that there are no girls on the Internet. There are trolls and commenters, but no girls. Or guys.

Posted by: Moggie | October 29, 2010 6:20 PM

#12 I don't get it, I really don't. How can someone miss the point that badly?

Practice.

Awesome rant at a nice guy at Tiger Beatdown. Extract:

I mean it. SHUT THE FUCK UP, Freddie. Shut the fuck up and let the big girls talk. Because we know way more about this than you. And every time you want to pitch in with an observation? Shut the fuck up a little bit harder. And maybe, after a few years or decades or whatever, you might have absorbed enough from listening to people with actual feminist insight (possibly related to their actually being women) to contribute productively to the conversation. But, in the meantime, actual feminists are going to get a lot more done, simply by virtue of not having to listen to the ungodly noise that comes out of your mouth. Truly, Freddie: You should shut the fuck up. Shutting the fuck up is, in fact, the biggest contribution you can make to the feminist cause.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | October 29, 2010 6:22 PM

#10 -- ah, self righteous idiots are never a shortage around here! I agree with the point in the comic, you asshat.

errrr ... you do realise that the comics is not a script for you to follow, right?

Posted by: dangeraardvark | October 29, 2010 6:26 PM

@DagoRed #5

Yeah, but you only agreed 90% and not 100%. Therefor you're one of "them".

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 6:26 PM

t3knomanser:

@Caine#17: the difference between a girl and a woman is semantic and pointless.

No, it's not pointless. Now, would presenting you with a cogent explanation as to why it's not pointless do any good?

I doubt it. That would be pointless.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 6:28 PM

dangeraardvark:

Yeah, but you only agreed 90% and not 100%. Therefor you're one of "them".

Who set off the idiot signal?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 29, 2010 6:32 PM

#10 -- ah, self righteous idiots are never a shortage around here! I agree with the point in the comic, you asshat.

and to everybody else reacting, dude here isn't trying to be an ass, he's right after all that this is a pattern with all sorts of privilege. maybe a bit tactless, considering this is a thread about women, but not technically wrong.

Posted by: Moggie | October 29, 2010 6:34 PM

#27:

conclusion: politeness doesn't work (d'uh), might as well just shock them into silence, and maybe some of it will get thru anyway.

I'm not sure anything works, other than blunt force to the nardal area.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 29, 2010 6:37 PM

On the previous thread MaxH bleated:

For the record, I think the Jane collective was a bad idea.

Cuz you bitches ain't shit.

I don't consider it life, but if there are laws against a specific medical procedure, I don't think you should have that medical procedure.

At the risk of Godwining the thread, I wonder what Max's opinion of the Nuremberg Laws (Nürnberger Gesetze) is.

The first law, The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, prohibited marriages and extra-marital intercourse between Jews and Germans and also the employment of German females under forty-five in Jewish households. The second law, The Reich Citizenship Law, stripped Jews of their German citizenship and introduced a distinction between Reich citizens and "nationals."

Regardless of his opinion, he would obey these laws. Befehl ist befehl!

Posted by: t3knomanser | October 29, 2010 6:40 PM

@Dhorvath#33: That's utterly absurd. I've been using the Internet for nearly two decades, and I have never seen a real person on the Internet.

I'm a person. If I were on the Internet, I'd know.

Posted by: Ben Goren | October 29, 2010 6:46 PM

t3knomanser, if you had a clue, you’d know. QED and all that.

Let us know when you grow out of the grade-school “Gotcha!” excessive, pointless, and incorrect pedantry phase. Until then, you’re just demonstrating your profound idiocy in your failed attempts to be clever.

Cheers,

b&

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 6:48 PM

Carlie:

It gets OLD.

That it does. It's difficult enough arguing on the topic, especially when dealing with someone like Max; it's a serious, tiresome pain to have to argue why staying on topic matters, too.

Posted by: t3knomanser | October 29, 2010 6:50 PM

@Ben#38: Clever? Nothing I've said has been clever. Everything I've said has been obvious. I mean, at least, I think so.

People on the Internet aren't real people. They're like people on TV, or people on the bus. They don't really exist.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 6:51 PM

Josh:

Also: lesbic. What an awesome word.

It is. Lesbian + Epic = Lesbic. It just rolls off the tongue... ;)

Posted by: t3knomanser | October 29, 2010 6:52 PM

@sili#43: I don't believe you. I have yet to meet a person on the Internet. Or the bus.

//In case you haven't guessed: I don't believe I'm a real person either.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 29, 2010 6:53 PM

When I was first trying to break in the games industry, a helpful friend mentioned my specialty to one of his coworkers. First words out of his coworkers mouth: "So how cute is she?"

That's only the first anecdote to spring to mind. Multiple variations occured from "Talented and cute? No way!" to "You are way too cute/attractive/adorable to be doing this," to "You really surprised us. You're not like the other girls at all. You're practically like a guy with boobs."
I suppose the first time, way back in the dawn of time, I might have thought it was a compliment, but about the ten-thousandth time, it sure gets boring. And painful, because you're never actually sure that they saw YOU and the stuff you did, instead of "Hey, XX chromosomes and tits!"

Then there's the forum fun of being assumed you are a guy--apparently Pixelfish is fairly gender neutral as a name, but if you're good at something (art in my case, is usually the thing that warrants this) then folks assume, lacking any other information, that you must be a guy. Sometimes you let this slide because if they found out you were a girl, you'd get all kinds of grief or crap for it.

People keep saying, "Don't be so meeeean! Why can't you just accept my compliment?" Maybe because its not really a compliment to completely ignore somebody and project your sockpuppet of who you think they are onto them. Because that's mostly what's occuring in these scenarios. I mean, in theory, if you want to compliment somebody on their body of work, you talk about the body of work. If you instead start veering off into how much they make you salivate, you've lost sight of what you thought THEY might appreciate.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | October 29, 2010 6:56 PM

I count five comments by Imso1337itoozesoutmyarse77. Don't we have a three comment rulesuggestion?

I count Insipidity, Stupidity and Wanking. And of course generic Trolling.

Posted by: t3knomanser | October 29, 2010 6:58 PM

@Ben#45: There are times I really wish I were a sociopath. Instead, I'm the sort of person that does a drive-by semi-sequiter joke, and then sticks around to see how people react, and then when they freak out, sticks around to keep chucking spam on the grill. Next to the kippers.

It's true what they say: the Internet rapes sarcasm in its sleep and then feeds its liver to the dogs.

//No one says that. But they should.

Posted by: jefrir | October 29, 2010 6:59 PM

So, back to Max and his incredible idiocy...
Is he seriously arguing that the death of the mother is not a good enough reason for abortion, but the child being in a wheelchair is? Because that's just... bizarre. I'm beginning to think he's actually just in favour of people in general dying, to be honest.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 29, 2010 7:00 PM

I'm the sort of person that does a drive-by semi-sequiter joke, and then sticks around to see how people react, and then when they freak out, sticks around to keep chucking spam on the grill. Next to the kippers.

You're on thin ice pal. Trolling is a bannable offense here.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 29, 2010 7:02 PM

It's true what they say: the Internet rapes sarcasm in its sleep and then feeds its liver to the dogs.

Oh, yippee. So... not content with derailing the whole thread to proclaim "Ooooh, look at meeee!!! I'm so edgy and clever!!1!!"... Mr. Internet Pseudo-Philosopher has now decided it's super-funny to trivialize rape. On a thread about sexism.

You know, you're really not endearing yourself to people here right now.

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 29, 2010 7:02 PM

It'd be more realistic if there were about two men in the red group and two women in the blue group.

Posted by: Philip Legge | October 29, 2010 7:04 PM

And where the hell were you in the previous thread? We could have used you, man.* A handful of us were typing our fingers off for about two days straight.

*Seriously.

Caine, thanks for compliment – but I’m currently in the middle of a major episode of depression, and my ability to catch up with any of the threads and help on an ongoing basis is limited. I can see the heavy lifting that you, Carlie, ODS, Jadehawk, Josh, and numerous others were doing, and you deserve plaudits for it.

Looks like we’ve got a whole lot of new replacements for the Maxie Cupcake in this thread.

Posted by: Deviant One | October 29, 2010 7:05 PM

Maybe because its not really a compliment to completely ignore somebody and project your sockpuppet of who you think they are onto them. Because that's mostly what's occuring in these scenarios.

QFT!

Also, is #53 Poe-ing?

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 29, 2010 7:07 PM

And predictably, the third comment on Gabby's page is a whiny complaint from a mansplainer who totally misses the fucking point. Arrrrghhh!

As is the fifth comment here. Sigh.

PZ rocks.

I read DagoRed's comment as acknowledging the phenomenon in the current context and connecting it to more general trends in social interactions that may shed some light on why it happens. How the fuck did you get "mansplaining" out of that?

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 29, 2010 7:11 PM

Yeah, but you only agreed 90% and not 100%. Therefor you're one of "them".

Unless the proposition "this occurs SOLELY in gender interactions" was supposed to be implicit, his comic expressed 100% agreement and I am utterly mystified as to how anyone reading it could have thought otherwise.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 7:14 PM

Pope Maledict:

I’m currently in the middle of a major episode of depression, and my ability to catch up with any of the threads and help on an ongoing basis is limited.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope things are looking up for you. Anything I can do, give a shout on the endless thread, okay?

Posted by: speedweasel | October 29, 2010 7:15 PM

@Dhorvath

Sorry, I haven't been around much in recent months. My post was a definite Poe.

Can one of the regulars please vouch for me so I don't get verbally beaten up? :)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 7:17 PM

Speedweasel:

Can one of the regulars please vouch for me so I don't get verbally beaten up? :)

I'll vouch for you. Dhorvath, Speedweasel's one of the white hats.

Posted by: hyperdeath | October 29, 2010 7:21 PM

Speedweasel is definitely a Poe. Pisspoor evolutionary psychology is a (relatively minor) running joke here.

Posted by: speedweasel | October 29, 2010 7:23 PM

@Pope Maledict DCLXVI

Umm, yeah thanks for that. Feel free to substantiate that accusation with some evidence.

I posted a parody of a 'Christian objection' to a Tim Minchin song in June of this year but if you've got more than that lets have it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 29, 2010 7:24 PM

Instead, I'm the sort of person that does a drive-by semi-sequiter joke, and then sticks around to see how people react, and then when they freak out, sticks around to keep chucking spam on the grill. Next to the kippers.

Oh you are just sooooo clever. I've never heard of anyone doing that before.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 29, 2010 7:27 PM

but I’m currently in the middle of a major episode of depression

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 29, 2010 7:31 PM

Sorry, I haven't been around much in recent months. My post was a definite Poe.

Can one of the regulars please vouch for me so I don't get verbally beaten up? :)

Posted by: monado | October 29, 2010 7:32 PM

I should have just skipped to the kitten.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | October 29, 2010 7:37 PM

Well then SpeedWeasel, you got me. Well poed. It sure proved the rule to me.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 29, 2010 7:39 PM

definitely a poe, everybody lower the cyberpistols ;-)

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 29, 2010 7:41 PM

By reading my post at #6 - the one directly below DagoRed's, the one in which I linked to the previous thread.

Which would have been visible when they posted their original comment...how?

Posted by: DominEditrix | October 29, 2010 7:43 PM

Yoicks! Take a day off...

You're going to sit there and argue that if a woman is in the ninth month of her pregnancy and gets killed, they're not going to charge the guy with a double murder because the child hasn't been through the birth canal yet?

California faced a similar issue some years ago, when an ex-boyfriend beat a woman who was nine months pregnant with her subsequent boyfriend's child, announcing his intention to "beat it [the pregnancy] out of her". His attack crushed the foetus's head, killing her. CA discovered they could only prosecute him for battery on the woman, but not for the death of the completely viable, but unborn foetus. Homicide laws were amended to cover this oversight: Anyone who causes the death of a foetus has committed homicide with the exception of a medically certified abortion provider with the consent of the woman.

That whole let's-not-worry-about-a-woman's-quality-of-life v. let's-abort-those-Down-Syndrome-babies makes perfect sense from Max's perspective - after all, he keeps insisting that he's smart, that those who disagree with him are "retards". Kinda like those 'I am nawt a homosectual' politicians.

However - we need to stop calling people like Max "pigs". Think about it - the pig is the source of BACON! Pigs are intelligent. Piglets are adorable and they grow up to be BACON! DO NOT SULLY PIGS BY LIKENING CRETINOUS FRATBOYS TO PIGS!

Let's just call them "assholes", because they spew shit.

Entirely apropos, when I was at my doc's* today and leafing through an old issue of OUT, I came upon this quote from actress Martha Plimpton:

Thank you for never grabbing my ass in that "it's OK if I sexually objectify you because I'm gay" way. You've got class and you know it.

* Oddly enough, because I was afflicted by excessive emesis. I had not yet read the thread, for which I was doubly glad. Now that I'm taking meds, I have stomached my way through it. Them.

Oh, and Max? Those individuals who go against some twisted popular practice, whatever the cost to themselves? They're called "leaders" [and occasionally "heroes"]. Those who don't are called sheep.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | October 29, 2010 7:43 PM

Is there really a point to Poe-posting (or Poesting if you prefer) anymore? Really, we get enough actual stupidity here with anyone needing to feign it; I just don't see the point.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 29, 2010 7:46 PM

Is there really a point to Poe-posting (or Poesting if you prefer) anymore? Really, we get enough actual stupidity here with anyone needing to feign it; I just don't see the point.

no. it's fucking lame

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 7:48 PM

Azkyroth:

Which would have been visible when they posted their original comment...how?

It wouldn't have been, obviously, however, it would have visible the moment that person hit refresh, which people do here in order to keep up.

You're going out of your way to be a dipshit - people jumped, then people calmed down and explained. (Shit like that happens when you've been in the wars for 2 days straight). However, don't let that stop you from your high horse, you seem pretty invested in hangin' on.

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 29, 2010 7:50 PM

Azkyroth @89 Realistic? Perhaps not, but if someone feels misunderstood here, a damned good idea.

Possibly a good idea in the sense of "if you ignore bullies at school, they'll leave you alone." 1) it doesn't necessarily work and 2) it wouldn't matter if it did because it's asking more than is reasonable to expect of the subject.

People react defensively when they perceive themselves as being attacked for no legitimate reason. This may be suboptimal but it still ain't rocket surgery. Reacting defensively when blindsided by a hostile reaction is no more a sign of guilt than being nervous when pulled over by the cops, ffs.

And if you've attacked someone and they react defensively because they don't think you have a reason, then your justifiable options are to either 1) show that you have a reason and it applies, or 2) to express your reasons, acknowledge they don't apply, apologize, and then stop attacking in the absence of what can reasonably be characterized as provocation. Continuing to attack that specific person because your reasons are "true in a larger sense" even if they don't apply here (actually acknowledging that they don't apply apparently being optional) is dishonest and petty and it's always deeply disappointing to see grown adults behaving that way.

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 29, 2010 7:54 PM

You're going out of your way to be a dipshit - people jumped, then people calmed down and explained. (Shit like that happens when you've been in the wars for 2 days straight). However, don't let that stop you from your high horse, you seem pretty invested in hangin' on.

If people have actually calmed down and explained then perhaps my comments are redundant. I saw a fair amount of what looked like not-pologizing and excuse-making initially and started out responding to that.

Posted by: broboxley OT | October 29, 2010 7:54 PM

Caine #44 lesbic, I thought that was a belgian flavored ale

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 29, 2010 7:59 PM

The point to "Poe posting" is to make people laugh by parodying the stupidity.

The problem with parody is Poe's law - no parody can escape the possibility of being taken seriously. Even Smoggy has been taken at face value. I'd hate to see parody being disapproved of in general. Parody is a good thing. Though it might be wise for parodists to sign off with /Poe or ;-) or something.

Posted by: Daz | October 29, 2010 8:01 PM

@ Cath the Canberra Cook #65

"while trying to empathise via his race disprivilege. (I'm guessing based on the Dago thing). "

I'm not sure there's a race issue there. I think it's a book reference. Dago Red was the chaplain in M*A*S*H, I think.

Posted by: mikefoxtrothow | October 29, 2010 8:09 PM

Azkyroth @102 Nope, i mean a good idea in the sense of (whether stated or not) "Whoops, i fucked up the context, and don't want to cause a derail from a serious topic."

DagoRed got defensive after being politely shown the full context as well as being at the sharp end of a less polite pointing out of the full context. The polite version was ignored.

And now you have been defending someone who hasn't been back since. Looks to me that DR was just another hit and run mansplainer.

But I do appreciate your concern.

Posted by: broboxley OT | October 29, 2010 8:13 PM

The problem the cartoon illustrates and is illustrated repeatedly is that a discussion of issues that can only be applicable to women leaves men clearly understanding that they dont apply to them. So one may have a strong feeling of sympathy but 3 sympathetic posts in the men want to share. So they steer the issue to race, uncut vs cut penises, class issues so now men can feel they are being valuable to the comments. Unfortunately that (quite rightly) pisses off the females in the hijacked thread and it goes downhill quickly from there.
my 2 cents

Posted by: mikefoxtrothow | October 29, 2010 8:19 PM

BroboxleyOT @114 You may be over generous in your take of the motives most mansplainers, but I may also just be more cynical than you.

Posted by: crowepps | October 29, 2010 8:20 PM

I mean, in theory, if you want to compliment somebody on their body of work, you talk about the body of work. If you instead start veering off into how much they make you salivate, you've lost sight of what you thought THEY might appreciate.

Which is far, far more insulting than just guys being reflexive jerks about sex. It's (some) guys making it clear they assume WOMEN measure their own worth by the 'sex toy ranking' bestowed on them by male strangers.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 8:24 PM

Hairhead:

What is the meaning assigned here in Pharyngulaland?

You can read for yourself, click the link in #115. It means "your concern is noted."

Posted by: broboxley OT | October 29, 2010 8:25 PM

Caine #117 wasnt discussing regulars,most of them now btter

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 29, 2010 8:26 PM

Latin translator has it mean something like "observe your worries". What is the meaning assigned here in Pharyngulaland?

Posted by: mikefoxtrothow | October 29, 2010 8:29 PM

Caine @115

Heh, don't feel like enough of a regular to snag the Latin phrasing yet, though that may change.

Hell it still occasionally amazes and disgusts me that there are people who see women as only useful for their anatomy, and who think that having a dick justifies acting like one.

(Of course, even more horrifying, i am still occasionally guilty of that shit.)

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 29, 2010 8:36 PM

So why would they make the "compliment" in the first place?

because for a certain type, other men are the audience for everything they do; including fucking women.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 29, 2010 8:43 PM

Daz #110

I'm not sure there's a race issue there. I think it's a book reference. Dago Red was the chaplain in M*A*S*H, I think.

Dago red is a slang term for cheap California wine. A lot of dago red is produced by the wineries of Ernest and Julio Gallo, hence the name.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | October 29, 2010 8:53 PM

Azkyroth
I think Carlie's been reasonable, though noticeably pissed off. You're getting concrete responses that you don't agree with. That is not the same thing as someone only gloating over a smack-down.

FFS, have you even read what Carlie said? Look at comment #97 again. And Caine's response makes sense too. After all, her link shows up before the comment DagoRed responds to. DagoRed responds to Carlie at #10, but Caine's link is #6. So, s/he either skipped over a comment in which s/he was called out by name, or s/he chose to ignore the polite one in order to respond to the harsh one.

No, that does not "prove" mansplaining, but it certainly doesn't look great. I mean, would it have broken DagoRed's leg to just click the fucking link and read for a second before scanning the thread and posting more? No. Not saying it was a crime to get defensive, but you're treating this as if DagoRed is some poor martyr or something. S/he hasn't responded again, so we don't know what s/he was thinking. People were harsh, but it remains to be seen whether they were too harsh.

Just let it go until we get some more input.

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 29, 2010 9:00 PM

I love how she inserts the comic into teh interwebz :-}

<hugging His Unholiness>

we will have gender equality when you bitchez can do 100 push-ups.

Ol'Greg can, she says. i can't. :-þ

and to get back to max's insitence that people follow laws, even if they're cruel and unjust.

Wow. Instant Godwin right there. Perhaps it's actually good I haven't managed to keep up with that thread...

Oh, yippee. So... not content with derailing the whole thread to proclaim "Ooooh, look at meeee!!! I'm so edgy and clever!!1!!"... Mr. Internet Pseudo-Philosopher has now decided it's super-funny to trivialize rape. On a thread about sexism.

Thank you for noticing – I didn't, but should have.

Well then SpeedWeasel, you got me. Well poed. It sure proved the rule to me.

I found "because of teh evolution" to be an obvious sign of not being serious. :-)

Possibly a good idea in the sense of "if you ignore bullies at school, they'll leave you alone." 1) it doesn't necessarily work

It doesn't ever work. I'm speaking from experience. If you ignore them, they'll make you react by taking the bullying up a notch or two.

you know... one thing that arguing with max accomplished is to elevate my opinion of my ex again. He was a fratboy, deeply invested in his toxic masculinity, and a Bush-voter (twice!), but he was never as cretinous or uninformed as max.

That's... sickening.

Oh, I'm all for actual parody. But, as demonstrated here on so many occasions, because - as you've noted - it's impossible to be more outrageous in a parody than it is for some idiot to be in all seriousness, there's really no point unless you're straight up about it and use (as you've indicated) a smiley or a faux html tag like <Poe>.

I recommend putting parodies you write in Comic Sans. That's how I can state things like Catholic dogma as fact with a straight cyberface while still making clear I don't mean it.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | October 29, 2010 9:03 PM

And then Gabby goes on to claim that no men have ever experienced sexism.

Say it with me, everyone: But wat about teh menz!?!?!

Unfortunately, for me, that invalidates any point she might be making.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 9:06 PM

@136

I hate it when people mistake logic for some sort of sport, where if you violate one aspect you get flagged and have to pull a do over play.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 9:12 PM

Pinkerton:

Reading the comments, she was put out be some dude saying he wanted to have her babies. Where people see "being shitty to women" I see "using an absurdly common, gender-neutral idiom."

Well, yes, she was "put out", I would be too. What I do with my uterus is my business, and you have no business commenting on it, nor does anyone else. Also, it's hardly gender-neutral.

HE wants to have HER babies. Not he wants HER to have HIS babies. This difference is key. He's the one being impregnated, here.

Unholy Cow, did all you idiots crawl out from under the same rock? It's not possible for things to work the way you're describing. Breeding is a joint venture, Cupcake, and ideally, both people want to have the babies. Males. Don't. Get. Impregnated.

My male friends and I use this term all the time amongst ourselves, as a sign of respect. "I'd carry your children for nine months and go into labor for you" is way closer to what it means than "I want to stick my penis inside you".

What you and your silly friends do is utterly irrelevant. If you wish to compliment a *stranger* on the quality of their work, then compliment their work. Leave your sophomoric and moronic ideas of "respect" out of it. You aren't showing respect in the least and trying to use sexuality as a show of intimacy towards someone you do not know - 100% creepy. Also, unwanted. Also, nasty. Also, stupid.

And then Gabby goes on to claim that no men have ever experienced sexism. Unfortunately, for me, that invalidates any point she might be making.

Gabby is wrong that no men have experienced sexism; gay males certainly experience their fair share. However, your average white male? Not so much, Cupcake of Stupidity.

As for your point being invalidated? Not possible, you didn't have one. Unless your point was to prove your density and stupidity.

Posted by: SC OM | October 29, 2010 9:14 PM

I love how she inserts the comic into teh interwebz :-}

I also like the "doop do" while she's working with her tongue out. It's the little things...

:)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 9:16 PM

Ok we obviously need to just come out and announce/inform society as a whole official like that women WERE a slave race basically for the last 6000 years. Maybe when we actually declare an official emancipation and acknowledge that it was a fucking sex based slave system then people can start realizing the baggage that exists like we kinda sometimes outta do with race issues.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 29, 2010 9:20 PM

Thanks for the explanations of Dago Red, both the wine and the character. So Father Mulcahy was TV series only, then?

I was assuming there was some anti-racism message in there, but it seems I was wrong. Apart from "Dago" I had this in mind - a link from the comments on the original page.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 9:21 PM

@Caine

Not to do WATM at all but I disagree. I think men ARE affected by sexism, it limits how they are expected to behave, what their interests are supposed to be, their career options etc. I think most men are dumbly oblivious that it does. Not at all like women are affected not even to a big degree, but we need to stress that it's bad for men too. To take one example, for how long was it seen as shameful to be a male nurse?

Posted by: No One | October 29, 2010 9:25 PM

My pet peeve?

Any man who feels the need to "compliment" an actress on set (about her looks), or worse flirt with her. Fucking pisses me off. "Do you mind asshole? We're try to work here." The worst is if it's the client. Because you have to either wait till it's out of their system or cut them short (and risk pissing off the money) and get the shoot moving again. Either way it's like "Everyone stop! I'm horny!".

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | October 29, 2010 9:27 PM

I can always console my shattered ego by remembering I don't see any women as sexual objects.

You do not get a get-out-of-sexism free card simply for being gay.

Posted by: Philip Legge | October 29, 2010 9:28 PM

Ing, “Not to do WATM…”, but you’re still pressing the male privilege button, to complain about negative outcomes for men owing to sexism/patriarchy: please take a number and get in line behind all the other less-privileged people who are victims of toxic masculinity, and you’ll get your turn in due course.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 9:29 PM

@151

Yeah sexism pretty much drags everyone down...and then hands the guys a step ladder so they're significantly above everyone else, but still lower than when they started.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 29, 2010 9:32 PM

DominEditrix - I have erred again! You'd almost think I craved punishment. . .

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 9:36 PM

Ing:

I think men ARE affected by sexism

I never said they weren't. However, even when young men are informed of things like male privilege and rape culture, many of them will not step up to the plate, so to speak, and start helping to change things.

The ways in which men are affected simply are not on par with what women need to deal with every day, either, and it's silly to try and make out like it's the same.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | October 29, 2010 9:40 PM

Pope @154
I think it was just a clarification that men are negatively affected too. I don't think Ing was attempting any kind of WATM derail.

I cannot really say the same for Pinkerton, but we'll never really know, because Gabby ruined it. Ruined it! *weeps again*

Posted by: quantheory | October 29, 2010 9:50 PM

I do find it depressing how often the value of a woman is tied up with her physical appearance. So many men would not be able to make it a week under that kind of scrutiny.

As a bi person (hold on, I'm not planning to do what DagoRed did above), I've noticed that a lot of confusion about that is tied into ideas about gender roles in relationships. It gets pretty bizarre/appalling the more you dig into that with some men.

It's like there's no serious attempt at all to put themselves in the woman's shoes, or to really try to find out how she thinks, and then later they conclude that women are just incomprehensible or irrational. And yet, it's the woman who's supposed to hold everything together in the relationship (the man's only role is to take initiative at certain milestones, which he must do if he's a real man). If she gets fed up with him, she's being irrational. If he loses interest in her, that's because it's her fault for not keeping his interest. Basically the man has no role other than to be in charge (when he wants to be), show sexual interest, and sometimes buy things. And when no women are around, these attitudes are sometimes used as a form of male bonding (because it's admirable to use sexism to encourage other men).

Of course not all men are like that, but most of us at least tolerate it at times (including, I'm afraid, myself when I haven't wanted to rock the boat). It's sometimes a source of frustration to me that these attitudes are so often taken for granted that I don't even know where to start on them.

And of course there are times when you just can't say anything. I went to a wedding this year where there was long, very Christian lecture about women being subservient and men being the "leaders" of a marriage (it was even woven into some of the vows). The whole thing made me nauseous, but it's not like the wedding itself was a great place to bitch about it.

Anyway, we talk about homophobia being derived from religion or projected disgust, but I think a lot of "moderate" homophobia is just the natural consequence of sexism. You can't really grasp same-sex relationships if your ideas about gender roles are so absurdly lop-sided that even most straight people can't (shouldn't!) live down to them.

Posted by: MrFire | October 29, 2010 9:59 PM

And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and the "Defense of Marriage Act" happened during a DEMOCRATIC administration. So what? Do Democrats always do what's right? No. Do Republicans? No.

Don't try to tu quoque your way out of this.

You raised the issue of the bailouts in order to slam the Democratic Party. TARP was raised to turn this point against you. Your above comment has nothing to do with that train of discussion: you should have addressed why slamming Democrat bailouts while ignoring the Republican TARP was not hypocritical of you. Whether you realized it or not, you instead sidestepped into a completely different area.

No, but are we judging crimes based on the 'amount of hate' now?

Nope. I'm trying to illustrate to you that some crimes are more hateful than others: indeed, solely motivated by hate.

For the guy who kills a gay person because they are gay, murder is the chief objective. They necessarily want all similar gay people to die, too.

For the guy who kills someone for their money, murder is not the chief objective. They do not necessarily want all similarly monied people to die.

There's no reason to make an assault any more punished just because it's against a gay person than an assault against any random person.

I never indicated that one was 'worse' than the other, whatever that might even mean. In any case, see the motivations above.

Also, I'd like to refer you to your comment:

Here in Arizona, any cop, with or without cause, can ask you for your identification.

Does this apply to just people on the street? And are people obliged to produce ID? And if so, how does AZ reconcile this with the fourth amendment of the US Constitution?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 10:07 PM

I thought Arizona had a judical bar from trying to enforce that brown shirt "Vhere are your paperz?" bullshit?

Posted by: quantheory | October 29, 2010 10:13 PM

Hello from another Bi, btw.

*waves back*

Posted by: MrFire | October 29, 2010 10:17 PM

Hello from another Bi, btw.

*also waves*

Though with guys, I'm all theory, no practice, so I don't know what that makes me technically.

Although my better half would point out that I am now only wife-sexual.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 29, 2010 10:21 PM

Change is happening, Josh, but at the same time, the backlash is more vicious than ever.

And here I was, thinking you were just a garden-variety flirt, MrFire:) Not to say I'm surprised, cuz I'm not. At all. Wife-sexual is very good in your situation, of course.

In all seriousness - the more people who come out, the better it is for all of us. Especially for young LGBT kids. Numbers matter. Changing the social landscape matters.

If you're gay, lesbian, bi, queer, trans, or just. . open. . .please consider coming out as publicly as you're able to.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 10:23 PM

MrFire:

Though with guys, I'm all theory, no practice, so I don't know what that makes me technically.

It makes you bisexual.

Although my better half would point out that I am now only wife-sexual.

And that's a good thing.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 10:24 PM

@174

I think part of the problem with visibility is that you have a lot of Bis who despite sexuality fit into the heterosexual social block. They're attracted to and married to a member of the opposite sex, and since their bed room life is private it's never an issue that they also like the same gender.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 29, 2010 10:28 PM

Caine sezAlso, your whole pretend "I'd carry your baby!" crap? It's just that, crap. There are ways to say you love a person or respect them without objectifying them.

Continuing from that thought....

Or implying that worth is derived from producing offspring. The thing is, maybe it seems like an over-the-top metaphor, but you can't get around the fact that bearing babies is what much society expects of women, that after getting married, that is the one thing that seems to garner the most praise and that a woman who doesn't do that is seen as weird, selfish, cold, career-driven. Even if you're implying that the guy would take on this task--so noble of him to offer when he knows he can't--hyperbolically speaking, it's still wrapped up in the package of wimmenz want childrens.

It's like we keep saying. In theory, on a planet with no history of this sort of thing, in a fantasyland far away from reality, where men and women have always been equal and gender roles haven't been defined so harshly, you could maybe get away with that....but this be Earth with its history and its baggage, where the connection between women's worth as beings and the babies they produce or nurture is often conflated. And even hyperbolic offers of baby-bearing really can't be divorced from the thought of biological baby-making, aka sex. So really this all warps back, usually unconciously (which doesn't make it better, incidentally) to "I want to fuck you! That's praise!" which is usually squicky and uncomfortable at best.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | October 29, 2010 10:33 PM

If you're gay, lesbian, bi, queer, trans, or just. . open. . .please consider coming out as publicly as you're able to.

I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately. I certainly don't hide the fact that I like women too (even IRL), but I rarely self-identify as bi. It's because I don't really see myself settling down with another woman (I've only had one real girlfriend*, and that was short-lived), and so I sort of feel like a poser.

Maybe I should reconsider. Hell, Sister has already broken Mom's heart by being gay. What's one more? (NOTE: Mom knows I'm bi, but she pretends that I'm straight and just had a "slip-up.")

*I've had more real not-girlfriends.

/minor thread derail on the very thread where I repeatedly criticized thread derails

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 10:34 PM

Ing:

I think part of the problem with visibility is that you have a lot of Bis who despite sexuality fit into the heterosexual social block.

Do you really think that bisexuals don't know that? Do you think we're unaware of the attitudes some members of GLBT community have toward us? Do you think we're unaware of the attitudes hetros have toward us?

We do know. We are aware.

They're attracted to and married to a member of the opposite sex

Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes; who a bisexual happens to fall in love with has nothing to do with that. Bisexuals often fall in love with someone of the same sex, you know. Some of us deal with our bisexuality in different ways.

since their bed room life is private it's never an issue that they also like the same gender.

:snort: Like any other member of the GLBT community, our sex lives are far from private - they constantly get dragged into the limelight by people who should be minding their own business.

Here's a fun little factoid: While the talk about "those filthy gays, they'll destroy marriage!" and other assorted crap is just that - talk (vicious, nasty talk). Bigoted hetros are truly threatened by bisexuals, because we could pervert either person in a hetro marriage, oh yeah, baby. Trust me on this one.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 10:37 PM

@184

Sorry for existing...jesus.

Oh and yes *WE* do know, just was mentioning it.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 10:38 PM

Pixelfish:

it's still wrapped up in the package of wimmenz want childrens.

Sing it, Sister! I'm childfree, I've never wanted sprogs. Not even when I was one.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 10:42 PM

Josh, one of the first conversations we ever had on the endless thread was about Bi people and how we were perceived.

Perhaps Ing didn't deserve to be dressed down, I thought he did. I'm rather tired of people thinking they know what it's like to be bisexual when they don't.

I have never been a Bi who has tried to pass. Never. I've been out and proud and on the front lines.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 29, 2010 10:44 PM

Perhaps Ing didn't deserve to be dressed down, I thought he did. I'm rather tired of people thinking they know what it's like to be bisexual when they don't.

I have never been a Bi who has tried to pass. Never. I've been out and proud and on the front lines.

I get it, really, and in great measure, due to you schooling me. Ing didn't strike me as fitting into that awful category (which is disgustingly commonplace), that's all.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 29, 2010 10:50 PM

Pope Maledict DCLXVI @ 62:
Ugh, I'm sorry to hear about your depression. It's good to see that you're posting, though.

(Thank you for the compliment! I don't feel like I did nearly as much as many of the others-- as much as I love a good troll stomp, I've just been too busy prepping for Halloween.)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 10:55 PM

Ing:

@184

Sorry for existing...jesus.

You know, darlin', I'd consider apologizing to you for being snappy, but it really bugs me that for all the comments we've traded back and forth, you can never manage to use my name. That has always smacked to me (no matter who does it) as a sign of casual disregard.

Sorry, Ing, I'm just not in the mood at the moment to put up with shit of any kind.

Posted by: MrFire | October 29, 2010 10:58 PM

It makes you bisexual.

:D

I'm still trying to get a feel for it. I'm on a learning curve, all the more interesting because it's way after puberty. On the other hand, it's almost like being in puberty again, right down to the cliches: girls are yucky, then some girls start to become strangely alluring but you don't 'know' why, then your mind can't think of anything else...right now, I'm at the stage of being attracted to specific men. I don't yet appreciate men sexually to anywhere near the same degree that I do women. That may change, may not...who cares? It's all good.

Posted by: ceestar42 | October 29, 2010 11:00 PM

*does a few warm-up swings*

It's so nice to not see anything untoward, because it's easy to ignore or not look for, isn't it?

Posted by: http://www.clarkcox.com/blog/ | October 29, 2010 11:04 PM

Playing devil's advocate for a second; if a woman, upon hearing something I said, or reading something I wrote (or taking in any creative endeavor on my part) said, "I liked that so much I'd totally f**k you". I would take that as a complement of the highest order. (Hell, that's the whole reason many young men attempt any form of art or creativity in the first place)

But that is the problem; people often give out "compliments" that they would want to receive. I honestly think that the men portrayed in the comic actually believe that what they are saying is a complement, because they would take it as a such were they on the receiving end. They seem to be caught in the thought, "Everybody is just like me, and should react in the same way that I would" without realizing that compliments are supposed to be about what the receiver of the compliment would like to hear.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 29, 2010 11:05 PM

@Caine, Fleur Du Mal

Accepted, same to you which is why I took offense. I really only actually take any offense when I care about the person's opinion.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 29, 2010 11:06 PM

As an intelligent white male from a stable middle upper class family (not a qualified resume I admit), someone with unchecked white male privilege who doesn't know WTF he's talking about i really despise the victim mentality. blahblahblahwomenhaveitsogoodblahblahblahhardwiredblahblahblah

also, bingo!

Posted by: MrFire | October 29, 2010 11:09 PM

"Everybody is just like me, and should react in the same way that I would" without realizing that compliments are supposed to be about what the receiver of the compliment would like to hear.

I think I like this.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 11:12 PM

Ing:

Accepted, same to you which is why I took offense. I really only actually take any offense when I care about the person's opinion.

Now I feel worse. I really am sorry. And I'm just plain ol' Caine. :)

Posted by: quantheory | October 29, 2010 11:13 PM

I'm still trying to get a feel for it. I'm on a learning curve, all the more interesting because it's way after puberty.

I've (sort of) been there. I thought of myself as straight, but I sort of had a thing about certain guys for a while (which I mostly ignored because I was clearly straight and liked women). In my second year of college I had one male friend in particular who just overloaded my brain sometimes, and after that it was pretty clear, but I still had to sort of figure out what this whole liking-men-thing was about. If I'd ever really had to think about bisexuality or been exposed to it I probably would have figured things out much sooner.

On the plus side, I've never really been in the closet. At least in the sense that, within a week of my figuring it out myself, most of the important people in my life knew.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 29, 2010 11:18 PM

SomeWhiteDudeWhoMadeSureWeAllKnewHeWasWhiteAndMale said: As an intelligent white male from a stable middle upper class family (not a qualified resume I admit), i really despise the victim mentality. In the nightlife industry the tables are super turned. Women get in free. Men pay. Women get VIP access to tables, men pay 400$ a bottle, with a 1k minimum. People are 10x more willing to hire a female VIP host than a male. Female strippers in Vegas make insane money for nothing else than giving guys blue balls.

Yay! So we can consider gender equality has been fairly won then. You guys get a full dollar for every 77 cents we earn AND we get free access to shitty clubs. You guys have historically held the majority of the legislative and judicial branches of the government and all of the executive while we get the privilege of being hired as VIP cocktail hostesses. You guys get to complain that we're cock-blocking you and we get to rant in threads on Pharyngula about how we deserve bodily autonomy. Whee! So this is what equality looks like! Thank you for enlightening me!

Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2010 11:20 PM

Markjn:

If girls only want guys to look at them like dudes then really the only option is a burka. Seriously this shit is hardwired.

This is a classic example of the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Have you considered women might want guys to look at them as people, foremost?

Posted by: pixelfish | October 29, 2010 11:22 PM

I was going to suggest "Spine up" instead of "Man up." It's what I've been using lately. :)

Posted by: MrFire | October 29, 2010 11:24 PM

pixelfish needs a good, hard...OM-nomming.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 29, 2010 11:25 PM

Protip: When telling women how good they have it, don't use as an example a job position where you have a high chance of being harrassed, stalked, molested, or killed.

Posted by: johnnykaje | October 29, 2010 11:27 PM

I'm pretty sure I spelled "parthenogenetic" wrong. Whatever it is whiptail lizards do.

Biologists! Correct me!

Posted by: Nepenthe | October 29, 2010 11:28 PM

If girls only want guys to look at them like dudes then really the only option is a burka. Seriously this shit is hardwired. Guys wanna get laid sorry.

Another fine example of women being valued only by their appearance. And I don't mean the aspects for which other commenters have ably chewed you.

I don't have this problem with men because I am ugly. When I am dealing with men being sexist jerks to me, I am emphatically not dealing with men who can't help themselves because they want to fuck me. The men who don't take my intellectual abilities seriously are not being distracted by my tits and the ones who repeat my words as their own while I'm sitting there (only-heard-from-a-man syndrome anyone?) aren't so in awe of my sexiness that they forget to treat me like a human being.

The whole argument that sexism women's fault because men can't control themselves in the face of our sheer sex power is bullshit. Ugly women exist and if you poke a misogynist with a stick it will probably tell you all about them and what ought to happen to them.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 11:31 PM

MrFire:

pixelfish needs a good, hard...OM-nomming.

I'm in full agreement here.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 29, 2010 11:33 PM

MrFire:

Take one guess where they pull it out of, sister :-)

Wait... does this mean there's some super/meta/collective asshole out there where all of the clown fuckers get their talking points?

I'm picturing a super massive black hole made out of asshole, where the stupidity is so strong that no rational/empathetic thoughts can escape.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 29, 2010 11:35 PM

Nepenthe:

The whole argument that sexism women's fault because men can't control themselves in the face of our sheer sex power is bullshit. Ugly women exist and if you poke a misogynist with a stick it will probably tell you all about them and what ought to happen to them.

That's a good point to drive home. While much of surface sexism is based on a woman's appearancy, it goes much, much deeper. What it is about is entitlement and control.

So much of the problem is getting men to see that by contributing to surface sexism, they keep the deeper aspects firmly rooted in place.

Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2010 11:39 PM

Nepenthe,

(only-heard-from-a-man syndrome anyone?)

If you don't mind, 99, I'd like to figure this out myself. ~Maxwell Smart, after getting a suggestion from 99 on what to do next, which is followed by him repeating 99's suggestion.

[I note Smart was rather enlightened, by the standards of the day, yet it was funny, because it was true]

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 29, 2010 11:45 PM

Apparently Markjn has never heard of Tailhook.

The Tailhook scandal refers to a series of incidents where more than 100 U.S. Navy and United States Marine Corps aviation officers sexually assaulted 87 women, or otherwise engaged in "improper and indecent" conduct at the Las Vegas Hilton in Las Vegas, Nevada. The events took place at the 35th Annual Tailhook Association Symposium from September 8–12, 1991...As a result of the subsequent investigations, a number of officers were formally disciplined or refused advancement in rank. Controversially, military officers and observers have alleged that flag officers attending the symposium were not held accountable for knowingly allowing the behavior in question to occur. Observers noted that the scandal highlighted the US military culture's attitude and treatment towards women in the areas of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and equal treatment of women in career advancement and opportunity

Some people I know in the Navy say while there has been some improvement the US military still has a long way to go. One woman Chief told me: "You can go far in today's Navy, as long as you're one of the guys."

Posted by: Nepenthe | October 29, 2010 11:48 PM

@ 235

But Caine, it just wouldn't be the same. Part of the great advantage of the job for women is the thrill and suspense of wondering if a part of the clientele is going to rape and dismember them.

Posted by: hauntedchippy | October 29, 2010 11:48 PM

However you meant it doesn't matter, please don't try to justify it. Just take the patient advice offered.

Possibly misunderstanding me? To clarify, I agree with the OP that "man up" is a poor phrase to use because of its blatantly masculine discrimination. I was attempting to highlight this using inverted commas. Not getting dragged into semantics but please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | October 29, 2010 11:51 PM

Hauntedchippy @211 is my nominee for Fucktard of 2010.

And using the word chippy means he's an old asshole. Extinction of this species will be welcome.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 29, 2010 11:56 PM

oh gee, i seem to be on defending-the-guys duty today. :-p
chippy really didn't tell anyone to man up, and the way he used is entirely consistent with his explanation, so please don't shoot him, friendly fire ain't cool.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 29, 2010 11:58 PM

Lotharloo:

A cartoon against sexism in which all the males are sexists. Now, let me take some time to look up the definition of irony.

Shorter: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ??

Oh for shit's sake, do I really have to explain a web comic to you?

She wasn't saying that all men are misogynists, dumbass, but once one misogynist opens his big, fat, ignorant mouth the floodgates are opened and all of a sudden you've got a horde of mouth-breathers on your hands.

The point was that women often feel overwhelmed because men (like you) completely fail to grasp the point that women are routinely discriminated against and harassed.

Privilege, how the fuck does it work?

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 12:00 AM

I'd say it was more a cartoon about clinging onto male privilege by your toenails. It's an observation about how these threads statistically turn out.

I do think it would have been helpful for the cartoonist to show how some women support the male privilege, because inevitably a woman will be trotted out or trot herself out as the default example for how it wasn't really sexist because So-and-so didn't think it was offensive and she's a woman, doncha know. (Nevermind that our society is so marinated in sexism, it's hard for women to disentangle themselves from the stuff that gets beaten into them by media, peers, family, church, etc. Some women like Ann Coulter and Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schafly and the fictional Serena Joy are so very eager to uphold the privilege because they get granted their own little fiefdoms of demi-privilege for doing so.)

But by and large the observation holds true: it's primarily men shouting down the experiences of women and defending their privilege.

BTW, I will add that I've appreciated the voices of the Pharyngula men who have chimed in as allies here. Your presence was much noted and appreciated in the other misogyny thread.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 30, 2010 12:01 AM

HauntedChippy isn't new here and has said some...odd things in past threads.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 12:06 AM

Whoops, forgot to put in that my last post was aimed at Lotharloo. Also I think that OurDeadSelves summed it up better with once one misogynist opens his big, fat, ignorant mouth the floodgates are opened and all of a sudden you've got a horde of mouth-breathers on your hands.

It does sometimes feel like invoking Beetlejuice. Mention male privilege, and a bunch of guys show up to demonstrate it.

Posted by: hauntedchippy | October 30, 2010 12:08 AM

HauntedChippy isn't new here and has said some...odd things in past threads. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here, but it's a wary benefit.

I wouldn't say new (which I must justify with a number, 4 years(ish), but not always under this username). But certainly I'm an infrequent poster to be sure.

Posted by: hauntedchippy | October 30, 2010 12:11 AM

oh you said ISN'T new and I misread. Looking like an ass at the moment...

Posted by: hauntedchippy | October 30, 2010 12:14 AM

Now, the caveat is: if you say something stupid, you will be called on it, by numerous people. We deal with a lot of stupid people here, so we aren't always the most patient people.

Well, I'm genuinely glad for you to hold me to this. I've said plenty of stupid things in my lifetime and I would probably still be saying them if no one had called me on them.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 12:22 AM

Is it bad that I kind of want Max to come back, but only if he addresses my points about how equality movements impact language and our overwhelmed foster care system?

He was a fun chew toy.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 12:28 AM

Chippy:

I've said plenty of stupid things in my lifetime and I would probably still be saying them if no one had called me on them.

I can totally relate. Hell, I've already said something stupid on this very thread (#246 and #251)!

A willingness to learn is a fine trait to have.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | October 30, 2010 12:31 AM

OurDeadSelves - Nah, not bad. We haven't had much fresh troll lately. My coat is still sniny, but the bosom hasn't heaved^TM in ever so long.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 30, 2010 12:42 AM

Oh, ODS, if you didn't wade through the last of the Max the Moron thread, you probably didn't see this, from me, tacked onto a response to Walton:

*Oh, ferchrissakes, I just called Alfie Max. (Alfie was trying to pee on Chas' head). I gotta get out of this thread.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 30, 2010 12:47 AM

ODS:

How dare you, Caine, expect someone to do a little bit of Googling when they don't know the basic concepts of male privilege, adoption, abortion, and rape culture? You should be holding their hand and reinforcing the status quo right alongside them!

You know what really infuriated me? Max's complete inability to think something through. Unless people were asking specific questions and holding his hand through the thought process, he couldn't do anything.

Yeah, he changed his mind (about 7 brain cells worth) on rape culture. He admitted it might actually do harm, to make "jokes" like the one in the video. Only after 300 posts or so, mind.

Yeah, he changed his mind about some abortions, but only after nursed through the thinking process.

He showed zero ability, let alone capability of actually thinking any one thing through. Unless other people did it for him, he just blithely accepts whatever the fuck authority tells him.

He's loathsome.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | October 30, 2010 12:49 AM

"Bigoted hetros are truly threatened by bisexuals, because we could pervert either person in a hetro marriage, oh yeah, baby."

Frank N Furter, is that you?

Posted by: Shala | October 30, 2010 12:52 AM

Wow did I ever miss out on a lot of drama.

And a lot of amazing comments by Max.

Max, do you believe a woman who has an abortion should go to jail? If so, for how long?

I just can't believe we had a thread combining authoritarianism, republican stupidity, misogyny, and tone trolling all together. It's like PZ is actually Zordon from Power Rangers, only instead of recruiting teenagers with attitude he's recruiting cupcakes with shit for frosting, that all combine into the Goat On Firezord and fail spectacularly.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 12:59 AM

Thing that torqued me about Max was that when we were trying to explain rape culture (in a feminist context) he wouldn't accept our cumulative experience (which I think trumps the ill-conceived use of bleating about anecdotes) or well-known feminist sites...it wasn't until he had Scientific Evidence that he conceded he might be wrong. It's like talking to somebody and telling them that you've just had a shitty day, and they respond that unless you can graph the shittiness over the last month and provide a detailed precis on the causes of the shittiness and a pie chart showing the percentages of shit-sources, well, then he can't agree that your day sucked.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 1:03 AM

Caine:

You know what really infuriated me? Max's complete inability to think something through. Unless people were asking specific questions and holding his hand through the thought process, he couldn't do anything.

Crap, I know. He didn't address a single one of my more complicated* points, but responded to ones that he had a gut reaction to. (Like the personal attacks against him (tenure) or the point that adoption serviced are overwhelmed ("No they're not, otherwise people wouldn't get babeez from other countries!")-- which he was wrong about anyway.)

It's actually kind of scary to think that our institutes of higher learning are churning out know-nothings that can't think critically at all. I mean, at some point, you've actually got to learn how to educate yourself 'cos your profs certainly aren't going to walk you through every page of the material.

On a side note: I really have my doubts about his claim to have studied history. Poli-sci maybe, but I saw absolutely no evidence that he knew anything that could be lumped into the category of "history", including current events. Plus, he dodged my question about his focus of study, which I hope he would have figured out by grad school.

*Any point that may have required the Google.

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 30, 2010 1:15 AM

If you're talking about me, I simply posted a note that indicated that I thought DagoRed missed the point of the comic. DagoRed then responded by calling me a "self-righteous idiot" and an "asshat".

Err, that post was pretty strictly addressed to the person quoted in it. >.>

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 30, 2010 1:31 AM

In all seriousness - the more people who come out, the better it is for all of us. Especially for young LGBT kids. Numbers matter. Changing the social landscape matters.

If you're gay, lesbian, bi, queer, trans, or just. . open. . .please consider coming out as publicly as you're able to.

On that note, I can't say I've ever met a guy I'd want to date and I really don't see it happening (I relate to most other men too poorly), but sexual interest, at least in theory, is definitely there. I'm disinclined to come out until the blood ban's lifted, though - I have a somewhat rare type and it's in demand. (Granted, I'm already lying to them every donation appointment about what me and a friend did when we were 13, but...)

(Well, it was on-topic when I came to that comment. >.>)

Posted by: Hekuni Cat, Champion of Oriana | October 30, 2010 1:39 AM

Caine, Carlie, ODS, Josh, and all the others who have fought the good, lengthy (and continuing??) fight against Maxie and the other trolls of stupid, thank you.

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 30, 2010 1:45 AM

Shorter: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ??

Oh for shit's sake, do I really have to explain a web comic to you?

She wasn't saying that all men are misogynists, dumbass, but once one misogynist opens his big, fat, ignorant mouth the floodgates are opened and all of a sudden you've got a horde of mouth-breathers on your hands.

The point was that women often feel overwhelmed because men (like you) completely fail to grasp the point that women are routinely discriminated against and harassed.

Privilege, how the fuck does it work?

From a factual consistency perspective if nothing else, it IS worthwhile to note that a sizable fraction of women enable, trivialize, or even participate in that sort of misogynistic behavior, and at least a handful of men object to it - facts which the comic completely glosses over. Somehow I don't think that's quite Lothar's take on this, though. :/

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 1:49 AM

Azkyroth:

From a factual consistency perspective if nothing else, it IS worthwhile to note that a sizable fraction of women enable, trivialize, or even participate in that sort of misogynistic behavior, and at least a handful of men object to it - facts which the comic completely glosses over.

Yes, I realize this. However, I would like you to consider the limitations of the medium.

It isn't a doctoral thesis about misogyny on the intertubez, you know.

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 30, 2010 1:55 AM

Yes, I realize this. However, I would like you to consider the limitations of the medium.

It isn't a doctoral thesis about misogyny on the intertubez, you know.

I do realize the limits. A couple characters with mars symbols added to the chorus in the second panel of the third image (maybe with "not affected but gets it" labels) and a few characters with venus symbols and "token 'chick'" arrow-labels pointing to them in a few of the "massed dude" panels would have conveyed the point nicely. :/

Posted by: F | October 30, 2010 1:58 AM

Pixelfish
(I lost the number. Pathetic.)

Then there's the forum fun of being assumed you are a guy--apparently Pixelfish is fairly gender neutral as a name, but if you're good at something (art in my case, is usually the thing that warrants this) then folks assume, lacking any other information, that you must be a guy.

There is one place I get to see this happen from another angle on a semi-regular basis. Dude has a name & spelling thereof which is equally feminine or masculine, but may be interpreted more frequently as feminine in some cultures.

I just love how the entire tone of the comments in a discussion with this guy change when some of the men think he is a woman. Its... sick.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 2:14 AM

Azkyroth:
With the heavy visuals of the comic itself, I'm pretty sure that adding varying genders into the mobs would have confused the point.

Plus, the comic was inspired by actual events and I don't know if there were any thoughtful men in that particular situation who put in their two cents.

Being one of those fabled women on the internet, I can tell you that yeah, sometimes it does feel like the only men who respond to you are the ones that want to see your your tits*. When you refuse to show them, well of course you're in the wrong, silly! Woman are only here for straight male sexual gratification! My point is, it's not unusual to feel ganged up on and despondent.

*Okay, not here.

Posted by: Nepenthe | October 30, 2010 2:17 AM

@285

I honestly dont think I have ever seen your situation. I have seen no evidence of this cabal of men determined to keep women down.

Well no shit you haven't seen my situation. Women like me don't even register to you. That's exactly what I said, is that my situation, the situation of a great deal of women, goes totally un-noticed because we aren't "fuckable".

There's no cabal. Where did you get the cabal idea from? I never said any of these people were doing it intentionally. Most of the echos must think they're just extra smart when I'm around.

Also, sometimes it has nothing to do with work. Yes, sexism and misogyny has shaped my life in noticeable ways in the public sphere, but it also follows me into my home, into my bedroom, into my fucking dreams.

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 30, 2010 2:29 AM

Oh, who gives a flying fuck, Azkyroth?

No one said you had to.

such an absurdly trivial point

much less with idiotic emoticons.

It isn't worthwhile to note here, as it's news to no one.

What it must be like to live a life where factual consistency has no value beyond the strictly utilitarian.

Jesus, you've been clueless and annoying on this thread.

At least "clueless" has a well-established history of being used for "anyone who disagrees with me regardless of their actual arguments."

Posted by: scooterKPFT | October 30, 2010 2:33 AM

Which panel of the comic are we in right now?

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 2:45 AM

Nepenthe says: Women like me don't even register to you. That's exactly what I said, is that my situation, the situation of a great deal of women, goes totally un-noticed because we aren't "fuckable".

That reminds me of the title of Tiptree's classic story, The Women That Men Don't See. (Roughly the narrator is so busy projecting his attitudes and beliefs onto the two women in the story, that he fails to see them for who they are and realise what they are doing.)

Posted by: Furcas | October 30, 2010 2:46 AM

Rape culture patriarchy rape rape mansplaining rape rape rape.

Posted by: SC OM | October 30, 2010 2:47 AM

What it must be like to live a life where factual consistency has no value beyond the strictly utilitarian.

You don't have the slightest clue about factual consistency, or art for that matter. In any case, the comic does accurately represent a typical pattern, and I suspect most men who genuinely get it understand the artistic license. (I would honestly be happy to be shown examples of where you were among the first people here calling out sexism and arguing the point. It would at least put some personal substance behind your nitpicking.)

At least "clueless" has a well-established history of being used for "anyone who disagrees with me regardless of their actual arguments."

Look, asshole, DagoRed, inncently or not, commented in a way that, as several people have explained in great detail, missed the point of the work and followed a standard line. Whether [he] could have expected a negative response is totally irrelevant. People who post sexist and misogynistic epithets here are almost always surprised upon receiving a hostile response, and frequently turn it into an endless fucking argument and attempted pityfest about their motives and intentions. Dago Red could easily have asked what was wrong with the comment. You've made no worthwhile arguments. You're just being an annoying git.

Posted by: SC OM | October 30, 2010 2:54 AM

Hey, SC!

Hey back!

Having a great time reading the new posts over at your place.

Aw, thanks! Just posted a new one. :)

BTW, could you ask Josh or someone to send me your email?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 30, 2010 2:55 AM

Why are you telling me all these lies Jadehawk!?

or something

Posted by: scooterKPFT | October 30, 2010 3:01 AM

pcarini

It's interesting because there are recurring themes and social dynamics in mixed company whenever gender topics arise, but those dynamics shift and generally degrade because the medium is Internet, not face to face, always a problem no matter what the subject. That's the panel outside the panel in the comic that is yet another frame of irreference.

pretty soon everything becomes outageously irreferent.

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 30, 2010 3:03 AM

some people are too fucking dense to understand emergent social dynamics and think that if it isn't a directed, active effort, something people do on purpose, it doesn't exist. hence the accusations of being conspiracy theorists whenever some systemic injustice is being pointed out.

Wait. You mean 20,000 drooling idiots DON'T get together in an auditorium every morning to be briefed on the master plan to obstruct my attempts to drive to where I need to be at a reasonable speed, and arrive on time, without having to perform any dangerous or questionably legal maneuvers? O.o

Posted by: pcarini | October 30, 2010 3:11 AM

Ack: try to ignore my bad edit on 307, and how awkward it makes the first sentence...

@scooter:

pretty soon everything becomes outageously irreferent

The whole "lesbic" thing up top reminded me: If I get a spare minute tomorrow I need to find/link this hilarious Daily Show interview w/ some good ol' boy security contractor who uses the the word "lesbionics" to describe what he imagines is happening at a women's detention facility. One of the funniest things I've seen on TV.

Posted by: Doktor Zoom | October 30, 2010 3:20 AM

"Lesbionics" sounds like something that SyFy channel would toss into their GrimDark reimagining of "The Bionic Woman"...

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 3:21 AM

So Yale frats shout rape apologia as a joke, and it turns out Harvard frats (surprise, surprise) think that ethnic genocide is a joke, or at the very least, subject to light-hearted appropriation. Incidentally, the Conquistadors are aligned with the "bros" while the Navajos are apparently intended to be aligned with the "hos". Hey, surprising that the dominant power structure gets represented by the guy side of the equation. Whacky. Whodathunk?

Posted by: Deviant One | October 30, 2010 3:53 AM

@ Markjn 285

Oh please. My girlfriend is a stripper. Don't pretend you have any idea what the dynamic is there.

And don't pretend that you have the slightest fucking clue what Caine (or anyone else but you yourself) does or does not have any idea about.

I seriously do not understand the point you are trying to make in this part of your rant. Strippers make loads of ca$h, and run the risk of being murdered and assaulted etc. Do you think anyone would take that kind of risk if she didn't HAVE to, and if not for that kind of money?

Not everyone comes from a middle-class background where mommy and daddy can help you out if you can't afford diapers for jr. this month, you know.

So you're unhappy that strippers make loads of cash for leaving men with blue balls (once again, the assumption that a man's sexual incontinence is a *woman's* problem to deal with...), and yet your girlfriend is one and you see no problem with your negative views on strippers clashing with going out with one?

I always thought girl/woman/female was interchangeable.

You thought wrong.

What is the age cutoff? I got knocked a couple posts later for referring to males as dudes

Unless the word "dude" has historically been used to devalue full grown men's opinions, thoughts and ideas and delegate them to the level of children, I'm not getting your point here either.

Women tell you that it's offenive to refer to an adult woman as if she were a child, because this shit has had a real fucking impact on our lives and this bothers you WHY?

"the fear women live with every day is silly. Gotcha" like I said, my girlfriend is a stripper and if anyone has to live with that fear its people like her. I know very very well that there are scumbags. This is Vegas. Nightclubs and stripclubs deal with them all the time. They are at the least 86'd and sometimes the police are called.

While I agree that those women working in the sex industry are at higher risk, it seems that you are forgetting that EVERY human on this planet with female genatalia or characteristics run the serious risk of sexual assault ON TOP of the the normal things like mugging and murder - just for existing while female. What's the stats in America? One in 6 woman will be sexually assaulted? And that doesn't take into account the higher rates of violence against women in the sex industry.

So while it's true that "people like her" do also live with that fear, ALL women, every fucking day, in very single interaction with any single dude they don't know (and those they do know too, for the majority of rapists are acquaintances) live with that fear. Constantly. In our homes, on the street, in the mall, in our cars. Constantly.

And while I'm sure that they are often "86-ed", whatever THAT may mean, and the cops are often called - sometimes the douchebags succeed. In fact, one in six or seven, depending on your stats women in America can tell you of these "successes" from personal experience and trauma.

Also, do you think THIS may explain why women who are strippers/sex-workers, in your experience, earn more than men who do the same thing? Do men run that high of a risk?

If you are accusing me of lying anything I say doesnt matter anyway. I did see an incidence of fraternization. Our masterchief and a junior sailor. He broke it off with her to stay with his wife, she told the command, and he was demoted to E1, forced to separate, and denied retirement.

The point is NOT that you're lying about what you saw, or that you're lying when you say that you never saw anything like that. At all. The point is that maybe you should consider that you don't see this shit in the first place because you're obviously going blinkered by your privilege. "Fraternization", really? With the power-differential you explained alone, I would say that they NAVY did not reach their punishment lightly, yet I get the sense that you think they were too harsh to the poor, innocent, suffering dood.

Sort of agree. IME as a nightclub promoter, the guys who slap girls asses or say rude things are not the confident charming ones. They are the weak and desperate. I doubt they feel entitled to anything.

Once again, your personal opinion is not validated by the sociological phenomenon, which is that dudes like that tend, in general, to feel MORE entitled. They are the ones who whine that "women only go for assholes, and I'm a nice guy, so why can't I get laid?"

Maybe it was just some guy using the only method he knew how to get in her good graces for a chance with her

Two things here:

1.) Calling someone sexist doesn't mean that that person is an irredeemable vat of evil boiling purulence for all time.It just means exactly that: someone acts/reacts in a way that society has taught them to. Such people can learn, get a clue, listen to the women who say "This shit creeps us out, yo" (remember that one in 6 or 7 figure - think that has anything to do with being creeped out?) and then realize "Wow, I was being an ass. I should not do that anymore".

2.) Why does he need to believe he has "a chance" with some random person on the internet just because (he thinks/was told) that person has a vagina? And why should a be-vagina'd person, or a person perceived to be be-vagina'd, allow such blatant entitlement and disrespect to stand so the poor guy can go on feeling he's got "a chance" - keep their vagina "open to the idea", so to speak? Or even feel flattered, or in any way complimented, by what some random dood, who has never met/seen (presumably) her, thinks of her fuckability?

Why can't he just say "that comic was great", as he would have if he thought a guy drew it?

There ARE fundamental differences between men and women.

None that validates discrimination. Also, I'd love to hear what you think those differences are (genetalia aside, please - you ARE aware that gender isn't a binary, right?) but I suspect I'll regret asking.

Most guys are painfully stupid about women. Thus, the bottle service, calf implants, jersey shore, and my wages.

IDGI. What does "most guys [being] painfully stupid about women" (this is true to a degree, but not in the way I suspect you mean) have to do with your wages, or any of the other things you mentioned?

Once I actually know them, of course. The sex drive is instant. Acting or not on this impulse and in what way and when is the thing. As I said before, in any type of work environment they should be treated like you would treat any other man.

So. Much. Fail. Here. Seriously, I don't even know where to begin. Your insistence that men are ruled by their penises? If that's the case, why the fuck are they in charge of everything? Also, WHY do you hate men so much? I am a feminist, and *I* believe that men are capable of more.

Also, why should women be "treated like you would treat any man"? Don't you see that you're setting some perception of the male, and maleness, and masculinity, as the default to conform to here, and how very wrong and damaging and counterproductive that is, to both men AND women?

And then there's the assertation that you only treat women like people "once [you] actually know them, of course". I don't even know where to start with this one.

@226 I honestly dont think I have ever seen your situation. I have seen no evidence of this cabal of men determined to keep women down. There are douchebags like this I admit, but in any job I have had they were always the shitbags making excuses not those in charge. i.e. the victim mentality I so despise.

Once again, your assertions that because YOU don't see something with your own goddamn eyes, it just doesn't exist for the people who actually experience this shit. What's with the empathy fail?

Also, since this is the second time you mention this "victim mentality" thing you despise so, I'd like to know exactly HOW you define this concept?

Posted by: A. Nuran | October 30, 2010 4:18 AM

Can we please distill this comic and inject it into everyone on a "Men's Rights" forum?

Posted by: F | October 30, 2010 4:40 AM

I-have-a-penis Jim:

It's not about you.

Posted by: KIN | October 30, 2010 4:51 AM

This blog post was so good it makes me want to f---

Erm..

I mean the comic is awesome in both art and substance. Plus the discussion it has spun is also important, so cheers to all of you fighting the good fight.

Although. one thing that bothers me is why the guys in the comic go pink randomly. Is the artist trying to say something with that or does it just look good that way?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 5:12 AM

I'm sorry to say this, but the left-wing feminist complaint about the "toxicity of the culture" rings just as hollow to me as all the right-wing tirades.

Of course it does, because you don't notice it. Sexism, you're swimming in it! You just don't notice because it isn't directed at you.

Prudery is prudery, no matter where is comes from.

What is prudish about "don't be shitty towards women"?

Posted by: quantheory | October 30, 2010 5:20 AM

I have to groan everytime I hear about how pornography is is turning men into sexists and objectifying women, or how all women have to cope with unfair expectations because men like to fantasize about swimsuit models.

So you're complaining about something not in this thread. I'm guessing that as soon as you see feminists mentioning that women are not walking vaginas, you feel free to complain about the prudishness of feminism, regardless of what's actually being said or the actual opinions of the commenters.

Oh, and with a healthy dose of false balance. Pro tip: any argument that criticizes both the right and the left in order to gain credibility, instantly sounds about half as intelligent.

To be clear, I don't think telling a random female how much you'd like to fuck her accomplishes that goal, and I wasn't trying to defend that particular example of misogyny with this post.

So you're explicitly not discussing the issue that is being raised in this thread.

I'm failing to appreciate your irrelevant comment.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | October 30, 2010 5:28 AM

I could have bet all I have that certain comments here would surely appear.
Sometimes it would be nice to be disappointed

Posted by: John Morales | October 30, 2010 5:36 AM

Jim:

All right, here's my problem. I really don't like prudes and self-righteous types.

Well, yeah, I can see how disliking yourself would be a problem.

Perhaps you could try addressing that self-righteousness?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 5:38 AM

You know, I wanted to avoid this guy entirely, but just have to respond to this part.

In the nightlife industry the tables are super turned. Women get in free. Men pay. Women get VIP access to tables, men pay 400$ a bottle, with a 1k minimum.

That's because women aren't the customers; they're the product being sold to the customers. The men wouldn't pay 1k for a table unless they had potential access to a whole lot of women, preferably ones who had been drinking and are judgment-impaired. Not as many women would show up and get nicely drunk if they had to pay a lot to do so, so the bars/casinos/whatever offer it for free to try and get a larger sampling of women for the paying customers to paw over.

Posted by: Jim | October 30, 2010 5:41 AM

@Jadehawk
For what it counts, I put quite a bit of thought into my post, read what others were saying, considered all the best arguments I'd read, and tried to clearly express my honest opinon. You saw fit to piss all over everything I wrote without refuting any of it. If you're saying that I wasn't original or my arguments are tired I would like to know where you've heard them before. I'm not saying you haven't, it's just an honest question.

Really though, I did my damndest to qualify a lot of what I said. I'm not an absolutist and I'm certainly willing to be shown where I'm wrong. My only real commitment is to reason. I can only ask that my opinions be evaluated on their own merit, and not dismissed out of hand because they don't jive with whatever you're predisposed to think.

@Carlie
About your second point. I tried to make it clear that that wasn't my argument at all. Defending women from behavior that makes them personally miserable wouldn't fall into the realm of prudery.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 30, 2010 5:55 AM

You saw fit to piss all over everything I wrote without refuting any of it. If you're saying that I wasn't original or my arguments are tired I would like to know where you've heard them before.

but you're not. it's even gotten to the point where feminists have made bingo-cards with the most common d00dly tropes, just to get SOME sort of entertainment out of the mindnumbing predictability and repetitiveness of the opinions of ignorant men criticizing them.

Posted by: F | October 30, 2010 5:59 AM

Jim, that shit is oh so fucking irrelevant to the discussion. Wuffo you bring it up? Wuffo?

That, in my estimation, is just the first problem, and rather negates anything you had to say, even if it were (hypothetically) to have some gem of insight. Its off-topic in a discussion which is (sadly, nearly always) about staying on-topic because some men seem to be quite incapable of doing so.

If you don't get the topic, shut up, read more.

Posted by: Aquaria | October 30, 2010 6:03 AM

Carlie:

That's part of it, true, but the bigger reason strip clubs let women in for free is that having a place where women feel "welcome" brings in men who might not otherwise go to a strip club: A broader clientele = more money.

"If women go there, it can't be sexist, so why would you have a problem with it, honey?"

Some men are just dumb enough to think that's a cogent argument.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 6:13 AM

bingo card one

bingo card two

If anything you want to say is already on the cards, you might want to think twice about saying it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | October 30, 2010 6:18 AM

he also hits the "you give feminists a bad name" square

anyway, here's a newer card: http://hoydenabouttown.com/20080218.1460/antifeminist-bingo-2/

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 30, 2010 6:19 AM

I have a penis Jim:

For what it counts, I put quite a bit of thought into my post, read what others were saying, considered all the best arguments I'd read, and tried to clearly express my honest opinon. You saw fit to piss all over everything I wrote without refuting any of it.

You came in mouth blazing and vomited a lot of shit everywhere. Jadehawk didn't piss all over you or what you wrote. She simply made it clear that what you "spent a great deal of time over" is not well thought out and it's hardly new here; we've heard such rhetoric before.

Why don't you sit on your hands for a bit, and do some reading. Try this first: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/boys_will_berevolting_misogyni.php as that was the thread leading to this one.

Try to discover where many of your stupid "points" were brought up.

After you're done with that reading, try here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/the_woman_problem.php

And here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/we_have_been_scrutinized.php

...continued in the next post...

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 30, 2010 6:20 AM

Carlie, Jinx!

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 30, 2010 6:22 AM

Never mind, one of the subsequent links answered it.

So is there an actual random number generator involved in determining when it's important for a thread to stay "on topic" and when it isn't? Or is it more of a fractal-curve kind of thing?

Posted by: John Morales | October 30, 2010 6:25 AM

Jim:

If you're saying that I wasn't original or my arguments are tired I would like to know where you've heard them before. I'm not saying you haven't, it's just an honest question.

Try searching the site for +feminist* +prude*.

Or start here: The problem of the oblivious white male atheist

Me, I tend to leave the arguments on this topic to those who have given the issue much thought; what I do is read, pay attention and meta-comment.

Like now.

--

[This is one topic where Skeptifem shines. Where is she?]

Posted by: MrFire | October 30, 2010 6:53 AM

BTW, could you ask Josh or someone to send me your email?

Gladly! It would be an honor!

Posted by: Jim | October 30, 2010 7:02 AM

All right, after reading some more of the reactions to my post I guess have some apologizing to do. Firstly, I shouldn't have taken this thread off topic and I shouldn't have interjected my own personal opinions where they weren't welcome or relevant. I thought if I was self-deprecating and reserved enough I could get some feedback on my pet theories. I certainly got feedback, just not the kind I was hoping for. I'm not anti-woman, and my distaste for sexism comes from my abhorrence of irrationality and needless suffering. I hope the women (and men) who responded to my post don't think otherwise about me.

I did draw a moral equivalence between feminists and religious nutjobs, which I regretted almost as soon as I posted. As an atheist I resent being compared to vile fundies, and I should have known better than to use this tactic in my argument. Some of what I wrote I still maintain, but please believe me that I did not mean to compare the motivations of feminists to the motivations of the likes of Jerry Falwell.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | October 30, 2010 7:43 AM

Every time someone reposts "I have a penis Jim" in this thread I hear it in Dr. McCoy's voice. original Star Trek

It would be kind of cool to attempt a co-ed online discussion/analysis of why sexuality is so fucked up in contemporary America and why Gabby's comic about online conversations is so true it actually replicates the Meme.

I realize that reproductive forces are very powerful but when our sexuality so often generates anger, jealousy, grief, lonliness, self-loathing, insecurity and just about every other psychic malady, one cannot help but suspect that there is something VERY wrong with the way we continue to construct our social values and priorities.

oh well, at least it ain't Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: palaeodave | October 30, 2010 8:12 AM

OurDeadSelves, Mother of Death @ #230

"I'm picturing a super massive black hole made out of asshole, where the stupidity is so strong that no rational/empathetic thoughts can escape."

Bravo!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2010 8:16 AM

Internet comments make me lose all faith in humanity.

depends on the comment

Posted by: Eidolon | October 30, 2010 8:26 AM

Azkyroth @ 354:

Funny, I had the same question. Does the same process apply to determining the goal keeper?

Posted by: Shala | October 30, 2010 8:32 AM

"I'm picturing a super massive black hole made out of asshole, where the stupidity is so strong that no rational/empathetic thoughts can escape."

oh my

Maxie Cupcake isn't too big on giving actual answers, though.

figures. What an idjit he is.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 8:38 AM

There's a couple of things on those cards that you should be very careful to automatically define as "anti-feminist" too. Context is as always your gender-neutral regent of choice

...as I noted at 351. The cards are meant to describe problems that occur during arguments about women's issues.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 9:06 AM

Whoa, I totally missed something.

Markjn:

I do not condone rape. Fuck you for implying I do.

*sigh*

Read what I wrote, asshole. It isn't the problem of you (singular) saying "rape is a-okay", but a problem society wide of people complaining about the "victim mentality".

What exactly is the "victim mentality", hmm? Is it because women have it so good now that we're not allowed to point out the shortfalls of our culture? Are women keeping you down while having the nerve to point out that we're second-class citizens? Are you one of those oppressed wittle males that doesn't get free drinks at the clubs? Oh boo hoo hoo, a couple of cocktails does not make up for centuries of oppression.

Using words like "victim mentality" serves two purposes: 1) it belittles those who are actually victims and 2) it keeps everyone else in their place because we don't want to be seen as uppity bitches who only want to tease men (like those mythological strippers¹ you mentioned who are out there living the golden life). It reinforces the idea that women should just sit down and shut up while the menz are talking.

So, hey, while you might not say "rape is okay", you're actually reinforcing rape culture because in your eyes, any woman talking about her circumstances is just playing the victim card and shouldn't be taken seriously. 'Cos we get free drinks and give men blue balls², dontchknow.

¹And before you say anything, fuck you, I know strippers, too.

²Whatever happened to good ol' fashioned masturbation? For crap's sake, is it a woman's job to do everything for you?

Posted by: tielserrath | October 30, 2010 9:10 AM

Thanks for your kind words, Deviant One.

For the record the previous bullying boss, who ruined over 5 years of my life (because I fell for the 'it's all my own fault, I'm a bad person headfuck and it took me that long to scrape back enough self-respect to get out of there) was a woman.

But this guy is inappropriate towards young, pretty female employees and vicious to older, ugly ones. Neither behaviour is acceptable, but it's clear where the sympathy will lie.

BTW, going back to the original subject of the original thread, I would just like to point out that if you're autistic and have difficulty with nonverbal cues, you live in a world where all you can do is take a lot of what's said at face value.

Unless you've had a lot of time to get to know someone, which means watching them closely and factoring in their speech, their actual behaviour, other people's reactions to them and so on, it's pretty much impossible to decide whether they mean what they say. I tend to assume that what comes out of people's mouths reflects their actual opinions, because I am unable to comprehend why you would put forward a view that wasn't true.

So for me, these wouldn't be just frat boys having a laugh, they would be men who are endorsing rape, and whom I am expected to sit next to in lectures, bump into at social events and encounter on darkened pathways around the campus. To be honest, I would probably have had to give up any hope of completing my course; the fear simply wouldn't be worth it.

I'm aware that most of you live an existence where you have a subconscious early warning system that alerts you to threatening situations.

Just try, for a few minutes, to imagine what it's like to live life without that. Remember the robots in I, Robot? That's what people look like to me. Completely uninterpretable aside from the words they say. And I realise I'm in a minority (of about 1%), and therefore it really doesn't matter if such a small number or individuals would be scared shitless by this purely because of their unalterable neurology, but I take the view that terrifying anyone unnecessarily is unacceptable.

Maybe there is an autistic student who has overcome enormous hurdles to get to Yale, who is right now curled up on her bed, shaking, with the door locked, wondering what her parents will say if she goes home and tells them she's changed her mind, she'd rather wipe down tables at the local cafe than stay at Yale with a bunch of boys who will rape her if she says no.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 9:11 AM

Thebear - that's ok, I was typing at 4am. I almost don't want to go back and find out what I might have said before I woke up. ;)

Bjoern U - you're ahead of a lot of people just by realizing that, and calling it "joss wheadon/randall munroe sexism" shows that you're a lot more understanding of the issue in all its guises than you're giving yourself credit for.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | October 30, 2010 9:54 AM

Damn near nobody (whatever their sex) wants to be forced into a type of work based on how they look :/

Well, you're sort of a fat blonde man. You'll be a mechanic. Enjoy. And STFU mechanics make plenty of money. Hoped to do something else with your life? Well fuck you.

Posted by: toth | October 30, 2010 10:12 AM

People jump to -isms too easily. The comment in that comic? Juvenile, crass, but how is it sexist?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 10:24 AM

toth:
Oh for the love of fuck. Please tell me your joking. Please?

Sexual harassment is a very real problem that women face every day. We are often not respected for our intelligence or our skills-- we are viewed as penis cozies. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE COMIC.

Lacing a complement with "it makes me want to fuck you" (or whatever) devalues women. Period. We are not here for men's physical enjoyment, nor do we want to be reduced to the status of a fucking blow up doll.

Posted by: Deviant One | October 30, 2010 11:09 AM

Toth, maybe you should try readingn this thread? Just a suggestion.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 30, 2010 11:28 AM

That sexism against women has happened and continues to happen is not being missed.

Well you seemed to miss it, so I do not think you are correct in saying it is not being missed.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 11:50 AM

Shorter Lotherloo:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?! Read my post at #246, in which I already addressed your concerns.

In case you missed it:

... once one misogynist opens his big, fat, ignorant mouth the floodgates are opened and all of a sudden you've got a horde of mouth-breathers on your hands.

Seriously, shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Pen | October 30, 2010 12:00 PM

So why don't women (typically) comment on men's attractiveness or otherwise when they're talking to them?

I know I do form an opinion of the attractiveness of most men, but I tend to keep it to myself, in favor of getting on with the task at hand. My mom told me it was rude to make personal remarks and that seems about as personal as it gets. I'm pretty sure nobody needs to know how cute I think he is (husband excepted, of course).

What do the rest of you think? Is it just so obvious that it's rude that we would never do it, and can't quite get why so many guys are being so rude to us?

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | October 30, 2010 12:04 PM

Lotharloo @387
It's a comic, every nuance can't be taken into consideration in a comic. Of course stereotyping is bad, but the author is exaggerating to make a point. I think that should be obvious. It is good to know that you notice sexism against women, but a lot of people don't, don't care or they contribute to it. Women go through that kind of crap every day and sometimes it feels like most men really are assholes. Like you.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | October 30, 2010 12:18 PM

If you are accusing me of lying anything I say doesnt matter anyway. I did see an incidence of fraternization. Our masterchief and a junior sailor. He broke it off with her to stay with his wife, she told the command, and he was demoted to E1, forced to separate, and denied retirement.

No, I'm accusing you of being dense and not understanding your culture. The good old boy cops didnt' have to be actually Klans men, as long as it was known that they were in some form of agreement with white surpremacy (even seperate but equal, or "why are you so uppity"? bull) no one would actually think to make complaints to them. They'd have a conscious or unconscious bias towards the white side. Just like YOU for example clearly have a bias towards men means that no woman would feel comfortable complaining to anyone like you. The evidence is that you ARE an asshole to when people here explain their experiences. Why would you expect any woman to bother sharing with an entire organization of you fuckhead gun totting dick chompers.

Oh and for male prostitute, you can make a LOT more money than the chicks if you're willing to do it right. Men for men escorts make the good money, men for women are a virtual no go due to the supply willing to work pro bono. So I literally get to say to you "go suck a cock"

Posted by: mikefoxtrothow | October 30, 2010 12:34 PM

Ing @396

Hey! I happen to be a gun toting dick chomper! Though i prefer "bisexual who is also a gun owner."

I also seem to have very little in common with the creep you are arguing with.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | October 30, 2010 1:11 PM

I thought he was a bisexual gun ownwer. I had one of those. Over and under .410/22

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 30, 2010 1:23 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp #393

Let's talk about my penis.

Good idea. This thread could use some comic relief.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2010 1:47 PM

Good idea. This thread could use some comic relief.

HAYOOOOOOOOO

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 1:57 PM

Let's talk about my penis.

Good idea. This thread could use some comic relief.

Ouch, burn!

Manny Calavera:
At issue is not sexuality. It is the fact that women are routinely reduced to their physical appearance and their "fuckability" and not respected for their intelligence/skills. Telling a female stranger that you like X and now you want to fuck her is really REALLY demeaning. We want to be treated as human beings, not a fleshlight.

How many more times do I have to fucking explain this?

Posted by: Iris | October 30, 2010 2:12 PM

I have to say as an occasional vagina user...

What. The. Fuck.

Who doesn't want to be called sexy??

I most emphatically do not. It is not flattering. It is not a compliment. When uttered by a male I don't know (or by most males I do for that matter), it is at best creepy and at worst terrifying and enraging. And the reasons it's creepy and terrifying and enraging should be apparent to anyone who has read this thread.

You're dangerously close to bingo square "I’d love it if a babe forced herself on me sexually."

And I'm dangerously close to suggesting you "use" a porcupine.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 30, 2010 2:15 PM

While I do see the point of the comic I have to say as an occasional vagina user and web comic fan, is it really such an offense to want to use the vagina of an interesting, intelligent and creative person??

No, Manny, you do not see the point of the comic. There is more to women than their vaginas. Unfortunately, for a lot of men, women are vaginas and anything else: intelligence, wit, creativity, etc.; is ancillary to the vagina.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 30, 2010 2:18 PM

Iris:

I have to say as an occasional vagina user...

What. The. Fuck.

That was so charming, wasn't it? And yet, these clueless mouth breathers really think they are something special.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 2:20 PM

I knew we were eventually gonna have to have the compliment discussion. I started half a comment last night about it, and then scrapped it.

But Manny gives me the opportunity to discuss it further.

First, Manny, go through your post and count up the number of times you said "I" and "me." Your post is all about your wants and needs and how you think that you should be allowed to impose them on other people. Is it wrong to feel attracted to smart sassy women? No. However, why do you feel the need to make that attraction known to the person right then and there? Seriously? Why? Ask yourself that and REALLY REALLY think about the answer.

Also, you find the cackling hens and glass-eyed manniquens women are content to be boring? Oh, there's so much to unpack here, starting with the assumption that women are performing for YOU. They are not. They are women going about their own lives, chatting with their friends, or contemplating their lives, and if you want them to be all spicy and exciting for you, it's because once again, it's all about You. Why does your need to "compliment" somebody trump what you know (or don't know, more likely) about their comfort with that compliment.

Secondly, you used words which compare women to livestock and commodities. This is doubly offensive considering that for the bulk of history that's exactly how women were treated, but we expect better of men these days.

Thirdly, and this isn't just Manny, people keep opening their mouth and letting their id speak without considering contexts:

- How well do you know this person?
- Do you think this person would value this as a compliment?
- If you don't know the person well enough to know that, then WHY DO YOU SAY IT?
- Would you treat somebody of the gender you weren't attracted to in the same way? Keep in mind the congruency of how well you know the person and if they would value such a compliment.

I keep seeing people justify this by mentioning that they treat their friends the same way. Well, that's great, you may know your friends well, but you don't know random strange artist girl on the internet at all. It's terribly inappropriate to compliment the magnetising powers of her vagina at this point. It really is.

And even when you get to know her better, consider that males have traditionally been praised for their efforts, while women are traditionally praised for how they look. So you aren't making the comment in a vacuum. You are playing into thousands of years where women are overlooked. Quick, how many women artists can you name off the top of your head from an art history text book?

The first woman artist in my art history textbook is Artemisia Gentileschi, who by the standards of any age is a rip-roaring good artist, but who also comes with a historical footnote: She was raped by one of her fellow art students. She's a fucking awesome artist, and yet, right there in my art history textbook is a note about how some guy had to fuck her against her will.

Connie Willis, award-winning science fiction author gets up to speak at a convention. Harlan Ellison (grumpy old man embodying male privilege) takes this opportunity to squeeze her boob (as a joke, oh-ho!--where have we heard that before), thus taking the opportunity to let all the women in the audience know that no matter how respected you get, no matter how GOOD you are at what you do, some men can find a way to reduce you to your sexual parts and deny you full membership to the club of Real Human Being.

Angela Merkel (whose politics we will not comment on, because that would be a derail) was the Head of State for Germany--an entire country. George Bush still feels it was a-ok to start giving her a shoulder rub in the middle of an international summit. Sorry, can you see George Bush walking up to Putin or Sarkovsky or Blair and offering a foot rub?

The message women are constantly getting is: No matter how good you are, no matter how competent, you are still just a set of tits and a vagina.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 2:23 PM

Manny:

You still didn't explain why telling somebody you find them sexually attractive is demeaning them.

Because we hear it all the fucking time no matter the context. I want to be respected for my intelligence, not whether or not you want to stick your dick in me.

Stop assuming that it's a complement. IT IS NOT. As I have said, and said, and said, I (and pleeeeeenty of other women) want to be treated as HUMAN BEINGS, not your personal fantasy.

Seriously, fuck off. I don't want to explain myself again because you're too fucking dense to get why treating a woman like a fucking sex object is demeaning.

Posted by: Manny Calavera | October 30, 2010 2:24 PM

#408

You're dangerously close to bingo square "I’d love it if a babe forced herself on me sexually."

and you're dangerously close to putting words in my mouth.

I was careful to say that telling somebody you find them sexually attractive should in no way be done with the expectation that this gives you some kind of right to have sex with them.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 30, 2010 2:27 PM

Manny Calavera:

I was careful to say that telling somebody you find them sexually attractive should in no way be done with the expectation that this gives you some kind of right to have sex with them.

Which misses the point entirely.

For someone who claims to value intelligence, how about working on sharpening up what little brain you're working with? Stop worrying about potentially usable vaginas, and just worry about yourself.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 2:29 PM

Steve:

Will there be a comic showing the reverse scenario, in which women on some forums gang up on male posters who politely disagree with a female poster?

Hey, I just got bingo!

What's my prize?

(How many different ways can we hear BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?! today?)

Posted by: No One | October 30, 2010 2:35 PM

Manny at #405

I have to say as an occasional butthole user your highly intelligent post turned me on. Any chance we can hook up and I could top you?

Get it?

Posted by: Manny Calavera | October 30, 2010 2:36 PM

No thanks no BS, I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.

Hmm?

Posted by: No One | October 30, 2010 2:42 PM

I already said, I'd find that incredibly flattering and a little amusing.

Not if you where in a jail cell. Or if he was your boss. Or if he had no teeth and played the banjo.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 2:48 PM

I already said, I'd find that incredibly flattering and a little amusing. Now if it was just, 'You have a nice ass, I want to fuck it' I would find that inappropriate but if a gay fellow told me he was so impressed by my work he wanted to fuck my cute little ass yes, I'd be flattered.

We have to stop using the Decent People Meter with the assholes that come in here. They always flunk it.

Also, I'm sure Manny isn't very bright because he hasn't spotted the glaring hole he's created by using this yardstick.

See, Manny says he would find "You have a nice ass! I want to fuck!" inappropriate. Apparently, even he has standards.

But as soon as his work comes into play, suddenly he's flattered.

But, Manny, here's the big question: How do you know they're sincere? How do you know they aren't total assholes that are just smarter than you? I mean, if they've figured out already that they can't just walk up to people and say, "Nice ass, let's fuck," they may have already figured out the crude manipulation of pretending to like somebody, pretending to admire their work, just to get in their pants.

And if you think women haven't figured this out, from ages back, well, you are dumber than I thought.

My yardstick: If somebody insists on bringing my sexuality into every discussion of my intelligence, my artistic skill, or my general competence, well, I'm pretty certain they aren't interested in those things. Not really.

Posted by: Manny Calavera | October 30, 2010 2:48 PM

No, I was wrong #425. I completely apologise. I should keep all my opinions about people's attractiveness completely to myself. Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to chastise those ladies on youtube for objectifying poor old Nick Cave.

PS. I know a guy who thinks you're cute. I know, what a bastard. Allow me to go kick him in the dick for you.

Posted by: Deviant One | October 30, 2010 2:53 PM

Manny. You're ignoring the context in which this all takes place. One in six or seven women in America will suffer sexual assault in her lifetime, remember that?

This ties into what I said earlier (which I'll quote since I suspect you didn't even BOTHER to read the entire thread before barging in and trying to enlighten us with your Dudely! Wisdom!):

[You can] get a clue, listen to the women who say "This shit creeps us out, yo" (remember that one in 6 or 7 figure - think that has anything to do with being creeped out?)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 2:57 PM

I was careful to say that telling somebody you find them sexually attractive should in no way be done with the expectation that this gives you some kind of right to have sex with them.

That doesn't matter. They still now have to contend with the fact that you've inserted sex into a conversation where it had no business being. They now have to deal with feeling creeped out every time they notice your eyes wander down when they're trying to talk to you. They have to come up with some "appropriate" response to your "compliment" that doesn't potentially put them in any danger (do you have any idea how many men get angry and violent when they're rebuffed and their precious manhood ego is damaged? It's a lot.) They now have to deal with the fact that no matter what else is going on, you're thinking of them as a sex object. Do you not understand why this is wrong?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 3:01 PM

Manny:
Hey, fuck you. How's about you try using my name? It's right there above my post.

Now, if this:

I should keep all my opinions about people's attractiveness completely to myself.

wasn't a piss poor attempt at snarky sarcasm, then I'd say you were on the right track. Objectifying strangers (key word there, one I've used several times already) is demeaning and rude. WOMEN DO NOT WANT TO BE REDUCED TO OUR SEXY PARTS. Adding insult to injury is the fact that it happens all of the fucking time. Why is it so much to ask that if you like a woman's artist work (or whatever), you just keep it to complimenting her skills? Her abilities have fuck all to do with her sexuality or her sexiness, so why even bring it up?

Oh, right. It's 'cos you're not a decent human being. Silly me for forgetting.

I know a guy who thinks you're cute. I know, what a bastard. Allow me to go kick him in the dick for you.

Hey nice job making a joke of the sexual harassment that I deal with on a regular basis. No, really, I'm laughing my tits off over here. It's totally fine that you're trying to minimize my experiences with sexism. Makes you look like such a nice fucking guy.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 3:05 PM

I think I said it wasn't wrong to be attracted to somebody because of their other qualities, or to find that intelligence does instill attraction. It DOES become an issue when you insist on bringing it to EVERY conversation about the person, or burdening the person with it when it is not appropriate. It's not the attraction that's at issue, it's the constant objectification that follows if you aren't able to separate the two.

Also, comparing women on YouTube swooning over Nick Cave or the Beatles or David Bowie (guilty!) who are performance artists and culturally powerful to a one-on-one exchange between two people who are directly communicating is false equivilancy.

And despite the fact that I did imprint on Bowie at a very young age, if I had the chance to meet Bowie live and in person, I doubt I would embarrass him or myself by telling him the details. (Besides, then he might write a song about me on the fly and I dread the consequences. "Objectifying woman, why do you tell me these things? No one thinks it's a compliment...")

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 30, 2010 3:17 PM

Manny Calavera @ 426;

No thanks no BS, I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.

Hmm?

Allow me to channel the attitude of the type of guys who behave in this fashion toward women, and instead apply it to you...

"Sorry, babe, you're just too damn fine. I gotta have me a piece of that tight arse."

"Oh, come on, baby, don't be a drag. You know you want it really...."

"Your mouth says no (your pretty little mouth...) but that hot body of yours says yes..."

"Look, you and I both know how this has gotta end. Just give it up, and save us both a lotta time."

"Hey, what's your problem, you frigid or something? You should be flattered I want to fuck you."

"This is happening, bitch. Get used to it."

Still feeling 'flattered', Manny?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | October 30, 2010 3:24 PM

Manny Cavalera,

I want to have sex with an interesting, creative, individual and strong willed woman. I want to do this because I know it's a deeper and more meaningful experience than the ugly soulless physical act most brainless people involve themselves in.

Your implication is that the intelligence and talent are part of the presentation of a vagina.

I may not hit this perfectly the first try, but I have hope.

Anyone who is approaching a relationship with another human based on the prospective quality of the sexual activities that they may end up sharing with each other is shallow because they are putting their personal desire for sexual satisfaction on a pedestal. They are also suffering from delusions about how sex works, not only should desire not be put on that pedestal, it does not need to be. Good sex can't be predicted that way.

Sex is a skill that people practice together, not something that is good because of prior existing traits of potential partners. The nuances of sexual interaction are not well represented in normal life. Looking at a person, hearing them talk, viewing their art, sharing their non sexual passions, and even sharing their time, cannot tell you what the sex will be like. It is thus, not only shallow, but foolish, to say that you are sexually interested in a person because of the quality of sex that you will have with them*.

So why not experience interesting, intelligent, creative individuals on the level that they have exposed themselves in public. Maybe you will get closer to them because they are interested in you. Maybe not, but at least you will both be playing a part in that decision.

*There is an unfortunate exception to this and that is someone who doesn't have sex with other people, but instead performs sex on other people. For such a person, the contribution of their partner is merely a physical canvas for a more complex form of masturbation. It does not take much to understand that to be objectification of a very high degree.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 30, 2010 3:32 PM

I want to have sex with an interesting, creative, individual and strong willed woman.

That's funny. I'd like to hang out with an interesting, creative, individual, and strong-willed woman. I want to do this because I know people who are individuals, with strong self-identity, excellent sense of humor (that is, laughs at my jokes), and intelligent and broad-ranging interests is far more meaningful than the crass argument-laden relationships most brainless people involve themselves in.

Sex is (very) nice, but in the end, it's merely the least-engaging part of a relationship, as interesting as French Maid* outfits might be.

* Actually, most French Maid outfits chafe like a bear, so I stopped wearing them.

Posted by: Iris | October 30, 2010 3:37 PM

Manny:

I already said, I'd find that incredibly flattering and a little amusing.

I see. So because you would personally find it flattering and amusing, you are utterly incapable of understanding why women would not. Your projection and empathy deficit are painfully obvious.

Why isn't the fact that there are women right here on this thread telling you they find it demeaning and offensive (and exactly why), enough?

Why you would ever presume a woman you do not know very well gives a flying fuck that you think she's sexy? It reeks of entitlement and self-regard, and that is only part of why it is so often regarded as creepy.

No, I was wrong #425. I completely apologise. I should keep all my opinions about people's attractiveness completely to myself.

Yeah, I wish. You'll keep right on doing it, won't you Manny? Despite the fact that women are telling you that it's experienced by them as creepy and demeaning.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to chastise those ladies on youtube for objectifying poor old Nick Cave.

Why, it's almost as if you're aware that sexual assault and harassment can happen to men as well!

The thing that differentiates sexual assault and harassment from consensual sex and flirting is whether or not the conduct or speech in question is welcome. You, Manny, just assume that your proclamations of sexiness are welcome, because you would welcome it. What women are telling you here is it is not. Please consider this.

PS. I know a guy who thinks you're cute. I know, what a bastard. Allow me to go kick him in the dick for you.

Great! Thanks, Manny. I really appreciate it. Saves me the trouble of doing it myself, which I'd enjoy immensely of course, but I just hate having to buff all the little scratches out of my patent leather steel toed boot afterward.

Hint: There is nothing wrong with a complete stranger thinking someone is hawt.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 3:40 PM

Manny: I said it was false equivilancy. Please read closer. It is NOT the same as swooning over any rock star. It is not close to being the same context and pretending that it is does a disservice to the very real fears of women.

There's a sort of calculus going through a woman's head when she gets a compliment. It will be different for every woman, because they value different things, and aren't monolithic. If you introduce sexuality into a compliment though, you are in danger of objectifying the person you are complimenting unless you know them very very very well. (And even then, because of our society's social dynamics, male privilege renders sexualised compliments to be all about a woman's worth as she relates to male libido.)

When a woman receives a sexualised comment, it basically tells her that no matter what her efforts, she will never be judged by the same stick as men.

She may wonder if her work would have received the same accolades if somebody weren't hoping to get into her pants.

She may wonder if she now has to make nice to the person who just equated her body of work with her body.

She may wonder if she doesn't react in a particular way, will this person damage her career.

She may just be fucking tired of hearing about her body and how attractive she is, or isn't. She may be tired of having to perform for the male gaze.

She may wonder if her job will require to always look attractive, if she will somehow lose everything she's worked for if she can't maintain that level.

This ongoing calculus is exhausting. And annoying. And while there are some women who have been socialised to think its a-ok, or complimentary, after a lifetime of this, many women now receive such compliments cautiously. And the number one thing such compliments tell me is that "You don't know me well enough, but you have no problem making assumptions about me. You don't really see me. You see a compliment receptacle."

Posted by: jschmeau | October 30, 2010 3:50 PM

Maybe the root of the problem, for Manny and many others like him, is that they view themselves and their penises as objects (or tools) and cannot fathom that someone else may not have that same mindset. I can't think of any other way that referring to his "use of vaginas", even as a joke, could so easily roll off his fingertips.
You need have self-respect before you can honestly give respect to others.

Posted by: Nepenthe | October 30, 2010 3:54 PM

The vitriol in my comment at 453 was directed, of course, to Manny, not to pixelfish.

Posted by: Aagrajag | October 30, 2010 4:01 PM

I'm way late to the party here, but I still feel that I have to say something.

I don't post here often, but I've been reading this blog for a few years now, and I thought I had a pretty good feel for the vibe here.

I read the comic. I like the art. The insertion of the comic to the web scene, was pretty cool. It was also sexist. It made its point at the unnecessary cost of dividing men and women into opposing camps. I feel that's counterproductive at best.

But what really surprised me were the responses to anyone who (soon to include myself, I'm sure) took any exception to the comic or its point.

"It's not about you."

Yes, it's about misogyny on the Internet. It makes claims, implicit and otherwise about male privilege and patriarchy. People who have made very polite, coherent and reasoned posts objecting to or disagreeing with those premises have been dogpiled with even more vigor than have been the occasional godbots that wander in here.

A discussion about misogyny and the environmental factors that occasion it cannot usefully take place in an atmosphere that tolerates not even a meek opinion about a male's perspective. This is not thread-jacking; it is an attempt to clarify understanding and find common ground upon which to build.

What I expected to be the usual vigorous discussion here turned out to be equal parts pity-party, and screeching denunciation of all those not victims of the system as its culpable conspirators. This helps no one; it makes no allies; it advances no understanding or improvement of gender relations. Nothing.

I'm male. I don't remotely fit the image of a chauvinist or sexist. All of my close friends are female. I took my wife's name when we married. My wife makes most of our income. I do the cooking and cleaning and shopping. And I'm very happy in my life.

I am an atheist, in as much wonder of the natural world as the rest of you. I'm well educated, like most posters here. Extremely left-wing in politics, extremely socially liberal. I thought I fit in here. I'm with you in all other things.

The stereotyping, and misandry (which my browser's spellchecker insists is not a word) have truly shocked me. I feel as if a group of acquaintances, whom I thought I knew, suddenly started telling kike jokes.

When a person takes note that the suffering of one group of people should not diminish the recognition of the suffering of others, and attempts to expand the discussion to the larger human condition, that is not a bad thing. Compassion is an infinite resource.

In power relationships with women, I am honestly at a disadvantage, emotionally, socially and financially. But there's no war or hostility between the genders in my life. Some of you may wish to examine why this anger exists in yours.

Peace.

Posted by: jschmeau | October 30, 2010 4:06 PM

Some of you may wish to examine why this anger exists in yours.

Really? For real? No seriously, fucking really?

Posted by: Manny Calavera | October 30, 2010 4:09 PM

And when a woman receive a sexualised comment, it also reminds women who don't receive them how their work is valued. The ugly female painter and the fat female singer are noticing while you do your mating dance with the more attractive artists, understanding that they'll have to fight tooth and claw harder, maybe never be able to make a living from their art, because of how they look. Because at some level it's not about talent for women, it's about whether assholes like you want to fuck them.

AGAIN, just because I want to fuck some women it does not mean that's all I want to do with them or that I do not appreciate things about women I do not want to fuck. There are women I appreciate in almost every way but sexually, there are women I appreciate in every way possible including sexually and there are women (God I can already feel this being pounced on by some of you holier than thou assholes) but yes there are women I'm only interested in sexually, very few but they exist.

I find intelligent and creativity incredibly sexy but that does not mean I see every single intelligent or creative woman as nothing more than a sex object. Also the fact that I find these things sexy does not mean I cannot also appreciate them for their own sake. Sexual attraction is one aspect of my appreciation for a person, I'm just asking why this one aspect should sheepishly be avoided at all costs.

Posted by: Manny Calavera | October 30, 2010 4:16 PM

So...men go up to each other and tell them how sexually attractive they are all the time?

"ps. I shouldn't have to mention it again but for everyone who doesn't seem to want to get it. I am NOT, repeat NOT talking about putting a girl on the spot by walking up to her and telling her you want to fuck her."

From the exact same fucking comment you quoted. It's getting ridiculous now. I'm all for a little heathen shunning but at least try and refer to arguments I've actually made.

Posted by: jschmeau | October 30, 2010 4:20 PM

Manny,
No one cares who or what you find sexually attractive. How you choose or don't choose to express your attractions to a stranger is the issue. And in that regard you are not doing too well here.

Posted by: Aagrajag | October 30, 2010 4:23 PM

@#461

I knew of course, even as I posted, that the substance of my post would be ignored, and an intimation of misogyny would be made. I'm a bit surprised about the speed, though.

I politely stated my opinions. I thought that the purpose of a comment forum. I do not consider that "self-aggrandizing bullshit". If you'd like to address or respond to anything I actually wrote, I'd like to have your input.

If not, and in accordance with the general tenor of this thread, and you in particular: "Fuck you too." Which is I might add, still a more polite response than your unfair and insulting stereotyping of my gender. I'll not be dragged down to that level.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 4:24 PM

First, talking about "using the vagina" in this context is, in fact, dehumanising language. You have divorced the vagina from the person who consents. Repeating this reinforces the idea that the vagina is what you care about, not the person attached to it.

Manny, you keep ignoring the context of my statements. The best solution to this problem is to treat people as worthy of respect and not inflict your id on them at point-blank range. You will notice if you read my comments not just at 440, but 414 that I asked how well do you know this person, what do they value, why do you feel the need to compliment them, and if you do want to compliment them, why do you want to sexualise it?

When I said it was fine to be attracted to people because of their skills, intelligence, and other worthy qualities, I didn't mean that you had to immediately act on that attraction or make it known to them. Your id doesn't need to run the conversation.

As for your PS, how clear do we have to make it that while this occurred on the internet, it was still about as point-blank as telling the person that they didn't really see them, that their worth is still tied up in their levels of attraction.

I really wish the idea of false equivilancy would sink in for you. I've seen lists online about the top 25 hottest scientists and the top 25 hottest sports stars and so on, and the comments in those sorts of articles make it pretty clear that for large swathes of the population, women are valued first for their beauty, second for whatever achievements they've grabbed. You've handily chosen an example where men are often judged on their looks, but this is an exception to most real world interactions with men. Most men will not have to worry about their career prospects if they don't end up on a top 25 hottest male scientists lists, whereas a number of women will find people discounting their abilities or inflating their abilities based on the biases about their looks.

I went to a Picasso exhibit at the SAM, and saw the works of Dora Mar while I was there, and you could hear people saying that her photography wasn't anything special, and it's only because she was boinking Picasso that she got in. It's only because Picasso found her fuckable that a bunch of people see value in her work at all. That's wrong. No discussion of her artistic merits, but all discussion about her boinkability.

Posted by: Athyco | October 30, 2010 4:27 PM

From the parent thread:

Posted by: Markjn | October 28, 2010 6:21 AM

of course. because we live in super-magic-awesome-land, where threats to women are actually taken seriously and prompt immediate reactions from the cops.

I really 100% think that yes we do live in this kind of world. Am I really wrong about this??? I still dont understand why none of the girls called them.

You don't add up, Markjn, except in the light of male privilege and personal incredulity.

BTW, did you read the NPR link I left about 75-90% of those found responsible for sexual assault not being expelled from college? Did it not sink in that women who called the cops, went through the process, and successfully met the burden of proof could be almost certain that they could STILL encounter their assailant on campus?

You really 100% think otherwise about the world, including college, the military, and strip clubs?

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | October 30, 2010 4:32 PM

In power relationships with women, I am honestly at a disadvantage, emotionally, socially and financially. But there's no war or hostility between the genders in my life. Some of you may wish to examine why this anger exists in yours.

Aagrajag, please realize that this is not about you. Your experiences are not the same experiences as everybody else.

There are several regulars here who have been raped - maybe that could explain the anger? Others have give examples of sexist treatment in their professional life - could this perhaps be a source?

No, no of course not. Since you don't experience any such issues in your daily life, it is obviously a problem with the women.

How the fuck do you dare to try to blame the women for the tensions caused by misogynistic behavior of men? How dare you try to imply that it is the women who is the root of the problem?

Posted by: jschmeau | October 30, 2010 4:38 PM

If we wish to fight it, the first thing to do is to show men how it hurts them too

Aarrgh! Aaargh! No seriously, AAARRGH!

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | October 30, 2010 4:41 PM

Carlie:

IT IS IMPOLITE TO TELL A WOMAN HOW FUCKABLE SHE IS. Miss Manners would definitely agree with that one, I can assure you.

Win win win win! But you already have an OM, don't you?

Manny:
How many fucking times do we have to say it? This is not about you or what you find attractive in a woman. I could give a good flying fuck if you like interesting girls or quiet girls or whatever.

This is how women are generally treated in society. It is about sexual harassment in all its forms and making women feel degraded because some men cannot keep their asinine, belittle comments to themselves. (Your utter dismissal of sexual harassment isn't winning you any points, by the way.)

Why can't you just accept that women aren't going to be flattered when you tell them you want to fuck them? Why can't you understand that we want to be treated as equals and not a penis depot? Why can't you just have the common human decency to realize that, yes, comments like yours may very well hurt someone?

Like I've been saying, the problem is that we are sexualized ALL THE FUCKING TIME and it gets really old, really fast. I do not want to be treated as someone's fantasy simply 'cos I've got boobs and a vagina. Respect me for who I am, not what I have.

Posted by: Aagrajag | October 30, 2010 4:43 PM

@#472

I don't even know the genders of most of the posters in this thread. Most usernames are androgynous.

I don't blame women for anything.

To repeat: *I don't heap scorn and rage upon 50% of the human race for the actions of some of its number.*

An since you brought up rape again, try this:

Make a joke about a woman getting raped. See how many people smile or laugh or react with anger or disapproval. Now make a "don't drop the soap" joke about prison rape. Note the difference in reaction. There's your fucking rape culture.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 30, 2010 4:51 PM

A-dude, shut up. Nobody who's arguing with you condones prison rape. And yet, many men do, in fact, think jokes about rape are funny. MaxH spent, like, a couple of days here recently telling people to lighten up on his hip ironic bros.

Posted by: Aagrajag | October 30, 2010 4:53 PM

@jschmeau

That's now 2 non-comments from you. I think that your point is that this thread is exclusively to make posts agreeing with the point of the comic, and nothing else. And I do agree. But even suggesting that slightly altering the manner in which the topic is approached might make links and allies who can be useful in ameliorating the situation is, apparently wrong.

Please continue with the pity-party. Hopefully it'll get boring after a while, and you might decide to actually try to improve the situation about which you derive such self-satisfaction complaining.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 30, 2010 4:55 PM

Damn it. All you hysterical feminazis are trying to hurt small business owners. What have you got against Josh's Gently Used Vajines? I'm just trying to put food on my family.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | October 30, 2010 4:56 PM

Manny Calavera

Well

terrible awful thing only done by sexist rapists

commenting on somebody's sexual attractiveness (NOT looks) in relation to their creative work

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 4:57 PM

If we wish to fight it, the first thing to do is to show men how it hurts them too.

Because men won't pay any attention to anything if it doesn't directly affect them? It's been said before, and could use saying again: it's not feminists who demean and think badly of men. It's the men (and women) who stubbornly insist that men are a monolithic group that is no better than humanity's basest instincts.

I'm arguing against the general idea propagated here that commenting on somebody's sexual attractiveness (NOT looks) in relation to their creative work in an impersonal way over the Internet is a terrible awful thing only done by sexist rapists.

Who the hell ever said that commenting on women's body is only done by rapists? Strawargument cleanup over here, please. Also, you're still entirely ignoring the actual points that others and I made about exactly that kind of impersonal comment in favor of said strawargument.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | October 30, 2010 5:03 PM

Please continue with the pity-party. Hopefully it'll get boring after a while, and you might decide to actually try to improve the situation about which you derive such self-satisfaction complaining.

Listen fuckhead - we are trying to improve the situation while you are just telling people to quit complaining.

As a man, in a very homogeneous country, I am speaking from a position of privilege, but unlike assholes like you, I am aware of it, and try to address this.

And regarding your nonsense about rape jokes - many men do actually find them amusing, up to the point where they will go to feminist blogs and tell the women there to "lighten up", much like you're coming here and telling us to lighten up.

Posted by: sylvarcat | October 30, 2010 5:03 PM

*how is, not how does

Man, first comment on the board and already grammatically unsound. Ah well.

Incidently, hi everybody, longtime reader, firstime commenter. I was bored at work (tending horses in equine ICU) so I thought I'd jump into the fray.

Posted by: Nepenthe | October 30, 2010 5:04 PM

"Patriarchy", or whatever one wishes to call it, hurts everyone. If we wish to fight it, the first thing to do is to show men how it hurts them too. They then become your allies. And we all win.

"Discrimination" against atheists, or whatever one wishes to call it, hurts everyone. If we wish to fight it, the first thing to do is to show Christians how it hurts them too. They then become your allies. And we all win.

"Racism", or whatever one wishes to call it, hurts everyone. If we wish to fight it, the first thing to do is to show white people how it hurts them too. They then become your allies. And we all win.

"Homophobia", or whatever one wishes to call it, hurts everyone. If we wish to fight it, the first thing to do is to show straight people how it hurts them too. They then become your allies. And we all win.

Huh, all these statements sound equally stupid to me. YMMV, if you're a dumbass.

Posted by: jschmeau | October 30, 2010 5:05 PM

Aagrajag,
We all know how men have been objectified, enslaved, oppressed and, in general, subjugated throughout all of history.

Please shut the fuck up about it already!

Posted by: Aagrajag | October 30, 2010 5:08 PM

@#480

Respectfully: bullshit.

Many people, especially in the US regard prison rape not as regrettable, but a desirable feature of prison, just another facet of the punishment. Read Amnesty International's reports on the subject. The greater the sexism in a society, the more it's tolerated, even condoned.

Have you ever heard someone say about a sentenced criminal "I hope he gets raped, hard"? When have you heard that about a female convict?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2010 5:10 PM

And those of you not focusing on the rape of sheep as much as you are on the rape of women disgust me.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 5:13 PM

Have you ever heard someone say about a sentenced criminal "I hope he gets raped, hard"?

Do you honestly think that the peoplebut commenting in this thread says that? Do you honestly think that no one in this thread speaks up about that kind of language? Hint: we condemn lots of kinds of hateful opinions and speech, but are fully capable of focusing on one variant at a time for the sake of discussion. I have very strong negative opinions about teaching Creationism in schools, too, but according to the criteria you've laid out, I must not think it's that serious because I haven't talked about it here in this thread.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2010 5:17 PM

Have you ever heard someone say about a sentenced criminal "I hope he gets raped, hard"? When have you heard that about a female convict?

Prison rape is just as disgusting and abhorrent as non prison rape.

Easy.

Satisfied?

Now can you maybe figure out why people focus on the rape of women more than on the rape of men, in prison?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 5:20 PM

Which is I might add, still a more polite response than your unfair and insulting stereotyping of my gender.

I have never, ever said anything to stereotype all men. My comments were directed solely at you based on what you wrote, cupcake.

Of course nobody NEEDS to be told this but I still don't see why telling them this is such a wicked objectionable thing.

Because it makes women realize, yet again, that whatever she's doing isn't quite as important as how she looks. Because sometimes you don't want sexual attention, and don't want to have to fight off any mention of it. Because sometimes you just want to talk about the damned article or the song or the techniques or the report without being sized up.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2010 5:20 PM

You see people, Aragawhogivesashit thinks that rape condemnation is a zero sum game.

The more you condemn rape against females the less condemnation there is to use against prison rape.

Posted by: Aagrajag | October 30, 2010 5:28 PM

@#490 and #494
Your complaining in its present form serves no purpose but to alienate potential allies. All political and social change is best accomplished by convincing people that it is in their own best interest to effect it.

@#491
Dogwhistle? I know the term, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

And to those who have replied intelligently and politely, even in disagreement: thanks.
To those others: enjoy agreeing with each other's orthodoxy. I'm sure it will be very enlightening.

I'm going to dinner with my wife.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | October 30, 2010 5:29 PM

Sven,

Nobody who's arguing with you condones prison rape.

Respectfully: bullshit.

Many people, especially in the US regard prison rape not as regrettable, but a desirable feature of prison, just another facet of the punishment. Read Amnesty International's reports on the subject. The greater the sexism in a society, the more it's tolerated, even condoned.

Have you ever heard someone say about a sentenced criminal "I hope he gets raped, hard"? When have you heard that about a female convict?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 30, 2010 5:34 PM

Your complaining in its present form serves no purpose but to alienate potential allies. All political and social change is best accomplished by convincing people that it is in their own best interest to effect it.

Not true. It may alienate people like you, who are obsessed with style over substance, and that's fine. But I'm willing to bet that no matter how sniffy-huffy-prissy-pissy you get about politesse, you're not suddenly going to start defending rape because a mean old person here was sharp with you.

Posted by: Nepenthe | October 30, 2010 5:36 PM

I mean, they even have the bad form to be pissed off when a herd of privileged male jackasses turn up to mansplain to them that they are being so oversensitive about this whole sexual objectification thing, and that they should be glad that someone wants to fuck them, and has chosen to compliment their 'fuckability' as though that is the only attribute of theirs that matters.

We're not only being oversensitive, we're being heartless bitches for not understanding how much we're being complimented. I mean they're saying that they want to fuck us. They're saying that we are worthy of attention from their grand and mighty dicks! Nothing could possibly be better than that. How could we women dare to be ungrateful for such magnanimity?

As the man who raped me was fond of going on about, it really was amazing that he was willing to fuck me, me of all people, since I really didn't deserve such wonderful attention. He thought I ought to thank him and be grateful to be made to suck his glorious dick, after all, he was the only man who would ever deign to touch me and what could be more important than that. What a wonderful and generous guy.

Posted by: Manny Calavera | October 30, 2010 5:42 PM

I've always thought there was a flaw to the Golden Rule. I don't want other people to treat me like they want to be treated. I want them to treat me like I'd like to be treated.

While I don't live solely by the golden rule and do consider it flawed (since it leaves open the possibility of such phrases as, 'But I'd WANT to be killed if I was an offense to God) I don't think your rule is much better. Many people want to be treated in ways in which they should not be treated. I think the best thing to do is to decide between us how we should be treating each other, which is basically what everyone who's actually making a point here is trying to do.

It's saying, "While I like what you've done here and all, it's made me want to have sex with you."

You have taken an accomplishment and turned it into whacking material.

Is that really an appropriate way to compliment someone's accomplishment? By turning them into a receptacle for sexual desire?

but not SOLELY a receptacle for sexual desire, that's my point. Not SOLELY whacking material. You seem to think finding somebody sexually attractive or even telling them you do negates every other opinion or feeling you have about them.

Maybe the person you tell will think it does and maybe we do live in such an unequal society that women are conditioned to react to such comments in that way. Maybe that is enough reason not to make such comments but surely you have to admit that in and of themselves, comments that may make mention of sexual attraction do not by definition also have to be disrespectful and no more than objectification.

I was watching an interview with Leonard Cohen a while ago and the female interviewer said (paraphrasing), 'When I told my friends I was going to be interviewing you and I asked them if there was anything they'd like me to ask you, they said, 'ask him if he will make love to me'. Maybe their comments were silly and unnecessary but were they really committing the offense of objectifying poor Mr. Cohen for the cut of his hot little tuchus or was there a little more to it? Was there a suggestion that they would like to know how it feels to be intimate with a man of such passion and sensitivity. Is this such a bad thing??

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 30, 2010 5:53 PM

but not SOLELY a receptacle for sexual desire, that's my point. Not SOLELY whacking material. You seem to think finding somebody sexually attractive or even telling them you do negates every other opinion or feeling you have about them.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that's how it's likely to be received. If you admire the accomplishment, that is what you should praise. Adding the sexual desirability is likely to be received with an, "Oh, fuck. Another creep who wants to have sex with me."

As I said, it will most likely come off as insincere, obsequious, condescending, or just downright creepy.

And again, I don't pretend to speak for all women. I just know how my wife reacts.

Posted by: piranhaintheguppytank#9ee73 | October 30, 2010 6:06 PM

"Inexplicably, some people have a ticking time bomb in their brains. Sex, religion, politics, or a dripping faucet can make them go berserk. No one knows when they'll blow." --Sam Fuller (film director)

Certain message boards remind me of that quote.

Posted by: browncoatsyd | October 30, 2010 6:12 PM

Athyco

syd, you didn't bother to say that she was unfuckable and infirm, just that you offered your seat to a woman and she ranted on your ass.
You haven't yet said that you verbally noted her cane and politely added "if it would be better for you," but I guess the next comment just might.

If in your "being a gentleman" training, did it not include polite behavior towards men? Would a "gentleman" not offer his seat to a man of frailty, disability, encumbrance, or fatigue?

If part of the "patriarchy hurts men too" scheme is being tied to gentlemanly behavior towards women, toss it. Just be as gentlemanly towards women as you would be towards men.

(If the tone of the first two paragraphs gets one's attention but makes one blow off the second two, who's fault is that?)

Posted by: Athyco | October 30, 2010 6:13 PM

I think pitgt has given us a Dan Dennett deepity via a Sam Fuller quote.

Something to arouse curiosity without sparking skepticism.

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | October 30, 2010 6:26 PM

syd,

Please don't beat yourself up over this. Let me tell you how this situation is for me now that I'm wrinkled - earned every one of them! - and grey. No amount of going about in jeans and t-shirt, though, gets away from the fact that I have 68 year old knees. In cold, damp weather they creak so that sitting down and getting up again is actually work and not a good idea if I'm getting off the bus in a couple of stops. Totally different in summer, totally different if I'm on a longer journey.

So what should you do? I'd suggest that you stay in your seat, make eye contact and ask, "would you like this seat?" It leaves the older woman or whoever still in control whereas leaping up and doing Walter Raleigh gestures would bring out the worst in many of us. But I'm sure you wouldn't do that!

Gregory Greenwood,

You are wonderful.

Posted by: Manny Calavera | October 30, 2010 6:40 PM

Okay, this will probably be my last comment here, don't blow me over with the collective sigh of relief.

Anybody here or anywhere else that has ever suffered any form of stalking/sexual abuse has my deepest sympathies, I mean that seriously, I could mention that my sister is currently dealing with a stalker and I've had to make more than one threat against the guy over the phone in the past week just to help her feel safe but that doesn't really matter, as a matter of basic empathy my heart truly breaks for anybody experiencing problems with abuse or it's after effects.

As I've said before, I have conceded the point that due to the cultural climate of today's world, men probably should keep a close watch on the language they use when dealing with strangers. The thing I was mostly attacking and still am is the idea that simply commenting on a woman's sexual attractiveness makes somebody a misogynist and means they view her as nothing more than a piece of meat.

I received many intelligent responses but also many insinuations that I think all women should be overjoyed at the idea that I may want to have sex with them, that I think my sexual interests should be the most important thing in any woman's life and that I have the mentality of a rapist. Every one of you pathetic back patting heathen shunners should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 30, 2010 6:52 PM

Gregory, I blush in your general direction. :)

Aagrajag, should you come back, please put down that huge shield of defensiveness and re-read the entire thread. Take a deep breath, and realize that each time you get upset, that it's not about you specifically (well, except the parts that are). There is no big monolith of Man of which you are a part, and when specific types of behavior are condemned, nobody is saying that all men do this or that all men are responsible. Pay attention to what has been said, think about it from each person's point of view: what they have been through, why they would say what they say, what it means to them. Take yourself out of your own head for a moment, and see if it makes sense.

Manny, Manny, Manny. You are so missing the point, because you too are overreacting. Such emotional outbursts!

The thing I was mostly attacking and still am is the idea that simply commenting on a woman's sexual attractiveness makes somebody a misogynist and means they view her as nothing more than a piece of meat.

The idea that has been consistently shoved at you is that commenting on a woman's sexual attractiveness makes her feel like you are viewing her in a primarily sexual way. It really isn't about you, believe it or not. It's about how you are making women feel when you do it. Calling you names was more a response to how belligerent and obtuse you became trying to defend your position; however, the position itself was wrong because of how it makes women feel, not because of anything having to do with what you are.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 30, 2010 6:55 PM

Manny Calvera @ 530;

Every one of you pathetic back patting heathen shunners should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

I am sure that we are all horrified that we may have put a ding in your all-important ego. It is, of course, far worse than anything that happens to women on the internet. Afterall, it is not as though women have feelings that might get hurt, or experience fear from an unsolicited sexual 'compliment' due to an experience such as that described by naddyfive @ 529. As long as you just tell them that all that matters is their boinkability, with out actually raping them, then where's the harm? Amiright, Manny?

Don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out...

Posted by: Deviant One | October 30, 2010 7:00 PM

I'm fascinated by all the tone trolling going on in these kinds of threads.

What, because it's a discussion about misogyny, suddenly "accomodationalist" is the way to go? Fuck that noise, for the same reason it doesn't work for Atheism.

Posted by: Athyco | October 30, 2010 7:10 PM

You know what, Syd, the idea is simple. You thought you were doing a good thing; she didn't think you were doing a good thing. If you want to do this good thing so that the next woman will also think it's a good thing, do it in a way that clearly identifies your motives. Make sure those motives are based on what would be good for either men or women. The stranger for whom you wish to do this good thing does not know that you've always been a wonderful person.

You may or may not get a cookie for being a polite young man. It shouldn't matter.

In Pixelfish's response, in my first response, there was nothing about your not being a good person, about your being wrong for offering the seat. We told you to shift your standards for offering and to make them known to the recipient.
Do you have any disagreement of substance about that?

I tried to tie the on-going "tone" argument into my second point, and it did not work with you.

Posted by: Nepenthe | October 30, 2010 7:20 PM

Other human beings and their social motivations become completely incomprehensible. But only if there's a vagina attached, of course.

Ayup, I think I see yer problem here. You think they conceive of women as human beings. And your fan belt is wearing thin. That'll be 500 bucks please.

Posted by: TimKO,,.,, | October 30, 2010 7:22 PM

very meta

(supporting what it ostensibly purports to reject)

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 30, 2010 7:27 PM

What sort of experience do you think would make my opinion valid?

It depends on the scope of the opinion.

If you opinion is, "I like butterflies," you're fine with just your personal experience. If, on the other hand, your opinion is, "Women like to be objectified as sexual objects," your experience had best be universal, as you are making a universal statement.

Posted by: Deviant One | October 30, 2010 7:29 PM

@ 542 - Did you even READ the thread? It's been addressed, I assure you.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 30, 2010 7:35 PM

Nepenthe:

saying how much it hurt and then dissociating*

I know what you're talking about. That happened to me as a child when I was raped, first time at 3 years old. Sometimes, dissociating is the only thing you can do, the only way you can cope.

Posted by: naddyfive | October 30, 2010 7:39 PM

Yeah, Nepenthe. I think in the past couple of years it's finally snapped. This recent stalker, I almost think it's been his mission to suck the joy out of my sex life by scaring me. "If I can't have you..", etc.

Well, I don't give up that easily. Fuck em.

Posted by: Markjn | October 30, 2010 7:49 PM

If you opinion is, "I like butterflies," you're fine with just your personal experience. If, on the other hand, your opinion is, "Women like to be objectified as sexual objects," your experience had best be universal, as you are making a universal statement.

Clearly not what I said. I deal with tourists from all over the globe. This is about a comic where a guy comes onto her based only on a post he liked, I assume he has never seen her and therefore has no idea how attractive she is. I wonder what circumstances feminists think are appropriate for a guy to come onto them. The comic IMO is just an instance of a guy not being able to handle rejection. A pretty lame trait that nevertheless most losers share.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 8:05 PM

Markjn: I wonder what circumstances feminists think are appropriate for a guy to come onto them.

Try not thinking about everything a woman does as her attempt to win male approval or a proposition.

This thread was NEVER about women trying to meet men and men trying to meet women and how to facilitate that. (Although SEEING WOMEN AS PEOPLE and being pleased to meet them based on them being interesting and intelligent people without any idea of it increasing your boner might help in dispelling the creepy vibe you are currently giving off.)

What it was about was the consequences of linking a woman's attractiveness to her accomplishments.

What it was about was the way male privilege ignores what a woman might want while they trample over her feelings to get their ego-boost.

What it was about was how when women try to explain this, when they try to say, "Hey, guys, this doesn't work on a lot of us," men come crawling out of the woodwork to support their male privilege.

You are a frickin' textbook example of the little oblivious guys in the cartoon. We've been trying to tell you why this sucks, and you've been trying to semantically wiggle in exceptions and cling to your privilege.

We said there was nothing wrong in being attracted to somebody. We ALSO said that there was a time and a place for making that known, and it wasn't in a professional situation or in a forum where the woman was exhibiting a talent that has nothing to do with her attractiveness. BACK at 414, I asked you repeatedly about context and how well you knew the person and WHY did you feel the need to compliment them? That wasn't a rhetorical question actually. If you really did want to compliment them, we pointed out it was usually better to compliment them on the thing they had done that was awesome. If you expected a reaction, we pointed out that you were making it about you, and please rethink.

Posted by: tielserrath | October 30, 2010 8:19 PM

Nepenthe:

As the man who raped me was fond of going on about, it really was amazing that he was willing to fuck me, me of all people, since I really didn't deserve such wonderful attention. He thought I ought to thank him and be grateful to be made to suck his glorious dick, after all, he was the only man who would ever deign to touch me and what could be more important than that. What a wonderful and generous guy.

Oh, I get this, I really get this. Nepenthe, you have all the sympathy I can squeeze down the intertubes.

It's like the 'rape manual' mentioned on the previous thread - 'pick an unattractive girl and then no one will believe her'.

I was sexually assaulted by a family friend. I was fourteen years old and wearing my school uniform at the time. My parents kind of believed me, but weren't going to let this 'awkwardness' cause problems with their long-term friend.He gave my father fifty pounds, which was passed on to me, and that was the end of the matter. Because I was ugly, had extreme difficulty expressing emotion, and it was easier to pretend that I'd suffered no great traumahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/02/women.haltemprice (link is good for exposing attitudes at the time), it has never been mentioned in my family since the day it happened.

Manny, you might want to consider that not only are there women out there who simply don't want to know that you would be interested in having sex with them, there are women for whom your 'oh, it was just a throwaway comment about using her vagina, it didn't mean anything' stance cuts a bit close to home.

Our vaginas have been used in this throwaway manner, and it apparently 'didn't mean anything' for the man involved other than momentary sexual/egotistical satisfaction.

As has been pointed out above, the fact that you wouldn't turn up on the internet-woman's doorstep with a pack of condoms bears no relationship to the distress you have potentially caused her. One of the biggest hurdles we as modern humens have to get over is the idea that it's not about the intent of the person speaking, it's about how the statement is received.

Yes, free speech allows you to refer to a five year old afrocaribbean child as a 'dirty nigger', but presumably you wouldn't do it because of the damage to her self esteem (actually, I may be wrong here - maybe you'd not say it because her father would beat you up, which harks back to the previous comments about burning crosses etc). 'I'd like to have sex with you because you put cool art on your website' is demeaning and distressing to women, and therefore you stop doing it because you acknowledge that a decent person acknowledges and stops any behaviour that is distressing to someone else.

Is this really so hard to grasp?

Posted by: TimKO,,.,, | October 30, 2010 8:26 PM

@546
yes; i added my agreement

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 30, 2010 8:36 PM

I deal with tourists from all over the globe.

You also deal with them in a highly artificial situation. You're not involved with a co-worker who's just completed a difficult project in a timely fashion. You're not talking to someone sitting next to you on the bus. You're not interacting with an artist at a gallery. You're dealing with people expecting to have pleasure. Your livelihood depends on them achieving pleasure. So you help them attain that pleasure.

The people here are talking about the real world, not Vegas nightlife. There is a difference.

Posted by: Athyco | October 30, 2010 8:44 PM

Oh yes, Tis.

And it's even in the city's PR motto.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | October 30, 2010 9:03 PM

The thing I was mostly attacking and still am is the idea that simply commenting on a woman's sexual attractiveness makes somebody a misogynist and means they view her as nothing more than a piece of meat.

Nah, Manny, the fact that you studiously ignore the vast swathes of evidence and personal testimony showing you that women often experience comments on their sexual attractiveness as threatening, intimidating, demeaning, and/or dismissive of their value to society, in favor of your personal desires and comfort levels, makes you a misogynist.

Posted by: naddyfive | October 30, 2010 9:09 PM

He thought I ought to thank him and be grateful to be made to suck his glorious dick, after all, he was the only man who would ever deign to touch me and what could be more important than that. What a wonderful and generous guy.

Current stalker (he's not my first) is all about this kind of talk. He likes to really amp up the harassment, especially if I ignore him for any period of time. He makes sure to make my life unbearable until I can't ignore him. Then he starts flailing and claiming no one will ever "love" me like he does, I should be grateful someone as great as he is wants me, etc.

He's also obsessed with the idea that no one believes that he's stalking me, because he's such an "upstanding citizen" and a moral family man- even though everyone I've talked to does believe me (including law enforcement and FBI). My family has witnessed some of it firsthand, and he's still insisting that I'm not "credible" so I shouldn't even bother telling anyone...

It's more about this feeling, I think, than anything. It must give predators some kind of extra special kick when they delude themselves into believing they've picked a victim who will get no sympathy or help.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | October 30, 2010 9:18 PM

I think a lot of the whining WATM responses to this boil down to "But I didn't MEAN to cause you hurt and pain, so why are you feeling hurt?"

Like not intending to hurt anyone magically erases all the pain you've caused.

Intent! It's Fucking Magic!

Posted by: Nepenthe | October 30, 2010 9:23 PM

@naddyfive

It's amazing how uncreative abusive people are. The man who raped me also was into the idea that he was this fantastic guy, very principled, good-looking, smarter than Newton and Einstein, possibly combined. A real catch that I should have been thrilled to service 5 times a day. I imagine that if he had ever thought that what he was doing would ever have any negative consequence for him he would have told me that no one would believe me; he did spend a long time complaining that he was going to have to take care of me financially because I was too crazy to work.

Fuck 'em indeed.

Posted by: Utakata | October 30, 2010 9:43 PM

Um...the irony of this thread is just...wow. And the artist of that strip in question was evidently spot on, unfortunately.

...if female artist want to completely circumvent this effect depicted. I'll suggest that they relocate to Japan and start to create and publish their on manga series. There they will obtain legendary occult status and be recognized for their art, story telling and execution with squeee! instead of their vaginas. And find some refuge in their fandom from trolls bearing stripper girlfriends or've been to one too many Promise Keeper meet-ups for example.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 9:55 PM

Oh, and it's belated, but I wanted to reassure Nepenthe from a number of comments back that I assumed the comment was continuing the train of thought from my comment and not aimed at me. So no worries. :)

Posted by: naddyfive | October 30, 2010 9:58 PM

Before I ran into this psycho stalker, I'd had previous run-ins with creepy and disturbed men. I've been assaulted on the subway, had guys get a little obsessive in their crushes, etc. But before I met this one, I might not have believed he actually existed- it's like watching a walking, talking manifestation of the DSM-IV's definition of NPD.

All of those violent characters in movies that you think are exaggerated for effect? They really exist! And the worst part is they think they're perfectly reasonable in their behaviors and outlook.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 30, 2010 10:07 PM

Iris:

Because that is exactly what we experience regularly, Manny, from other people who inappropriately "compliment" us on our sexual desirability. When you claim to do the same and defend it, you put yourself in the same category as those other people, the ones who really do think all women should be overjoyed at the idea that they may want to have sex with us, that really do think their sexual interests should be the most important thing in any woman's life and that really do have the mentality of a rapist. You just don't seem to give the tiniest shit how we actually feel about being on the receiving end of these "compliments."

^Word.

Reading your post reminded me of something which happened years ago. A friend of mine, who lived in the same apartment complex as me decided to separate from her husband. I saw him one day shortly after that had taken place and he was very down, so I asked him if he wanted to go out for coffee and talk.

We did go out for coffee and were having a good chat about things; we got to talking about our current finances. I mentioned that I was in a bad spot at that moment, yada, yada, yada. He looked at me and slowly started nodding his head. He tells me "you could make a lot of money as a prostitute or escort" ... he looks me up and down, nods some more and said "you really could. I'd be your first customer!"

After I recovered my jaw, which had dropped to the ground, I explained to him that what he said was insulting and offensive, stood up, told him I'd get the tab and left.

I saw him a couple of days later at the apt. complex, where he hurried over and apologized, but repeatedly said he didn't know why I was in such a snit about it, it was a compliment, for goodness sake! I should be flattered! Oy.

Posted by: GeorgiaGirl | October 30, 2010 10:16 PM

ViAAGRAJAG, think about what you're saying before you shoot off like a loose cannon, or else go back to that degenerate fra blog you belong to.

Make a joke about a woman getting raped. See how many people smile or laugh or react with anger or disapproval. Now make a "don't drop the soap" joke about prison rape. Note the difference in reaction. There's your fucking rape culture

No! Here's your rape culture:
Women are raped by MEN
Men in prison are raped by MEN

Yet you blame WOMEN?
There's your rape culture, yet you blame WOMEN?

Posted by: GeorgiaGirl | October 30, 2010 10:21 PM

So, I hope you learned a lesson ....

Next time you "drop the soap", don't blame a woman.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | October 30, 2010 10:28 PM

Caine, you should have slapped him up side the head with a metal tray.

Posted by: Nepenthe | October 30, 2010 10:36 PM

@Caine

Dear Darwin. Did he understand that he was saying that so that other people could hear him too? Apparently not.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | October 30, 2010 10:40 PM

Janine:

Caine, you should have slapped him up side the head with a metal tray.

I certainly gave some thought to braining him with a coffee cup, but I didn't have any desire to deal with cops.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 30, 2010 10:47 PM

Janine said: Why do you think some female authors will go by their initials or use a male nom de plume?

(Not an attack. More of a rhetorical question.)

Following this up with another example from history, James Tiptree, Jr, AKA Alice Sheldon, AKA Raccoona Sheldon.

From Wikipedia: In an interview, she said: "A male name seemed like good camouflage. I had the feeling that a man would slip by less observed. I've had too many experiences in my life of being the first woman in some damned occupation."

The pseudonym was successfully maintained until the late 1970s. This is partly due to the fact that though it was widely known that "Tiptree" was a pseudonym, it was generally understood that its use was intended to protect the professional reputation of an intelligence community official. Readers, editors and correspondents were permitted to assume gender, and generally, but not invariably, they assumed "male." There was speculation, based partially on the themes in her stories, that Tiptree might be female.

This lead to some interesting incidents in the science fiction community where some authors vociferously claimed Tiptree wrote in a way that only a man could. Robert Silverberg said, "There is something ineluctably masculine about Tiptree's writing ... his work is analogous to that of Hemingway ... that prevailing masculinity about both of them -- that preoccupation with questions of courage, with absolute values, with the mysteries and passions of life and death as revealed by extreme physical tests."

On the other side of the equation, Tiptree was refused entrance into an anthology by Ursula Le Guin and at one point Joanna Russ told her (as Tiptree) that she had ideas no woman could hold or think. Despite these views, she maintained a long friendship/acquaintance via letters with them, although it's interesting to note that in the guise of Tiptree, Sheldon flirted, and Le Guin felt nervous and uncomfortable with the flirtation, saying, "He refused equality, in that he was always writing as the admirer. This is perhaps why I always felt a certain element of play-acting, of performance in my side of the correspondence. I had to play up to Tiptree, and it was fun to do so; but a plain frank friendship would have been even lovelier." I find this part interesting, since Sheldon KNEW without a doubt how weird such a feeling of being the first woman in one's circle must be like, and yet, when she took on the role of a man, she had absorbed enough of the unconcious trappings of privilege. She had herself taken on a pseudonym to avoid the thing she ended up inflicting on her friend: the privileged male voice which judges the woman by her level of attractiveness. Her friend wished very much they could have had a friendship without the weird dynamic of having to "play up to Tiptree."

This hiding of herself took a huge toll, emotionally speaking, not just maintaining the guise, but when she finally shed it, there was some grief too. But she is said to have had some discomfort with the idea that Russ and Le Guin referred to her as "one of the good ones" --referring to one of the good males. This notion probably was cemented when after she came out as a woman, many of the male science fiction authors (Harlan Ellison notably among them) abandoned their praises of her work.

Previously I mentioned Tiptree (comment 300) and her story, The Women Men Don't See. She was nominated for awards, but withdrew it because she was uncomfortable with the accolades about a man writing women characters so well.

Anyway, I think it's fascinating because it shows sometimes what extremes women go to get fully equal treatment with men, without having their sexuality brought into play.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | October 30, 2010 10:54 PM

I'm truly sickened by some of the experiences you women have gone through. Just when I think I've plumbed the depths of human depravity and intraspecific mistreatment, I find it's even worse than I thought.

Thank you, though, for telling the world about it. We need to hear it.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | October 30, 2010 11:00 PM

@F:

I've found that Shakesville is a nice forum.

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | October 30, 2010 11:01 PM

tielserrath @ #571:

She ran from the place of the assault to the nearby night bus intersection, distressed and weeping with her clothes torn, and this was witnessed by dozens of people.

This was the part I found most impressive, even more than the fact that she was adamant about doing whatever it took to get him to trial.

I spent nearly 5 years working with rape victims at about 10 different hospitals, and NOT ONE responded by openly weeping in front of strangers. (It's one of the false details that bugs me on TV crime shows.) The fact your victim did that means those strangers were probably willing to be first outcry witnesses, because she acted the way they expect rape victims to act. In most cases (every case I had, and virtually every case my fellow counselors had...and this sounds like similar experience to yours), the victims are in shock. They're not weeping and wailing...they're closer to catatonic.

My experience entirely matches yours, as well, in that a victim who remains calm on the witness stand (or while speaking to detectives) is highly likely to be disbelieved.

Nearly 5 years: quite a few rapists caught in the act by the police, several voluntary confessions and even more confessions after interrogation, ridiculous amounts of evidence...and yet only 2 men went to trial in all that time. Age of victims: 8 to 69.

But hey...apparently, female strippers make more money than male ones. So we're not just equal, we've actually got power over the menz. Who knew?

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | October 30, 2010 11:04 PM

Pixelfish -

Great minds!

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | October 30, 2010 11:09 PM

James Tiptree, Jr: the Double Life of Alice B. Sheldon, by Julie Phillips is a great read. Even without maintaining a mysterious male persona, Alice Sheldon lived a very unusual life.

Posted by: F | October 30, 2010 11:16 PM

Thank you, pixelfish. I did pick up on that blog from one of the recent threads. I did not look it over in the context of the question I just asked, so I appreciate you putting it forward.

Posted by: F | October 30, 2010 11:28 PM

Wow! Thank you all so much.

And since the Blame the Patriarchy link was broken by the forumware: http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/
for anyone else interested.

BTW, I positively love Alice Sheldon. And now I'm just a bit disappointed with Robert Silverberg. The comment comparing Tiptree to Hemmingway did bring me many lulz, though. All I could think of was Love is the Plan, the Plan is Death. Yeah. Hemmingway.