You'd think he'd have learned his lesson by now

The apology was GRRRREAT!!!

I'm half an hour in to my birthday, and that had me laughing out loud.

Wouldn't you love to be at the table while these guys are thinking up episodes?

Okay, I have to admit, that apology may very well go down as the funniest thing he's done so far.

Hahaha, I was taking the apology seriously for a little while there...

... an indefinite break from the game of golf, LMAO.

That apology was priceless, ROFL!!

Such an original and moving apology. My heart goes out to Mr Deity as I follow every minute detail of his personal life.

I called "Tiger" after one sentence! Priceless!

Loved the apology.

It was unnecessary, though. I don't mind being stereotyped as a male, and hence doesn't understand women, because....well, I don't understand women very well, really.

David B

That apology was so sincere. I'm sure even Jimmy Swaggert or Ted Haggard didn't sound as sincere.

The best thing about the apology is that women are too stupid to realize it was satire.

--
Stan

(But you guys are smart enough to recognize satire, right? Right?)

How dare you people intimate this was a fake apology. It was heart felt. It was sincere, and it will go far to repair the damage done to the world of golf. And don't forget. It was an apology from DOG. On your knees, heathens.

apology was v amusing.. yeah, jokes on a female stereotype can be v funny even for females and shudnt be considered anti women

I thought the first part was funny. But who was the last guy Mr.Deity punked? I couldn't make that out.

I didn't see the Woman episode so I can't comment about the apology. But I have a different theory about why subscribers were offended by it. Many people (but by no means all) who watch Mr.Deity are liberal hetrosexual males. We know that jokes offending women will hurt our chances of scoring with them. So we take on a bit of a protector role help the odds of getting some later. This theory also explains why conservatives get offended about jokes about men like former President Ronald Reagan (esp now that he's dead).

Mister Deity should take heart, not one god understood women. Most of the male gods have actually been pricks when you stop to think about it. Knocking up girls and then skipping town. Then blaming women for down fall of man. Nothing but a bunch of jerks.

The last guy punked was Torquemada.

But who was the last guy Mr.Deity punked? I couldn't make that out.

Torquemada.

Uh oh, Stan, you are going to get it anyway.

The apology would have been funnier if I had witnessed more extreme reactions from those not liking the Eve episode. Most of the complaints I saw said that all the humour in the episode was playing on a really tired stereotype and just wasn't that funny. I saw many more people angry at those who were angry with the episode than I actually saw people who were angry at the episode. It sucks though that apparently so many people unsubscribed. One unfunny episode does not undo the loveliness of so many delightful episodes. The whole thing reminds me of one of my favourite jokes:

Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: Thats not funny!

I am a feminist, but I still love that joke. =)

Anyone have the link for the recent episodes? I can't find Mr. Deity and the woman (and I hate to miss one.)

Glad I'm not the only one who recognized the structure of the apology and thought of all the tv-preachers and other self righteous asses who tried to appologize for their behaviour in front of a camera.

They were probably as sincere as Mr Deity here.

And having Pat Roberts before that only made it stronger.

brilliant.

Dacks, Here you go.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Xox174PXA[/url]

I guess I forgot to be offended. I think it's because I couldn't relate to the personality shown. All it did was remind me of my roommie, my mom, and my ex-husband, and made me want to drink beer to expunge it from my brain.

Eh. The other one wasn't offensive so much as disappointingly banal. But I guess it's easier on the ego to paint people who didn't like it as being hysterical PC pearl-clutchers rather than fans who just think they can do better.

I was waiting for the pie.
I'm still waiting for the pie.
Where's the pie??

Damn.

Nah, I won't believe the apology till he shaves off half that adorable little beard. On-camera, 'cause I like to watch.

Ron Sullivan
http://toad.faultline.org

Thanks PZ and The Science Pundit.

Hysterical apology. I must transcribe it and keep it around in case I learn to golf some day.

The stereotypes, as Mr. D Himself pointed out, have been spread pretty evenly over the bread, throughout the Mr D videos.. Da Man Adam was painted as an earnest, fairly thoughtful (but dumb) guy whose thoughtful caution disappeared like snow in a campfire at the sight of his prospective Eve.

She, when she appeared, reminded me of quite a number of real women I know -- not even exaggerated very much. One of 'em's at the desk next to me, I regret to say.

But also -- Eve and Da Man are not human. Both are presented as one-off creations of Mr. D, and not relatives to you and me at all. In the Mr D universe, all of us are results of the biological process, as suggested by the Squid King.

Some people didn't seem to grasp this concept.

Finally, a request. More Lucy! More Lucy! I love her to pieces -- metaphorically, anyway.

Noni

Eh. The other one wasn't offensive so much as disappointingly banal. But I guess it's easier on the ego to paint people who didn't like it as being hysterical PC pearl-clutchers rather than fans who just think they can do better.

Yeah, because nobody reacted as if it was the single biggest transgression to women since the beginning of time.

I guess you didn't read the other thread.

Initially posted this in the wrong thread (D'oh!), so copypasta here:

Looks like Mr. Deity was feeling some serious butt-hurt from the last episode. At least the apology, whilst obviously tongue-in-cheek, made a refreshing change from the usual cash grab.

At least the apology, whilst obviously tongue-in-cheek, made a refreshing change from the usual cash grab.

How dare he ask people who enjoy the show to help pay for it so he can make more of them. What nerve.

This was awesome! Sadly this kind of apology at the end is getting more and more mandatory in real life. And we think of ourselves as freer than North Korea!

"As it turns out, sensitivity training is far more expensive than banana." LOL
Does this mean there's hope for that god character? It would really be something if god got in touch with his feminine side. Better yet, he should do more power sharing with Lucy.

#31

I'm not begrudging him a living, but is does get a little tedious and, fore me, detracts from the increasing little enjoyment I get from watching it.

The whole "it costs us money to make this, so donate" argument* just doesn't fly with me. If it costs too much money, then stop making it. If people want to help you out, they are free to, but don't try and guilt them into it.

* I'm can't remember if Mr. Deity himself has used this approach. I am responding to this particular poster.

Check out Felicia Day's acceptance speech for why she for example does her webisodes like she does them

http://bit.ly/7ruwha

The whole "it costs us money to make this, so donate" argument* just doesn't fly with me. If it costs too much money, then stop making it. If people want to help you out, they are free to, but don't try and guilt them into it.

If you don't want to listen to his requests for donations, YouTube has this fantastical new thing called a pause button, and I believe now most interweb browsers even allow you to close the tab or window. If that's too difficult, I believe we may be able to put together some step-by-step instructions for you.

Just to point out the obvious, Pat Robertson is batshit insane.

"Religious values" = "Hate crimes"?

The Irony is strong in this one.

As someone with a web series of his own (don't worry, I won't plug it here), I totally understand the need to ask for a donation. Even a simple show costs money when you factor in cast, crew, hosting for a web site, and hosting/storage for the video content among other expenses. People are free to help out if they want and are free not to. A little reminder at the end that donating is an option is a simple way to let people know how they can show their support. Since there's no way to know when an episode will be someone's first, it only makes sense to tack the request on to the tail end of the episode. Of all of the ways to seek money for a project like this, theirs is one of the least obtrusive that I've seen.
As part of my efforts to make my show better, I spend a lot of time viewing other shows to see what's out there that works. Mr. Deity is a favorite among my production team. Thank you for exposing your readers to such a quality web show, PZ.

There's one more thing I should add. If you do like Mr. Deity, consider nominating the show for a Streamy Award or two by clicking here, choosing the right category or categories, and filling in the blanks. It won't cost more than a few seconds of your time. My own show isn't really eligible for anything this year, so I'd like to help a show that I don't see get talked about enough get some recognition. I have no idea if anyone involved with Mr. Deity actually cares one way or the other about the Streamys, but the show is funnier and better acted than a lot of the front-runners.

This is it, I promise. I forgot that there's a Streamys category for "Best Guest Star in a Web Series." I have a hunch the folks at Pharyngula might have an opinion on that. Click here to go to the right page for that category (it's in the drop down menu).

@Thrillhouse #38 (regarding donations)

Now that I've put more thought into it, I think the main issue I have is the breaking of character at the end of every episode.

If it was a static image or anonymous voice-over, I probably wouldn't find it so irritating. But I find the current set-up to actually be the *most* obtrusive way of doing it, not the least.

Carlie said:
"Eh. The other one wasn't offensive so much as disappointingly banal. But I guess it's easier on the ego to paint people who didn't like it as being hysterical PC pearl-clutchers rather than fans who just think they can do better."
That's the way I saw it too.
Most of the criticism was not of the PC variety, rather it came from people who were disappointed that Mr Diety had gone for a tired and overused sit-com cliche rather than going to the trouble of writing something original (or funny).
Using stereotypes in comedy is perfectly acceptable, so long as you do something interesting with them.
The problem with the previous episode was that nothing interesting or new was done with the stereotype. They could have replaced the last two minutes with a banner saying "Insert Charlie Sheen sitcom punchline here" and you wouldn't have missed anything.

Way to take the legitimate concerns of people about the stereotyping of women and patronise them! That's never been done before. I'd go as far as to say that's probably not a trope that you see every single time someone who has zero conception of how what they've done affects other people decides to be contrite. Certainly it's the first time that someone who's acted in a sexist way has dismissed all criticism of their actions by implying women are hysterically overreacting for calling them out on it.

People obviously felt alienated by the last episode, and it makes me sad that the reaction wasn't "oh, maybe that was a mistake" but instead "you're all wrong, it's PC gone mad, what's the world coming to etc etc". While we're on that point, what's wrong with political correctness anyway? I'm quite glad that sexism, racism and homophobia isn't culturally acceptable anymore.

Using stereotypes is not acceptable and above all else it's just plain lazy. It's an easy laugh. Plenty of comedians can make you laugh with observational humour but we should have got farther than recycling alienating cliches about men, women, gay people, whatever.

If you don't want to listen to his requests for donations, YouTube has this fantastical new thing called a pause button

The asking for money is usually funny in and of itself. It is as much a part of the show as anyting else.

People obviously felt alienated by the last episode, and it makes me sad that the reaction wasn't "oh, maybe that was a mistake" but instead "you're all wrong, it's PC gone mad

As many people found it funny as found it offensive. Since you can't please everyone all of the time (without being super bland) and since he is right and other stereotypes have been used I think in this case it was a pointless overreaction by some people.

I think you expect too much from a free 3 minute skit on the internet.

Richard Eis said:
"As many people found it funny as found it offensive."
Yes, perhaps, but there were more people on the previous thread complaining that it was a lazy unfunny cliche than there were being outraged by the use of a female stereotype.
To explain the problem with that episode risks this thread ending up like the last one with loads of people trying to explain the joke to the rest of us (that ALWAYS makes the joke funnier, doesn't it?) The weird thing about the explanations was the fact that there seemed to be about three or four completely contradictory messages people were reading into the skit.
To be brief, IMHO the biggest problem with the last skit in terms of sexism was not actually the Eve character, rather it was Lucy endorsing the behavior of the Eve character - it was a huge let down if you were expecting a funny punchline.
Were there some people outraged because they thought it was grossly sexist? Yes there were, but these were only a minority of the commenters. The rest of us who had a problem with the woeful writing in that episode have been conveniently ignored in the current notpology.
Should we expect much from a free internet sketch show?
Why not. It's been put together to showcase their talent and writing skills. There are some brilliant shows on the net that they would do well to learn from (such as "You suck at photoshop").

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with the original "Mr. Deity and the Woman" and consider that it might be a (failed) attempt at satire as playing with stereotypes is done in satire quite often. But, after seeing this non-apology, I no longer doubt that the sexist stereotypes were there out of sexism. First of all, he reiterated some of the stereotype in his apology. Also, he accused people who found his use of a this stereotype in bad taste of being PC. I have never seen anyone actually acuse someone of that when they were not been a priviledged dick. When someone makes a racist comment and people call them out on their racism, the response is "PC". The same goes for sexism, homophobia, ablism, etc. The real meaning of such a statement is "I want to keep being a bigot and not be challenged about it, so shut up, bitches."

Also, on the use of the word 'hysterical'. That term is in and of itself sexist. The origin of the word hysteria is hyster, meaning uterus. Hysteria was developed as a medical diagnosis, baed on a theory that if a woman had an empty uterus, it would float around her body and wreak havoc on her organs. This diagnosis was used particularly to punish abuse victims, rape victims, feminists, and lesbians. When you say this, you are saying that women's emotions, thoughts, and opinions have no basis, they are merely the result of her having an uterus with a fetus in it.

Correction, 'based' and 'without a fetus'.

cb: I have never seen anyone actually acuse someone of that when they were not been a priviledged dick.
_____

Yeah, but there are some privileged dicks who are nice about it. Doesn't that count?

Got a chuckle out of the heading for this post: You'd think he'd learned his lesson by now.

Obviously Mr. Deity has not, on both counts, punking and female stereotyping.

Mr. Deity series is becoming edgy, who would have thunk it?

He stereotypes both sexes. And stereotyping does not mean that a living person could not embody it, just that it is a facile handle on the human condition. The male sex has been dominant historically, so it is much easier not to take offense at men being stereotyped--they have all the power so why should anyone be overly concerned about the potential whittling down of their confidence?

Women on the other hand, though counting for roughly 50% of the global population, have been beaten to the ground by men historically (and still are in many parts of the world) so there is much more concern in terms of hurting the cause of feminism and female advancement when women are stereotyped as it is the stereotype that women could not do certain things or think in important ways that was used to hammer back protests against their unjust and lamentable conditions. There is no significant equivalent in the cultural history of males.

As for some men taking the side of feminism because they have a better chance of getting nookie, wow, just wow. There are some men who recognize their de facto privilege and try their hardest not to forget it, not that they are focused on feeling bad about being male, but instead are clearly aware of the truth of what it means being female in a male dominated world.

I do not regard Mr. Deity being sexist or unfunny, but I do understand that female stereotyping carries a burden that male stereotyping does not. One needs to tread carefully in this regard.

Internet Rule 45: The simpler the nonstampcollector video, the better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC91GYEumyA

Internet Rule 45: The simpler the nonstampcollector video,
the better

Sigmund:

The rest of us who had a problem with the woeful writing in that episode have been conveniently ignored in the current notpology.

So, you want a deep and sincere apology from him for just NOT being damned funny enough in that one episode (in your humble opinion). Oooookay...and you think thats going to happen do you?

But did Mr. Diety make Joan Baez laugh?

[see Saturday Night Live, Nora Dunn as Ms. Baez, late 1980's.]

@ MichelleB #48,
Well put.

Carlie #25 and Sigmund #42 and #45 have expressed thoughts similar to mine.

Sure, I found it a little offensive, in a "not-that-old-tired-crap, again?" kind of way. Any woman who has had her life directly affected by the boot coming down would have some trouble finding humor in it, I think. But, it was also slightly amusing, for a brief moment - because it's satire and we can all see the bits of truth in it.
My overwhelming impression, however, was one of disappointment and boredom. Just not that funny and a lazy effort (I felt the same way about the 'Man' skit, as well. Saw the end coming 2 seconds into it - snore).
Perhaps Mr.Deity should do a skit on "the prima-dona director/producer, who has started to believe his own fantasy life, becomes unable to accept criticism and acts like a whiny, petulant brat when someone doesn't like his product"?
Oh,wait.....that was the not-pology, wasn't it?

Hoping for more amusing stuff from him in future, with more ingenious use of cliche than what's been on the plate, of late.

Richard Eis said:
"So, you want a deep and sincere apology from him for just NOT being damned funny enough in that one episode (in your humble opinion)."
Did you see me asking for an apology?
The previous threads naysayers mostly criticized the episode for bad writing, NOT because of the use of a stereotype. That Mr Deity chooses to portray this as an incidence of "help, help, I'm being oppressed by those nasty PC gone mad types" just comes across as lame. The best response from him is not an apology at all but to put some effort into writing a funnier script. For what its worth I thought this weeks episode was much better although the punchline was rather weak (unfortunately I'm seeing a trend here - perhaps he needs better writers who know how to finish the sketches strongly).

I do have to say that I liked that they reached back to Torquemada rather than someone more cliched, like Hitler. Nice touch.

I've noticed that whenever charges of sexism or racism or any other ism come up, it's often not the people pointing it out who get riled up and hys/testerical about it, it's the people who rise up in defense to explain that it really is funny, and you really shouldn't be so sensitive, and get a life, and etc. Playing right to stereotypes isn't edgy, or "un-PC", or, well, funny. As Sigmund said, it's not something to apologize for so much as to note in the "mixed reactions, not overlyfunny; not worth trying again" column in his writer's notebook.

As for paying for episodes - people pay for cable, and movies, and satellite radio, and other forms of entertainment; no reason for webshows to be any different.

cb:

I have never seen anyone actually acuse[sic] someone of that when they were not been[sic] a priviledged[sic] dick.

I find your use of the word 'dick' to be sexist. Why must you use the reproductive organ of my gender as an insult?

I find your use of the word 'dick' to be sexist. Why must you use the reproductive organ of my gender as an insult?

I don't think the poster felt that he or she "must" do so. I think the poster chose to do so.

Sigmund said "Did you see me asking for an apology?"

Well, you said that your original complaint was ignored in the original notpology. Thus implying that you wanted to be apologised to.

So yes. Yes I did. Thank you for asking.

I found the Mr. Deity and the Woman episode to be funny because he was portraying The Woman exactly as so many Christian fundamentalists see them - I was looking at it from that viewpoint (rather meta- I admit) rather than from the viewpoint that the actor who plays Mr. Deity sees women that way.

i found mr.d and da w was pretty funny but this apology is hilarious.

By the way, as you see I tried to log in via google. It worked but that generated nickname makes it complete useless.

cb and others, get a grip! It's comedy. It isn't a treatise detailing the personal beliefs of the writers/actors/etc. It isn't a message from our government oppressing you more. It isn't a statement from someone in power that is meant to denigrate you. It's comedy.

Comedy and satire include stereotypes -- you can't have much communication without stereotypes at a certain level. Unless you live in a cave, you can probably put a name of someone you know to every stererotype you've ever seen. It is just part of the human condition. The very fact there are atheists (or homosexuals) is offensive to many theists!

If you didn't find it funny, that doesn't mean it's insulting, derogatory or whatever. (If it pushes your buttons so strongly, maybe you need therapy? -- That's not being snarky, but a serious suggestion.)

Believe it or not, the comedy wasn't directed at you personally, in an attempt to insult you personally -- whoever you are.

I'm a man, but I laugh at the stereotypes of men they've shown. I'm gay, but I laugh at the stereotypes of gays they've shown. Why? Because I have a sense of humor. I know the difference between a directed insult and comedy.

I suggest those who are so traumatized by the hallucinated insults of Mr. Deity do something bold and innovative: don't watch it.

Oh, and please shut up about it, because those of us who do watch and enjoy it, don't want to have to put up with your irritating crankiness over imagined slights. Save all that venom for political action. It is misplaced when directed towards comedy.

If you're looking to be offended, you'll find offense everywhere. If you look for comedy, you'll find humor more often. What you find really does depend on what you're looking for. It says more about you than it does anyone else.

This isn't 'blaming the victim' since there is no victim here.

Dear Mr. Deity,

I am one of the people who commented on this blog that I did not enjoy your Eve episode, primarily because I thought you missed a great opportunity to say something really clever about the traditional religious views about women, but also because I didn't find the episode original or funny. However, after listening to your apology, I see I was wrong and must now apologize to you.

I have let you down, and I regret that transgression with all of my heart. I have not been true to the uncritical adulation you deserve. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect.

Although I am a not well-known person and am only a semi-regular commenter on Pharyngula and a (perhaps soon-to-be ex-) facebook fan of Mr. Deity, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what my comments on a blog about your Eve episode really means.

But no matter how intense my feelings about the Eve episode may be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is your right to make not-particularly funny episodes, or even episodes that stereotype women as nattering ninnies. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that.

Whatever regrets I have about letting you down have now been shared with not only you, but the other Pharyngula readers.

I will strive to be a better person and the (perhaps soon to be ex-)fan you deserve. I offer my profound apology, and sincerely regret that you felt compelled to humiliate yourself with that obviously heartfelt and totally sincere apology.

Becca wrote:

I found the Mr. Deity and the Woman episode to be funny because he was portraying The Woman exactly as so many Christian fundamentalists see them

Well, it could have been really funny if at any point in that episode those Christian fundamentalist views about women were shown to be absurd. But it didn't. A golden opportunity missed.

A while back, there was a group of Native Americans in my area trying to get a small town school to change their logo to something other than a Native American caricature. I was sitting in a tavern with a group of my mom's friends, listening to them discuss how this group shouldn't be offended, it wasn't meant to be offensive, the logo was really honoring them, etc. I spoke up and said, "Gosh, now that a bunch of middle-class white guys explain that it's not offensive and they shouldn't feel bad, it will be all over. Because if YOU don't find it offensive, they shouldn't either. I am sure that explanation of how they are supposed to feel will be very comforting to them." There was a bit of spluttering, but really, they expect this sort of thing from me now, and the topic was dropped. I haven't really thought about it much since until I read this comment thread.

For some reason this episode won't play for me, so I didn't see the apology, but the way I see it is this: I am entitled to feel however I want about the Eve episode. How I express that tells you something about me. You are entitled to feel however you want about my response, be it that I need therapy or am too PC or have no sense of humor or that you see my point but disagree. And that response tells me something about you. But you don't get to tell me that how I feel isn't valid, that there's something wrong with me for disagreeing with you. You can decide not to be my friend, or to not be interested of my opinions on Mel Brooks movies, but just because you find it funny and I don't doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor. I just don't have YOUR sense of humor. If Mr. Deity feels proud of that episode and doesn't find anything wrong with it, then perhaps it is worth it to him to alienate those who disagree, and that's his choice. Maybe those that agree with him will donate enough money to make up for those that are disappointed in him.

Badmama, thank you for providing evidence for my point about inappropriate over-reactions. Clearly this is pushing buttons for you (and others) which appear to be easily pushed -- anger/emotional issues which are that close to the surface really are something that legitimately should be discussed with a counselor.

Whatever you're experiencing as a reaction to my post has been strong enough to cause you to re-write the memory of what I actually wrote.

1. I did not say how you feel isn't valid. I only implied that it appeared to be an over-reaction. It is clear that you are now over-reacting to my post. Perhaps this is a pattern for you?

2. I did not say there's something wrong with you for disagreeing with me. I've never made claims of being all-knowing or always right. In fact, I've been pretty open when I've made errors pointed out by others.

3. I did not say you don't have a sense of humor. I only stated that I do, and that I know the difference between a directed insult and comedy. I only implied that you've let your over-reaction cloud that difference.

I'm certain Mr. Deity felt proud of the episode enough to post it online. As a creative person, he probably finds things wrong with all of his episodes, but at some point you have to stop editing/re-shooting/re-writing and make it available for viewing. I would repeat that for someone to watch a comedy clip and be "alienated" for whatever reason, is an over-reaction.

For your Native American friends, I suggest you explain to them the new-for-them concept of 'caricature' -- which can be high art (if you have a few thousand extra dollars, you can get an original Hirschfeld caricature). I was raised not far from a reservation, and the signs they put up themselves often had caricatures. And their casinos are chock full of caricatures.

I'll repeat myself: If you're looking to be offended, you'll find offense everywhere. If you look for comedy, you'll find humor more often. What you find really does depend on what you're looking for. It says more about you than it does anyone else.

I know he was doing a parody of Tiger Woods but his giving up of golf reminds me of when dubya gave up the game in respect of the military personal still in combat.

Now watch this drive!

I think we should all get outraged about that "atheist fundamentalist" comment he made in a previous episode. Doesn't he know how persecuted atheists are?

I find this debate really frustrating because it has become, as most debates do, a bipolar issue: you either found it offensive or you did not. I was not enraged by the episode but I thought it did worse than simply fail to be funny. I don't think the makers of Mr. Deity are misogynists but I do think they did that they made a dumb decision, and I don't mean a politically dumb decision.
It feels the same way to me as it would if Jon Stewart were to start making Uncle Tom jokes about Michael Steele. I wouldn't stop watching The Daily Show, I wouldn't hate Stewart, but I would feel a little deflated and would ask myself, "What the hell is he doing?" Now, there might even be a satirical way to do just that (maybe he's already done it, I don't know) but if the satire fails, then what's left feels creepy and wrong. And, no, the fact that it's comedy doesn't fix that. Minstrel shows are comedy; that doesn't excuse them.
Need I point out here that I'm not saying the last Mr. Deity was as bad as a minstrel show? Minstrel shows aren't satire. Mr. Deity is. But when the satire fails--and by that I mean that it fails to deliver satire, not that it goes over the audience's heads--it feels creepy because what's left over is simple, broad, slapstick, ain't-women-crazy?, stereotyping. I don't think that was the point of the last episode. I do think it failed in a disturbing, not just boring, way.
What frustrates me is that I feel like my "side" is being represented by the people who wrote bilious and nasty e-mails to the Mr. Deity people. I don't want them representing me.

I will now construct a post that is guarenteed to not offend anybody . . . .

. . . . . .

That is all. ;)

Carlie @ 55;

'hys/testerical '

I love that! Can I borrow that one? Pretty please?

@#43
You ask "..What's wrong with political correctness anyway?"

My view on this is that political correctness, while being well intetioned, causes division and predjudice. It puts everyone into their own box, and regarding these boxes are specific sets of rules relating to it. Before you even know an individual you must make assumptions and judgements about them based on their box. That is not fair or equal treatment to that individual. With political correctness we are not able to see individuals, but instead see groups, races, sexualities, etc., and judge them before knowing them.

Do I feel that we should have a general respect and courtesy for people? Yes! But I feel that we should judge individuals and not lump them into stereotypes. We are forced to assume that all people of a given race, sex or creed will feel the same way about everything.

Isn't that stereotyping and prejudice?

@#43
You ask "..What's wrong with political correctness anyway?"

My view on this is that political correctness, while being well intetioned, causes division and predjudice. It puts everyone into their own box, and regarding these boxes are specific sets of rules relating to it. Before you even know an individual you must make assumptions and judgements about them based on their box. That is not fair or equal treatment to that individual. With political correctness we are not able to see individuals, but instead see groups, races, sexualities, etc., and judge them before knowing them.

Do I feel that we should have a general respect and courtesy for people? Yes! But I feel that we should judge individuals and not lump them into stereotypes. We are forced to assume that all people of a given race, sex or creed will feel the same way about everything.

Isn't that stereotyping and prejudice?

Gregory Greenwood, I found post #69 offensive.

(not really)

Seriously, even not making a post at all can be offensive to some people who feel you should have posted something. I get emails every day at work wondering why Obama "is silent" on this or that issue -- they rail on about why Obama "refuses to comment" about whatever has their knickers in a twist.

If I say "It's a nice day today" and someone says that it was offensive to them and I should apologize -- the best they should hope for is "I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you." But I can't retract what I said, because it wasn't meant to be offensive, nor would a reasonable person have taken offense. (It would be different if I said something accidentally that was offensive, in a slip of the tongue, or cursing in the presence of children, etc.)

I don't understand (or agree with) Eric Dutton's contention that the episode was 'disturbing.' It certainly wasn't the most comical episode, but I wasn't disturbed by it.

Personally, for those who felt it was an unfair stereotype, I wonder if you're suggesting that you don't know anyone who acts that way? Really? Not one single real woman who genuinely acts like the Eve character? Not one? Because I've met and worked with dozens and dozens.

Isn't it likely that Mr. Deity had a specific person he actually knows in mind that he modeled his character Eve after? Or that he personally knows some guy who is all rational until he sees naked pictures of women, and then would sign anything -- then used that as the basis for his character Adam? These are probably not stereotypes, but characters based on real people from his life.

People getting too bent out of shape about the stereotype need to ask themselves whether they would confront a woman who acted like Eve did, and chastize her for perpetuating a stereotype? If not, why not?

If you saw a gay man acting all swishy, would you confront him for perpetuating a stereotype? If not, why not?

Get a grip. Sheesh!

gr8hands wrote,

Personally, for those who felt it was an unfair stereotype, I wonder if you're suggesting that you don't know anyone who acts that way?

It isn't necessary for a stereotype to be totally unfounded for it to be a stereotype. Or for it to be harmful and unjust to apply to people.
There are more black people arrested for violent crimes that there are white people. That is one of the things that contributes to a stereotype about black men. The stereotype has harmful effects even if it is statistically supportable. Oftentimes the stereotype is a self fulfilling prophecy. For example:
When a black man gets angry, we are more likely to expect him to become violent; we are then more likely to call the police; the police are more likely to arrest him; and he is more likely to be convicted, thus keeping those statistic firmly in place.
It doesn't matter if the stereotype does fit SOME people; it's still a stereotype and it's still a problem.

gr8hands also wrote,

I don't understand (or agree with) Eric Dutton's contention that the episode was 'disturbing.' It certainly wasn't the most comical episode, but I wasn't disturbed by it.

For the most part, when someone says that something is disturbing, they don't mean to imply that EVERYONE will be disturbed by it. There are people who aren't disturbed by Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's; there are also people who aren't disturbed by minstrel shows. Some portrayals are more obviously disturbing than others, but the fact that some people aren't disturbed doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to understand why other reasonable people are.

By the way, I do think this episode is funny.

gr8hands wrote:

Personally, for those who felt it was an unfair stereotype, I wonder if you're suggesting that you don't know anyone who acts that way? Really? Not one single real woman who genuinely acts like the Eve character? Not one? Because I've met and worked with dozens and dozens.

And, by that logic, if Mr. Deity had done an episode Mr. Deity and The Mark of Cain which portrayed a black man as someone whose primary talent is in basketball, loves fried chicken and watermelon, and fathers several children while in his teens, that would be OK since there might be a black man who actually is like that?

And while Mr. Deity has poked fun at gay stereotypes, perhaps someone will refresh my recollection. Were any of those negative stereotypes? I remember something about gays being better groomed that straight men, but, ya know, I consider being well-groomed a good thing.

And, gr8hands, I truly don't know a single woman who acts like Eve did in the episode; don't recall in all my 50+ years of meeting or working with one who does. I can't imagine what kind of people you live and work with to know "dozens and dozens."

gr8hands wrote:

Badmama, thank you for providing evidence for my point about inappropriate over-reactions. Clearly this is pushing buttons for you (and others) which appear to be easily pushed -- anger/emotional issues which are that close to the surface really are something that legitimately should be discussed with a counselor.

Project much?

I think the issue with the previous episode was, he wasn't playing to the strengths of the Mr. Deity concept. Mr. Deity and The Man was all about convincing a guy to sign a waiver for elective surgery, and that worked because it was a juxtaposition of Christian mythology and the mundane. There was some good theology humor in Mr. Deity and The Woman, but it got drowned out by the 'hurr, wimmin' humor that followed it. The two sources of jokes were competing instead of cooperating. I mean, I think riffing on the different theology interpretation in play might have had some potential. ("Wait, sir, I forget. I know we told Adam we'd use the rib, but did we actually?" "Larry, I'm sorry, but I was barely looking at the surgery. You know how blood makes me feel.")

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, who's oversensitive and who's blinded by privilege, throwing a "fuck you" to a portion of your fanbase when you are OMG CRITICIZED ON TEH INTARWEBZ is not generally considered a good method for keeping your fanbase.

Eric Dutton, you seem confused about the word 'stereotype.'

That aside, I guess we just disagree about what constitutes 'disturbing.'

bastion of sass, think about this: Mr. Deity and Actor A both have a friend, Friend A, who is a black man whose primary talent is in basketball, loves fried chicken and watermelon, and fathered several children while in his teens. Mr. Deity asks Actor A to act like Friend A on film. Actor A does so.

Is that a stereotype? Or just acting a character? Or portraying a real-life person?

How does that affect your criticism concerning stereotypes?

I find it hard to believe you've never been around anyone like Eve. Never. Ever in your 50+ years. (Or seen one on television, or in a movie, or read about one in a book/magazine.) I started seeing girls like this in junior high and high school. There were women like this in the military, and in college. There have been women like that at pretty much every job I've had. They've been all ages, from all backgrounds, from all around the country.

However, it is possible that you have not met any such women -- although that does not change my point at all that it isn't a stereotype if you're portraying someone specific.

Those gays who might not be well-groomed, or up on fashion, or aren't effeminate, might consider the portrayals to be negative stereotypes. I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder, but I don't ever suppose it was done purposely to hurt, intimidate, demean or insult.

Was Robin Williams stereotyping gays in Bird Cage or portraying a gay man he knows?

As for 'projecting' -- you're confused about what that means. Pointing out someone is over-reacting about a subject is not projecting. Showing how they've become so angry so quickly that they can't even coherently read what I wrote (or they can't be bothered to scroll up to see what I wrote) is not projecting.

I'll repeat myself: get a grip!

beth.cimini, I doubt Mr. Deity felt he was

throwing a "fuck you"

to anyone. Just because some people hallucinate or imagine that he did, doesn't make it real. Just because some people are on the prowl for insults and offense, doesn't mean that people are genuinely insulting or offending them.

It does matter who is right and who is wrong. It does matter who is being oversensitive.

gr8hands, you honestly think that telling people who are his fans in that "apology" that they were just over-PC freaks with no sense of humor isn't a giant "fuck you"? I'd hate to see how you treat people who support you.
Whether or not you agree with the people who were offended (and I see that you don't), telling your audience that their opinions are dumb and don't matter is not the best way to keep a following.
"I'm sorry I offended people, I didn't intend it in that way and I still don't think that it was all that bad" would have been far more civil and still gotten his point across. Turning the "fault" around on his fans is a super-dumb PR move.

gr8hands wrote

Eric Dutton, you seem confused about the word 'stereotype.'

Nope:
From Merriam Webster
2 : something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

It still doesn't matter if there are people in the world that act like that. Your definition of the word stereotype seems to require that there be no one in the world who fits the image. If that were true, the word wouldn't exist. It would be useless.
But beyond all that is another issue; the character we're talking about is Eve. She is the prototype for all women in the episode. She wakes up and we get to see what women are like. And just in case we weren't convinced, Lucy starts acting the same way at the end. The fact that it's Eve behaving this way implies that her behavior is distinctly female, not just the idiosyncrasies of one character. If she weren't Eve, it might be arguable that this is just one character, possibly modeled on the director's cousin's girlfriend.
The Mr. Deity people aren't dumb enough to miss the implications of the situation. They just failed to deliver satire and, instead, delivered
a stereotype.

I don't go looking for reasons to be offended. But it isn't a virtue to miss sexism when it shows up. No, I'm not saying that the Mr. Deity people are sexists. But, it is possible for people who aren't sexist to let some sexist behavior slip.

Neither is it a virtue to assume that dissenters are extremists until they prove themselves to be. And dissent is not proof of extremism. That is the basis for for war, not debate. This is a debate.

Huh...I must be the only person who saw the opposite stereotype there. Eve was a bit of a ditz but that's just the character. The point I got was that, not only did the men fail to anticipate her feelings, they persisted to utterly misunderstand the issue and make things worse and worse! Surely this point is driven home by Lucy (the most sane character on the show) coming along and validating Eve's position.

Did I miss something?

That wasn't just the character; it was Eve, the prototype for all women. That's important. If she had been anybody else, it wouldn't have been important. She WOULD have been just a character.
The men didn't come off as stereotypes here as much as they came off as slightly dopey characters being understandably overwhelmed by Eve's irrational behavior.
Think about it. Why WOULD they understand that kind of behavior; Eve is the first woman and the show characterizes her behavior as distinctly female. That's the problem. It isn't enough to say that it is a distinctly male characteristic to not understand female behavior.
Adam, you'll notice, was not stereotyped in the same way. There was a little joke at the end, but until that moment he was a perfectly rational character. Eve was a ditz from the moment she opened her eyes and continued to pile on neuroses at every turn. Adam was a character; Eve was a stereotype and nothing else.

Eric Dutton, don't you mean "There was a little joke at the end, but until that moment he was a stereotype of a perfectly rational character. (Wouldn't you more accurately say that the entire portrayal had to be considered to show the stereotype of a rational hetero man who turns stupid at the sight of a naked woman -- to the point of signing away everything?)

I mean, taking your bits-n-pieces rationale, individual parts of Eve's characterization were completely rational -- it's only when taken in larger chunks or as a whole that it becomes to some a stereotype.

No, my point is that you're using only the "negative stereotype" part of the definition as the whole definition. I'm pointing out that playing a character can sometimes be misidentified as a stereotpye.

I don't think you can have a stereotype of a perfectly rational character. "Perfectly rational" is a description of a character. "Perfectly rational" could DESCRIBE a stereotype, just as "spiritual, in touch with nature, peaceful, noble" might describe a stereotype (and a non-negative one, at that) of a native American, but who is stereotyped as "perfectly rational?" Men? Greeks? Professors? "Perfectly rational" isn't a stereotype for any group that I'm aware of. You can create a perfectly rational character and that character will be flat character but not necessarily a stereotype. Mr. Deity employed a stereotype at the end of the Adam episode. Up until that moment he wasn't stereotypical. Adam was a flat character; Eve was nothing but stereotype.

Thank you, Eric Dutton, for demonstrating that you cannot tell the difference between character acting, and stereotype acting.

Don't worry, you're not alone (sadly). So were lots of people who were offended or disturbed by the little comedy video.

Look, if you're trolling, we're done. I'm here because I'm interested in the subject, not so I can get into a flame war with someone.

Eric Dutton, trolling? Me?

I guess I'm confused. Some people claim to be fans, supporting Mr. Deity with subscriptions because they love the satire, the humor at the expense of theists, the mocking of people's personal religious views, the humor of stereotypical religious nuts, the caricatures of political and religious figures -- but, they do one episode which has a realistic portrayal of some kinds of women, and suddenly, instead of fans they cancel their financial support, write scathing posts on blogs, and castigate anyone who might tell them to 'get a grip, it's only comedy' -- and then you ask me if I'm a troll.

Wow. I guess not only can you not tell the difference between character acting and stereotype acting, you can't tell the difference between someone commenting on your comments and someone who is trolling.

I guess we are done.

I will now construct a post that is guarenteed to not offend anybody . . . -Gregory Greenwood

Comment #69? Ironic. You've surely offended a wide swath of the prudes through no fault of your own.