Categories
antifeminism dude you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about evil sexy ladies irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever MRA playing the victim post contains sarcasm reddit straw feminists

MRA comic totally nails feminism and its central demand that men pay for dinner

feminisminanutshell

I sometimes make fun of Men’s Rights activists for their assorted misunderstandings of feminism. But this guy gets it! I’ve never seen the essence of feminism distilled into a comic as ably as this.

It brings back memories of the first time I read Andrea Dworkin’s classic “Intercourse: You’re Not Getting Any Unless You Pay for My Dinner.”

Found on the Men’s Rights subreddit, with 100 upvotes.

H/T — r/againstmensrights

NOTE: POST CONTAINS SARCASM

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

149 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cassie Devereaux
5 years ago

@weirwoodtreehugger Nope. I can shrug and move on. Not getting terribly worked up about it.

You, on the other hand, seem realllllllllly upset about it. And, you’re making a lot of assumptions about the cartoonist. And, you don’t care to hear what he was thinking….. neither to dissuade your worst suspicions NOR to confirm them, or even to find out it’s worse than you could POSSIBLY have thought. Nope, just wanna have your opinion, and state it loudly and repeatedly. And this, I think, says a lot more about you than about him. Speaks a lot about outrage, very little about integrity or courage of one’s convictions.

You may be right or wrong. But you certainly do seem to *enjoy* your place of not-knowing-but-piling-on-the-worst-assumptions-because-reasons-also-outrage-raarrrrr.

@NickNameNick Yes, nothing is more anti-intellectual than engaging in discussion and exchanging ideas. I stand corrected.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

As much as MRAs and other right-wingers annoy me, brogressives are actually offensive to me and I really can’t explain why. I know it’s partially due to the lying – so, so much lying – but past that, I have no idea.

I have an idea, and it goes something like this:

Brogressives are using a quasi-progressive line of politics as a means to get laid. (Another useful word you might like: Macktivists, who are “leftist” dudes using “leftist” activism to meet and bed as many people as they can.) The problem with brogressives (and macktivists) is that their politics eventually ring hollow; they’re only sincere about one thing, and that’s getting as much sex as they can. And they can use all kinds of “ethical” arguments about sexuality in really unscrupulous ways.

Example, from my own experience: a guy I know, who’s also a Facebook friend, insisting that we are all “naturally polyamorous”. Um, NO. Not all people. In fact, probably not even a majority of people. Serial monogamy is still the commonest mode of coupling in the western world. I’m certainly not poly, and at 48 I’ve had plenty of time to figure that much out. This guy, BTW, is married (and never bothered to tell me as much; I found it out at second hand). Luckily, I wasn’t interested in him period, whether he was married or not. Oh yeah, and he was also big on Slutwalk and Boobquake. Can’t imagine why!

I’m sure there are plenty of others like him. You know the kind: They tend to think that if you don’t put out, you ain’t “liberated”. And so on.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

weirwoodtreehugger Nope. I can shrug and move on. Not getting terribly worked up about it.

Yet you’ve doubled and tripled down defending him even as it becomes increasingly clear that he’s a misogynist.

You, on the other hand, seem realllllllllly upset about it.

TIL that forming an opinion about what someone’s art is saying makes one a screeching hysterical harpy. Yep! You’ve got my number. I’m super upset and emotional. After seeing all the times you typed the letter “L” in the word “really” who could deny it?

And, you’re making a lot of assumptions about the cartoonist. And, you don’t care to hear what he was thinking….. neither to dissuade your worst suspicions NOR to confirm them, or even to find out it’s worse than you could POSSIBLY have thought. Nope, just wanna have your opinion, and state it loudly and repeatedly. And this, I think, says a lot more about you than about him. Speaks a lot about outrage, very little about integrity or courage of one’s convictions.

You’re right. Nobody can criticize an artist’s work unless they’ve personally interviewed the artist about that work.

You may be right or wrong. But you certainly do seem to *enjoy* your place of not-knowing-but-piling-on-the-worst-assumptions-because-reasons-also-outrage-raarrrrr.

Oh no. I couldn’t possibly have legit reasons to disapprove of and mock a piece of sexist. It’s only the outrage. It’s not as if I’ve ever actually experienced sexism. It’s not like I haven’t heard the same tired bullshit over and over again and am tired of it. No, I must just be doing this because I like to be mean and love outrage!

@NickNameNick Yes, nothing is more anti-intellectual than engaging in discussion and exchanging ideas. I stand corrected.

I think anti-intellectual is a fair assessment here. I haven’t really seen you actually attempt to analyze any of the pieces we’re discussing. You haven’t presented alternative explanations. You haven’t made an argument that either of us are wrong. All you’ve done is finger wag about how we’ve come to conclusions in ways that displease you. Do you have anything of substance to say or are you just going to tone police?

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@Inez Milholland

If you pay for dinner, I’m a gold-digging whore. But if *I* pay for dinner, it’s emasculating and I’m a ball-busting, feminazi.

I JUST CAN’T WIN.

Correct, you can’t win. The game is rigged. But if you have sex with him, he’ll forgive your defects. Until you burn the toast. Or his boss yells at him. Or he stubs his toe.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@Buttercup Q. Skullpants, @Spaceman
Thanks for the seriously inspiring alternative scenarios!

delphi_ote
delphi_ote
5 years ago

Actually, this comic is probably literally true if you think about the author. I believe these conversations really happened… but with three different women. In his mind, though, all women are interchangeable and their individual identity is as unimportant to him as their opinions.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@SFHC, @Bina
“Brogressive”? Is that the term?

I just call these guys “crappy ex-boyfriends.”

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

@Cassie Devereaux

If you want to convince us that Comic Guy isn’t as rapey and misogynistic as he seems, being a condescending, tone-policing, hyper-defensive shitlord to WWTH of all people is not the way to do it. Jesus, if that’s how you respond to getting exactly one extremely mild pushback post… ಠ_ಠ

I swear, people always whine that feminists are “Oversensitive,” but it ain’t us who invariably blow a screaming angry gasket the moment we don’t walk in deferring lockstep with them.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Anyway.

@WWTH & Bina

Excellent points both! And you’re right, I think it’s a combination of those two things (plus the lying – I can’t overstate how much I despise lying). Thanks for the food for thought. =)

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Oh, an look what I found up above. Quite the gem.

Femenism has nothing to do dumb ass crazy women. Feminism actually pushes women to be financially independent from men. Chilvery is what allows women to be crazy. I refuse to be around a woman for more than an hour, because there is strong chance if her being level 7 or above crazy. Level 7 or above means she is a potential serial killer or plays the false rape game. The scale of crazy is 10 based system. 0.1 to 2 is tolerant crazy. 3.0 to 4.5 is a baseline crazy. 5.5 to 6. 9 is borderline danger zone crazy. Anything above a 7.1 is considered ran as far as you can crazy.

Do I have to be gentle about the comment policy with this one? Because I think using crazy as an insult about 100 times in a single paragraph is enough to warn a good, stern “fuck off!”

It’s cute that he’s scared to be around a woman for an hour because she might be a serial killer. There have only been 64 known serial killers in the past 200 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer
I know, I know. Wikipedia isn’t the most academic of sources. But I’m not putting in lots of effort for a probably drive by troll.

Yet, I bet you think it’s misandry if women are afraid of being sexually assaulted despite it being much, much more common than serial murder. In fact, bub, even men are statistically more likely to be sexually than to be falsely accused of rape!

For someone who thinks all women are crazy, you sure don’t logic so well.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Only 64 known female serial killers, I mean.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@alan robertshaw
Re Chrissie Hynde: I look at it like this. What someone else does (short of me intimidating that person into doing it) is never my fault. Never.

If that person’s actions were my fault, then I could make some sort of amends.

I could make sure that the situation never occurs again.

But I can’t do that. Because it’s not my fault.

In the same way, Chrissie Hynde didn’t control the actions of those bikers. She probably showed fear, revulsion, and anger while they were attacking her. That did no good. And those guys probably went out and raped again. Chrissie Hynde doesn’t control them. She’d like to think that she does. That doesn’t make it true. What controls a person? That individual’s conscience–or fear of reprisal.

All that said, it’s good to always have a safety plan for yourself. Ask a friend to keep an eye on you at a party. Listen to your spidey sense. Remember that alcohol and drugs interfere with that spidey sense. Take yourself–and your life and dreams–seriously. You are worthy of safety.

Bananananana dakry
Bananananana dakry
5 years ago

@Kat

And god, do I wish we as women didn’t have to go through all that shit, that constant background *fear*, to be able to do simple things that men take for granted all the damn time. It’s the psychic purdah that’s driving me batshit.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Kat

Cheers for that. Our row about CH wasn’t so much about what she said; we all agreed that her views on where the responsibility for rape lies were incorrect. The argument was whether it was right to blame her for having those views and for expressing them.

Essentially it’s whether there’s such a thing as rape culture and internalised misogyny which causes even victims to victim blame or whether even a rape victim should know better than to hold those views.

All got a bit fractious.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Alan Robertshaw | August 31, 2015 at 11:55 pm
Essentially it’s whether there’s such a thing as rape culture and internalised misogyny which causes even victims to victim blame or whether even a rape victim should know better than to hold those views.

If I may, as a rape survivor myself: There is very much a thing as internalized misogyny and rape culture, and no one comes out of the womb knowing everything about everything, feminism especially.

Not every rape victim/survivor is going to know about victim blaming, or the kinds of things they say that are victim blaming. Not every rape victim/survivor is going to cope in the same way. Not every rape victim/survivor is going to have the same mental process of picking up the pieces.

If your friends would like to debate whether rape culture or internalized exists or not, I’m sure there are some feminism 101 blogs they could look through, and here’s some links that might help them get started:

Geek Feminism Wiki’s definition of rape culture
Rape Culture 101
25 Examples of Rape Culture

Feminism 101 FAQ: What is “internalized sexism”?
What Kristen Stewart Taught Me about Internalized Misogyny
Internalized Misogyny: “I’m Not Like Most Girls!”

**I’m going to talk about rape (nothing explicit, I promise) after this bit**

However, if I may get a little personal about the last bit you wrote: I did blame myself for my own assault because the woman who caught my rapist trying to violate me told me that it was my fault for not saying “no”. I internalized that shit. I believed I was in the wrong, even though I was terrified of my rapist because he had beat me in the past, and I was scared to find out if he’d beat me for trying to resist. I believed I could have prevented being raped by telling a man in a position of power over me “no”.

**Okay, all done**

It took me a long time to shake that off and realize that it wasn’t my fault. Almost a decade, in fact.

There is no “knowing better” than to buy into victim blaming. It’s just impossible.

Sorry, I had to get that out. The idea of “rape victims should know better than to victim blame” got my hackles up.

Kat
Kat
5 years ago

@Alan Robertshaw
So they’re saying that a rape victim can never be mistaken about her analysis of the crime?

Once I was in a bank, head down, counting my money. Another customer walked into me from the side with the full force of his (large) body.

Clearly I was being robbed–or worse. Kidnapping? I made the instant decision that I would not go down without a fight.

“HEY!” I said as I raised my head and whipped it around. (OK, at least a verbal fight.)

“Oh, sorry,” he said.

He was wearing dark glasses and carried a white cane.

So if I’m allowed to be wrong about my analysis of a crime (not a crime), why can’t we extend that same courtesy to a rock star?

Jo
Jo
5 years ago

People seem to be using ‘brogressive’ differently from how I normally see it used. Anyone care to offer up their definition? I’m a bit of a neologism nerd.

I’ve always understood it to mean a person who is progressive on social issues up to the point where they cause that person one iota of personal discomfort or inconvenience. So weed is cool and gays can be married and women and blacks are totally equal, man. But those gay pride parades are too in your face and blacks need to stop yelling about police brutality and rape culture totally isn’t real and why can’t people take a joke, my friends all use the n word and we’re not racist at all and affirmative action might mess up my career plans. Brogressivism is, incidentally, why a lot of gators believe themselves to be left wing, despite every single high profile gg supporter being on the right.

Anyway, I’m seeing ‘brogressive’ used here interchangeably with ‘macktivist’ (one who engages in activist politics to gain sexual access) and also as a inherently dishonest (rather than just lazy, thoughtless and uncaring) position, so wondering if anyone has an alternate definition to mine they’d be willing to share.

andiexist
andiexist
5 years ago
Reply to  Jo

@Jo

Not that I’ve been using it here, but here’s my definition pair. (As in, I think these are both definitions that I’d use it for.)

Brogressive:

a. A dudebro who’s down with the feminism thing until it inconveniences him somehow, especially in the self-examination sense.

b. Someone progressive on most issues, but who refuses to see that sexism is a problem that actually exists.

Jo
Jo
5 years ago

@andiexist

Thanks! Your (1) is basically the same as my definition, but (2) is an interesting variation. Basically, (2) is similar to the sort of white woman who is progressive in most ways, but manages to ignore her white privilege and (unconsciously or otherwise) excludes black women from her feminism. It’s just that gender and race are swapped in importance. I’ll look out for that usage.

katz
katz
5 years ago

I think brogressives are sincere, they just only care about progressive issues if they stand to benefit. A lot of them are college students, so they care a lot about college affordability, jobs and wages, public transportation, rent prices, legalizing marijuana, and of course freeze peach. And they can have really intelligent opinions on those issues.

But as soon as the issue doesn’t directly impact them anymore, they turn into bristling reactionaries. At best, they turn into those “class inequality explains everything” types who are constantly splaining how black people are actually only worse off because of poverty, because that’s the only way to fit those concepts into their matrix of “only problems that might affect white dudes actually exist.”

Neurite
Neurite
5 years ago

hippielady:

That (waiters assuming my male companion will pay even if given repeated contextual clues otherwise) has happened to me too! A lot! It’s amazing how this stuff still hides in our social interactions, even in this day and age.

And alas, it doesn’t end there… as I found out when I started dating my husband. Because with him, the dynamic suddenly got more complex: the fancier the restaurant, the more likely that the waiter will place the check before me and not my husband.

I should probably mention that my husband is black and I am white.

Even more dismayingly, at the really fancy places, this starts well before the check – often the waiters will preferentially talk to me, right from the start, and only acknowledge my husband as an afterthought. It’s not done blatantly enough to stand out as some sort of intentionally broadcast insult or “cutting” – it’s subtle enough that, I am embarrassed to admit, I didn’t actually notice it as a pattern until my husband pointed it out to me. I suspect in the majority of cases it’s not even done consciously. It’s just… an internalized assumption about who is the “real diner” at a fancy restaurant and who was “brought along.” Bleh.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Jo,
I use it the same way Andiexist does. It’s analogous to white feminism in that the willfully blind spot is focused in on a specific issue. Although a brogressive can be posing as a progressive to try and gain access to sex, it’s not always that way. They can have a different agenda.

Here’s a thread with a meltdown from a brogressive that I have a nasty history with on Gawker. Luckily, other people are finally starting to see his true colors, but you tend to have to have to poke him a bit to unmask him. It’s like vampires on Buffy, they have a normal human face but when they get aggravated the monster comes out.

http://gawker.com/he-is-so-one-of-those-idiots-that-genuinely-thinks-he-s-1726712342

The person who it is becomes obvious pretty quickly.

Neurite
Neurite
5 years ago

On a less depressing note, an anecdote of exploiting stereotyped societal assumption for fun and profit!

In the mists of time, when I was only a few years above the legal US drinking age, I was dating a lovely young gentleman who was, indeed, a few years below the legal US drinking age. Having both lived in other areas of the globe with more lenient age restrictions before, we both considered the US laws on the matter to be rather silly. We also both enjoyed an occasional glass of wine with dinner.

And sure enough, we both were able to enjoy our glass of wine at pretty much any US restaurant as long as we made sure that I ordered my glass of wine first. The waiter would card me, note that I was above legal drinking age, and bring me my wine. Then my boyfriend would order his wine. This way, he never got carded. Thank you, ingrained societal assumption that the guy is always as old or older than his female partner!

katz
katz
5 years ago

I’ve always understood it to mean a person who is progressive on social issues up to the point where they cause that person one iota of personal discomfort or inconvenience. So weed is cool and gays can be married and women and blacks are totally equal, man. But those gay pride parades are too in your face and blacks need to stop yelling about police brutality and rape culture totally isn’t real and why can’t people take a joke, my friends all use the n word and we’re not racist at all and affirmative action might mess up my career plans.

a. A dudebro who’s down with the feminism thing until it inconveniences him somehow, especially in the self-examination sense.

b. Someone progressive on most issues, but who refuses to see that sexism is a problem that actually exists.

Those are both good definitions too. It’s one of those “you know it when you see it” things, whether it’s Redditors who are ready to die on the hill of net neutrality while posting things that make you wish someone was policing the internet, or Seth McFarlane declaring himself a liberal while making…well, Seth McFarlane movies, or a bunch of Silicon Valley philanthropists who only donate money to research about preventing malevolent AIs.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
5 years ago

Yes, nothing is more anti-intellectual than engaging in discussion and exchanging ideas. I stand corrected.

Except that isn’t what you said, it was that we should just give this guy the benefit of the doubt – even though his work is pretty indicative of his opinions – and that we can’t say anything negative about him because…we need to know him personally or something? That’s an absurdly daunting task to take, to have an opinion on a web-based comic, and doesn’t change the fact that – even if he wasn’t sexist – the work itself drips with misogyny on one level or another.

You keep coming up with reasons as to why no one should criticize him and, yes, that is anti-intellectual. It’s no more different than when someone criticizes a film and someone comes along to say “well, if you don’t like it – why don’t you make a movie yourself?!” You make it sound like a suggestion by telling TreeHugger that they should talk to this guy to get his side of the story, but all you’re really doing is coming up with way to say “shut up” without using those exact words. I see it all the time in discussions, people trying to silence others while putting up a disingenuously open-minded (if only to certain things) tone.

It’s all the more obvious you simply dismiss her comment as “outrage” instead of thinking that, perhaps, it’s an accurate observation on the material read. Hell, why are you giving him all the benefit of the doubt but not TreeHugger? Why is he off the hook and the onus is put on the person who criticized his work? TreeHugger isn’t the one who made the comics, Pablo Stanley is and he’s obviously letting his work speak for itself.

I swear, people always whine that feminists are “Oversensitive,” but it ain’t us who invariably blow a screaming angry gasket the moment we don’t walk in deferring lockstep with them.

Because, by their (il)logic, getting worked up into a tizzy is totally justified – ’cause reasons – while anyone else who has even a fraction of that reaction is “overemotional.”

It’s amazing how many white guys will throw a massive, childlike tantrum over the most petty thing and yet still pat themselves on the back while claiming to be the most level-headed person alive. I’m not sure how an enraged outburst is less “overemotional” than mildly pointing out that some creative work has a problematic element.

Then again, these are probably the same people who thought the Australian branch of WalMart and Target not selling copies of GTAV was “censorship” (technically, it already was before release – things like blood effects were taken out). Nevermind that, y’know, the game was still up for sale on numerous other venues in the country nor did the government of Australia take any part in asking two private commercial entities to not sell it anymore. Apparently just not getting a game at those places constitutes as “censorship” now, based on their ever-changing and arbitrary criteria about “free speech”…

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Oh god WWTH, that last comment of his where he straight up blames “the liberal media” for people wanting to side with rape victims and not wanting to stray because “they’ll be accused of victim blaming ARGLEBARGLE”.

It’s so painfully obvious it hurts.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

@Nick

Oh God, the whole GTA tantrum was so astronomically stupid I think it shaved a year off my life. Like, Australia does have a very real problem with video game censorship, with the R18+ rating only being added in ’13, R18+ games still being heavily edited and more games being banned every year… And they completely ignored all that in favour of throwing a hissy fit at a pair of private businesses.

It’s like they took aim at the biggest, glowiest target they could find, and somehow shot the empty tin can 200 metres directly behind them.

saitonexus
5 years ago

@NickNameNick: Brilliant. I was reading the last page of comments and thinking I wanted to say something to Cassie Devereaux to counter that nonsense, but you did do far more eloquently than I would have. Especially with the movie criticism parallel; I had just been thinking of that when I read your post.

There is nothing tenable about that position. It dictates that a person isn’t ALLOWED to be critical of a piece of art – anything, a webcomic, TV episode, painting, whatever – without tracking down the creator(s) and having a nice long chat about their intentions. Not only is that simply not doable for obvious reasons, but it’s also irrelevant. “But I didn’t MEAN for it to be sexist” is an oft-employed defense of sexist works; it really doesn’t matter. The creator’s intention doesn’t change the result. A work can be sexist (or racist or etc) even if the creator had no conscious intention to make it so.

I have no doubt that Joss Whedon and others who wrote/produced Avengers 2 weren’t actively thinking to themselves “Hm, this Black Widow… she really was too good in the first movie. Better find some way to make her character less interesting. Oh, I’ll write her into a pointless, implausible love story that undermines her agency and reaffirms to everyone how important it is that she’s a sexy lady that a man could fall for, while simultaneously equating the inability to become pregnant with being an inhuman monster! Yeah, that ought to do it.” Yet, whatever their intentions were, that’s exactly what the movie did in the end.

Because, by their (il)logic, getting worked up into a tizzy is totally justified – ’cause reasons – while anyone else who has even a fraction of that reaction is “overemotional.”

I have REALLY noticed this more and more the deeper I get in exploring social justice issues. Anti-feminists/MRAs/”anti-SJWs” and so forth are the most likely to accuse their opponents of being “oversensitive” and tell them to “calm down!”, while at the same time they are the most easily offended, most ego-fragile people on this whole fucking planet.

“Don’t be so sensitive, it was just a joke! Rape is a legit topic! Dark humor!”
*feminist makes a joke about misandry*
“Screw you bitch! This is why I hate feminists!”

“Don’t be so sensitive! Slavery was centuries ago! We can joke about it!”
*black person makes a joke about white people*
“Reverse racist! Don’t fight fire with fire! YOU’RE THER REAL RACIST”

etc. It’s rather incredible.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

… Which, thinking for a second, does seem extremely familiar.

*cough*#GAMERGATE IGNORING IGN’S PAID REVIEWS IN FAVOUR OF VIOLENTLY ABUSING RANDOM WOMEN*cough*

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

A second, 32 minutes, whatever.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
5 years ago

Oh God, the whole GTA tantrum was so astronomically stupid I think it shaved a year off my life. Like, Australia does have a very real problem with video game censorship, with the R18+ rating only being added in ’13, R18+ games still being heavily edited and more games being banned every year… And they completely ignored all that in favour of throwing a hissy fit at a pair of private businesses.

What made it even more absurd is how much credit they gave this online petition, as if they were threatening the retailers at gun-point or something, instead of assuming – as many other sensible people would – they didn’t want to upset and lose any customers.

The weird part? Most of the people complaining about this weren’t from Australia or lived there – they were from the United States and completely unaffected by it. Of all the things happening in other countries to become aggrieved over, they chose one of the most pointless and least important issue that had no negative effect on anyone other. No one suffered because they couldn’t get a goddamn videogame at an Australian Target or WalMart.

It’s telling though, isn’t it? That they’ll deny and dismiss concerns about harassment and sexist discrimination, as well as racism, but will explode like a volcano in hearing a game won’t be sold at certain stores in Australia. Talk about not having your priorities straight…

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
5 years ago

…I wish we could edit posts…

I meant “most pointless and least important issues that had no negative effect on anyone either.”

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
5 years ago

There is nothing tenable about that position. It dictates that a person isn’t ALLOWED to be critical of a piece of art – anything, a webcomic, TV episode, painting, whatever – without tracking down the creator(s) and having a nice long chat about their intentions. Not only is that simply not doable for obvious reasons, but it’s also irrelevant. “But I didn’t MEAN for it to be sexist” is an oft-employed defense of sexist works; it really doesn’t matter. The creator’s intention doesn’t change the result. A work can be sexist (or racist or etc) even if the creator had no conscious intention to make it so.

It’s a really lazy tactic by anti-critics to claim that because the creator might be a decent person, it’d be “mean” to criticize their work – but that only makes sense if the criticism lies entirely on who the creator is and not what they created. So far, observations about the cartoonist here have been based on his work as well as the fact many of them acts as polemics. To say we’re judging him “unfairly” involves consciously ignoring the actual content.

Then there’s the fact many creators already use their work as a soap-box (Trey Parker and Matt Stone did with South Park, often to its detriment) and thus are putting their views out there to be seen. So, at that point, why is it “unfair” to presume the creator’s sentiments are echoed in their work?

I have no doubt that Joss Whedon and others who wrote/produced Avengers 2 weren’t actively thinking to themselves “Hm, this Black Widow… she really was too good in the first movie. Better find some way to make her character less interesting. Oh, I’ll write her into a pointless, implausible love story that undermines her agency and reaffirms to everyone how important it is that she’s a sexy lady that a man could fall for, while simultaneously equating the inability to become pregnant with being an inhuman monster! Yeah, that ought to do it.” Yet, whatever their intentions were, that’s exactly what the movie did in the end.

There was a great article on Cracked.com that rightfully pointed out that, for all his progressive credentials, Whedon’s portrayal of women can often be backwards:

http://www.cracked.com/article/166_5-reasons-it-sucks-being-joss-whedon-fan/

There were so many issues I had with the movie that, honestly, I could spend hours on it. To make my overall point as brief as possible: were it not for Daredevil – I’d of sworn off anything made by Marvel Studios. That said: I ended up enjoying Ant-Man despite being horribly flawed, because it at least does more creative things more than anything in Age of Ultron (specifically how the shrinking/growing mechanics worked and applied to action scenes, the fight in the bedroom of Scott Lang’s daughter being a great example – still could’ve done without the racial stereotypes and lack of decent characterization for female cast members though).

I have REALLY noticed this more and more the deeper I get in exploring social justice issues. Anti-feminists/MRAs/”anti-SJWs” and so forth are the most likely to accuse their opponents of being “oversensitive” and tell them to “calm down!”, while at the same time they are the most easily offended, most ego-fragile people on this whole fucking planet.

“Don’t be so sensitive, it was just a joke! Rape is a legit topic! Dark humor!”
*feminist makes a joke about misandry*
“Screw you bitch! This is why I hate feminists!”

“Don’t be so sensitive! Slavery was centuries ago! We can joke about it!”
*black person makes a joke about white people*
“Reverse racist! Don’t fight fire with fire! YOU’RE THER REAL RACIST”

etc. It’s rather incredible.

Plus, memory has a funny way of making them reinterpret events. The more self-involved a person is – the more inaccurate their memories of the event are. Mostly as a defense mechanism to convince themselves that they are somehow a good person, even when saying or doing horrible things, and act as if they are “misunderstood” by everyone else.

I’ve known people who had a meltdown online and yet, a day or two after they’ve calmed down, their recollections always end up coming to the conclusion that they were level-headed and that everyone else was unreasonable. It’s not surprising these are the same individuals who obsessively use the term “objective” without understanding its actual meaning, erroneously applying it to their personal position on an issue.

But that’s what happens when you live in an intellectual bubble: you can’t allow yourself to be wrong, ever, and conflate subjective opinion with fact – even when continuously disproven by others with piles of evidence. I had a former friend who acted “skeptical” about rape statistics and kept making appeals to ignorance, which myself and others informed him about how they are compiled and analyzed, yet acted as if no one provided substantial proof and got obnoxiously petulant when called out on his dismissiveness. He then started making rape jokes to mock anyone who disagreed with him, I said “fuck this shit”, and unfriended him.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ nicknamenick

Your post has just highlighted something I’d not noticed before.

It’s interesting that the types of people you identify always use the phrase “reverse racism”.

That would seem to be an implicit acknowledgement that racism generally works one way i.e. That the default position for racism is it’s something white people do to black people.

If, as they argue, the situation is just as bad for white people then shouldn’t they just call it “racism”?

Ironically they seem to be adopting the “prejudice + power” definition for racism generally and arguing what they claim to experience is different and a special case.

Robjec
Robjec
5 years ago

That neckline is all over the place. Wouldn’t you be ashamed to draw something so inconsistent, even if you were happy with what it said? I mean I’ve trashed pictures with less internal errors :p

Robjec
Robjec
5 years ago

@Alan
I always thought reverse racism mentioned you gave privates to one person because of past racism, vs normal racism where you take it away from someone based on being racist. Or in other words if you have a normal level of how you tract people, racism is worse and reverse is better then the base line.

Sunny
Sunny
5 years ago

I haven’t had the chance to read all the comments yet so apologies if I’m repeating anyone else, but when I reflect on my dating experiences who pays the bill isn’t quite so black and white. Most of the first dates that took place at a restaurant the guy did in fact pay the bill, most first dates at a coffee shop I usually paid for both of us. That being said, usually only the first one or two dates were at a restaurant, after that we would just stay at my house (because that’s where my kiddos beds were) and I would make dinner for us (with groceries I had purchased) and we’d watch television and chat. I love those dates actually, way more intimate and relaxing. Looking back I’ve spent a lot of money on the guys that I’ve dated, I can’t think of one time that a guy I was dating offered to help buy groceries even when eating the majority of his meals at my house. I’m not complaining, to me restaurants are a treat, not something I want to do on a daily basis. I just wanted to point out that my anecdotal experience has been that I actually spent a lot more time and money on dating than the guys I dated. Is my experience unusual or is this a pretty typical pattern?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

Thank you EVERYONE!!!! who chipped in with your comments on the ‘conversation of doom’ I’d been having with some people (as to whether we’re still friends, it’s a bit Shroedingers at the moment). And an especially thanks to Paradoxy and Kestrel, I appreciate re-visiting those experiences can’t have been pleasant.

I took back some of the points you raised. I can’t say they were necessarily all taken on board. Still some disquieting scepticism about Chrissie’s experience, but I did get this from the main protagonist:

I can also be guilty of steaming in with the aggressive self righteousness. I like to think I pick better targets and that I listen a lot more to what people actually say, but after this I will be taking a bit more care.

And if you knew the person that’s a pretty amazing statement.

Oh, spoke to soon, just got this (after I’d recommended Paradoxy’s reading list)

I will read the stuff. And a lot of victims and victim support groups share my stance on this so do not give me that shit.

I cannot take any more of your sanctimonious, finger pointing bullshit on this, Alan. I sometimes welcome your different perspective but here you have just been beyond the pale and I don’t know why I tolerated you for so long. .

Stay out of my way for a while

Ah well

Sunny
Sunny
5 years ago

This is an interesting piece relating to the costuming of physically powerful female characters. Also I love Brienne’s character in GOT, especially in the books.

http://www.upworthy.com/the-star-wars-facebook-page-just-replied-obviously-and-correctly-to-a-sexist-comment?c=pop

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

@katz,

a bunch of Silicon Valley philanthropists who only donate money to research about preventing malevolent AIs.

This pushes my buttons! I am a researcher with an artificial intelligence research group, and I’ve encounter this sort of, uh, weird priority all the time. Malevolent AI is already here, and it’s not going to turn the planet into grey-goo – it’s already giving us heart attacks with endless automated twitter notifications and google alerts and whatnot.

A social justice background to this weirdly ties back into the Men’s Rights knobheads. I apologize for disgorging! The “Effective Altruism” stuff that’s discussed in your article was originally outlined by Eliezer Yudkowsky:

Rationalwiki link including the original LessWrong post

Yudkowsky is one of those people who’s very smart, but far too convinced of his own brilliance, so has a lot of large blind spots. One of the leaders of the Dark Enlightenment nonsense, and his philosophy is very much read by Rooshites, MRAs, etc. Effective Altruism basically says “do the most good you can, doing the thing that you do best.” So if you earn a lot of money as a lawyer, then don’t go donate time at a shelter – do lawyering, and use the money you earn from those hours to pay for charity work. Don’t just pay for someone else to spend their time at a shelter, though – spend it to make the most good you can. Save the rainforest or something.

Sounds reasonable on paper, but of course it doesn’t map well to the real world. How can they tell what’s actually going to do the most good, especially if they’re not doing the charity themselves? How much of that money gets sucked up in administration cost? How much ‘good’ are you getting per dollar? In the end, most of this “effective altruism” stuff gets gobbled up in silly projects, like Yudkowsky’s own “save teh world from skary AI monsters” stuff, or administration costs for corrupt megacharities, etc. In the end it’s to make the libertarian reactionaries feel like they’re being good and charitable while funding their cool tech projects and not getting their hands dirty in an urban garden somewhere.

More personally, Yudkowsky makes me very, very sad. He does have some brilliant ideas, and I’m still convinced that some of them are vital to the development of clear-thinking. The irony i feel on reading him now is positively incandescent – he has written piles of posts about the value of self doubt and of being willing to question ones’ core beliefs… and has somehow become one of the cornerstones of Men’s Rights ‘rationality’.

Then again, he also wrote a short sci-fi story where, “to distinguish the human civilization from ours as being slightly weird,” he threw in a line or two stating that rape was legal and considered a normal part of sexuality. Sigh.

Anyways, sorry for the diatribe – something i feel strongly about I guess!

katz
katz
5 years ago

Ah yes, good old Yudkowsky. Pierre encountered his people once.

Sounds reasonable on paper, but of course it doesn’t map well to the real world. How can they tell what’s actually going to do the most good, especially if they’re not doing the charity themselves? How much of that money gets sucked up in administration cost? How much ‘good’ are you getting per dollar?

And that’s the main objection that article brought up; since they’re insisting on turning an unmeasurable thing into an analytical equation, it’s essentially just a navel-gazing exercise where they create post-hoc justifications for what they wanted to do anyway, based on dubious assumptions about the relative values of This Versus That. (And why are these guys all utilitarians, anyway?)

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

aaahahaha, ahmigah, I hadn’t seen that one. Amazing.

Y’see (let me splain it for you), believing in morality is silly and primitive, ’cause the universe is just math, so morality is math. And you can’t math unmath’y things like duties or rights or justice, so the only real morality is, like, adding hedons. ’cause that’s mathy, so it must be true. Nevermind that we can’t actually calculate what a hedon is or turn happiness into numbers, I’m sure some man will come along and build a super-intelligent hypercomputer what can do the maths, and we won’t have to worry about it.

Until then, just fill in the numbers that you think are right! Only if you’re a super-rational dude, though, not some sort of plebian or woman or something. Leave the math to the math experts. ’cause we’re the math experts, and everything is math, so… so just do what we say, okay? We’re right, honest. It’s too complicated to explain if you don’t just get it.

(snark got away from me there, sorry)

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Bina | August 31, 2015 at 10:13 pm
I’m sure there are plenty of others like him. You know the kind: They tend to think that if you don’t put out, you ain’t “liberated”. And so on.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/c9b2bfbb2ecd907e83b430076ab63ed7/tumblr_nn3263ueEk1s7vs1qo1_500.jpg

Oh look, they’re evolving.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/28aebcdc384c829746abb249b7378f17/tumblr_inline_nn5scnQaIi1qcjqew_500.jpg

Alan Robertshaw | September 1, 2015 at 8:14 am
Oh, spoke to soon, just got this (after I’d recommended Paradoxy’s reading list)

I will read the stuff. And a lot of victims and victim support groups share my stance on this so do not give me that shit.

If your “friend” wasn’t avoiding you for now, I’d tell you to relay the idea that just because some victims and victim support groups agree with them, it doesn’t mean that they get to speak for everyone, nor does it mean that everyone else agrees, nor does it mean that they’re somehow “right” in this situation.

You have far more patience than I do, Alan. I’d have already told them to fuck right off.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

Oh it’s ok, he’s told me to fuck off.

It’s funny how I’ve sort of picked up the language from here. I did find his original post troubling but I couldn’t articulate what was bugging me at first. Then it hit me, he was effectively calling out a woman for not responding to her rape in a way he felt appropriate.

Weirdly, when I tried to explain how it might be ok for a woman to criticise but not a man by analogy to it being ok for him to have an opinion on policing and race but not ok to call out a black guy for not agreeing, he understood that but said the rape thing was different.

We’ve had quite a few ‘male tears’ because he found your comments insulting, also, you’re wrong 🙂

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Alan Robertshaw | September 1, 2015 at 3:04 pm
Oh it’s ok, he’s told me to fuck off.

http://www.asicentral.com/images/blogs/grumpy-good.jpg

It’s funny how I’ve sort of picked up the language from here. I did find his original post troubling but I couldn’t articulate what was bugging me at first. Then it hit me, he was effectively calling out a woman for not responding to her rape in a way he felt appropriate.

Weirdly, when I tried to explain how it might be ok for a woman to criticise but not a man by analogy to it being ok for him to have an opinion on policing and race but not ok to call out a black guy for not agreeing, he understood that but said the rape thing was different.

Of course the rape thing is “different”, because he’s in the right, according to himself, and will do anything to stay there.

We’ve had quite a few ‘male tears’ because he found your comments insulting, also, you’re wrong 🙂

Aw, poor bby doesn’t want to let an actual rape victim tell him that he’s wrong~

Tell him to keep crying so I can fill up my bathtub.

http://i.imgur.com/KlqCWzu.jpg

Fabe
Fabe
5 years ago

This is an interesting piece relating to the costuming of physically powerful female characters. Also I love Brienne’s character in GOT, especially in the books.

http://www.upworthy.com/the-star-wars-facebook-page-just-replied-obviously-and-correctly-to-a-sexist-comment?c=pop

I guess the complainer thinks something like this would be more appropriate maybe?

http://www.daz3d.com/star-girls-trooper-for-genesis-2-female-s-and-v4

scott
scott
5 years ago

Huh, that’s weird.

I’ve dated a few feminists in my time, and they were all totally fine with splitting things 50/50, or taking it in turns to pay for things. Most of the time, they were the ones who suggested it.

Linda Mermaid
5 years ago

Crap. I’ve been paying for my own dinner all this time….