Sometimes a bunny is just a bunny
I just despair.
There is sexism everywhere, and there are battles to be fought. I agree completely that there are strong strains of odious stereotypy running through our culture, and that we have to be vocal in opposing them. Much of it is unconscious and not intended maliciously, but it still perpetuates a problem. It’s good to oppose it.
But this morning a raging flame war exploded in a thread about a cute bunny cartoon. The bunny who is the voice of religion is wearing a dress; the practical bunny playing the role of science wears pants. Some people said it’s sexist; some people said it wasn’t. And then the war was launched.
This is the WRONG BATTLE.
Are you really fighting for the right for the cute bunny in the dress in a cartoon to not be the religious one? I have never seen feminism reduced to such appalling depths of triviality as I have in that thread. I am literally embarrassed to see a 300+-comment thread erupt over this inanity, and to see it begin in only the second comment to the thread…it’s ridiculous.
I tried tracing down the source of the image, with no luck; it appeared on reddit, on a couple of discussion forums, but no one seems to give credit to the artist. If we found more examples of this person’s work, and there were a pattern of always making the girl bunny the dumb bunny, then you’d have a case — the artist is consciously or unconsciously expressing a sexist trope. Without more information, you cannot possibly judge this cartoon as a reflection of an underlying bias against women. You cannot see a pattern in a sample of one. It’s also simply not true that portraying women as stupid is a staple of cartoons — from Fred Flintstone to Homer Simpson, the trend goes the other way. Yes, it’s still sexism — but if the comic in question had swapped the pants and dress on the bunnies, someone could object just as strongly. Given only two characters, one representing reason and one irrationality, there is actually no combination of sexes that isn’t going to offend someone, if you choose to see it only as a parable of sexual relations.
It isn’t. The two characters are having a conversation about science and religion, they are not using gendered language, and they’ve both been made childlike by portraying them as little cute bunnies. It’s fair to note that there are sexist biases in our culture, and that many of them belittle women, but that’s not what the comic was about; note it and move on.
Move on to change it where it matters. You want to say society diminishes women’s roles? I’ll agree with you. You want to complain about the unjustified authority given to men? I’ll back you 100%. You found some weasel who wants to deny that women are treated like second-rate citizens? I’ll join in the stomping. But show prolonged outrage at one twee cartoon that just happens to have a bunny in a dress playing the role of Simplicio, and you’ve lost me.
I’m going off to Thanksgiving dinner, and I’m not going to pay any attention to Pharyngula for a while. Go ahead and make me the target for your ire for a while, I expect this thread to turn into a screaming melee, too. I’ll be more impressed, though, if you take a moment to instead come up with real instances of oppression, discrimination, and intimidation of women (they’re not hard to find), rather than railing about the importance of toy bunny dresses.
One Furious Llama:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
RAmen.
Dick the Damned:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
I dunno what all the fuss is about. The bunny in the dress is obviously a male transvestite, & the one in pants is a lesbian.
Sorry, i wasn’t trying to trivialize the issue of sub-conscious sexual discrimination. But i agree with PZ that a sample of one is not gonna give us anything statistically significant.
Take it easy, eh.
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
I disagree, PZ. The flame war started when some denied even the possibility that there may have been subconscious sexism. But that’s just me.
And I freely admit that, with my level of privilege (white middle class middle age male), I did not even see the possibility of sexism until it was pointed out.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
It was just an offhanded notice – as remarked several times, a simple sigh of “oh, this again”. The vitriol came from the other side and that is what was being responded to, not the initial comic. It’s the same damn situation we’ve seen every time it happens – the initial issue and comment on it is perfectly calm, if a little disappointed, and then the ire starts because how dare someone make notice of it at all.
ahs ॐ:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Nah. I’m fighting for the day when we can say “this shows an unfortunate gender stereotype” and the responses aren’t NO IT DOESN’T NO IT DOESN’T okay maybe it does but THIS IS THE WRONG BATTLE.
I have, in your post right here.
alexknight:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
As ever, PZ, you are the voice of reason.
joed:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Perhaps the anxiety of turkeyday allows people to vent but I see the anger/frustration uptightness in mant comments on this site. I am not sure why. Most people here seem to make an overt attempt to be reasonable and evidence driven. but knee-jerk emotions quickly(easily) seem to arise when any social issue is commented on. there is as many opinions as people but the anger is not necessary. I have seen anger show up often with no apparent reason.
guess I am glad I didn’t get involved in the bunny deal.
didn’t even look at what the cartoons were wearing.
Kinda’ odd huh!
Tabby Lavalamp:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Dear Muslima…
JT Eberhard:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Well done, PZ.
Seamus:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Well said! I agree completely!
Anyone interested in discussing the cartoon?
My interest is in how we might extend the concept to deal with revisionists. The original works well with fundamentalists, but for me it’s the ‘moderates’ that are the problem!
(I assure you I am not trying to sound Monty Python with that last part!)
ahs ॐ:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I had a bad feeling last thread. There was a reason I said:
As I worried, you’ve now gone and made the discussion be about yourself and your reaction to the discussion.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Well, since the other thread is closed I want to use this to apologize to rachelswirsky for my insensitivity about the problems people of colour face.
My argument was poorly made, I stand corrected.
On this issue:
*sigh*
It would have been a simple side-note. Just noticing that yes, indeed, the artists, most likely unthinkingly and meaning no harm, chose to use well-known, sexist stereotypes.
Really, no big deal.
Let’s move on and discuss the cartoon.
And then the mansplaining started.
And then we had 300+ comics about sexism.
Not because of a minor fault of a great cartoon.
But because again and again men told women (and people perceived as such, and male feminists, also known as our enslaved lapdogs) that they were shrill and overreacting and should shut up.
That’s the problem. Not the bunny in the skirt.
Beatrice, anormalement indécente:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
I finally find the time to comment, after reading the whole damned thread, and the original thread gets closed and PZ plays the “There are worse things to worry about” card. Well. That’s a surprise. Not the first couple of things about me missing all the action, but the last one, where PZ says stupid things, definitely is.
sc_35c267c004a51913836810b8c78b76cb:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Only on an Atheist site could such a silly argument exist and now let’s watch as PZ is thrown squarely under the bus.
It’s amazing to me that some folks feel a need to just analyze everything to death. It’s a friggin cartoon ! Have a giggle and move on ! Geesh !
A. R:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I’m afraid that I’m with PZ here.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Two observations. First, I did (but barely) notice the boy/girl thing going looking at the pictures, and said “oh shit”, while giving the cartoon the benefit of the doubt.
The second was that after the fracas started, the concern trolls came out of the woodwork to poo-poo the idea that any form of sexism, short of violence (or so it seems), is “not worthy” of mentioned and discussed on this blog. Folks like this are zealots themselves, as they try to inhibit rational discussion, that would shortly die out if they, not us, just ignored the discussion. Unfortunately, privilege only gains strength if it is not repeatedly challenged.
*Back to watching a mystery in sun and surf.*
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
And those who tried to actually discuss the cartoon were drowned out by those who denied even the possibility of unconscious sexism. Did you even read the thread?
utakata:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
@ Tabby Lavalamp of 8
…yeah, I got that too. But I’m not sure this is the same thing though. And that what PZ was intending. We won’t know until he comes back from dinner…even that. :(
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
I didn’t see the clothes until much later. The initial flag for me was the association of pink with unreliable opinions in the word balloons alone. (And yes, pink is associated with femininity [link], and so is having a discountable opinion [link].) If there were no characters portrayed at all, but solely puzzle pieces, box and text, I’d still dislike that pairing. Having the bunnies in gendered clothing just doubled-down on the unfortunate association.
It’s an artist’s responsibility to detect and remove unfortunate associations in their work, even if the problematic elements arose by accident.
Narlaquin:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Are we going to call this “Bunnygate”? “The Day the Duck Cried”? “Fuck me, not THAT again”? “Let’s pretend this never happened”?
I’m betting on”The Day that Narlaquin wished they’d never delurked”
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron #3
Not just you.
The comment was made that the cartoon perpetuated gender stereotypes. Then a bunch of MRA wannabees leaped in to say no, it doesn’t and even if it did it’s only one example so it’s no big deal, don’t sweat the small stuff.
Sure, it’s a cute cartoon and a good allegory about religion vs. science. Unfortunately, the irrational, dogmatic religionist is depicted as a female and the logical, reasonable science type is male. This reinforces the stereotype that women are silly and unreasoning but men are sensible and analytical.
Gnumann:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
I must admit – I can’t be arsed to read the other thread. I got a feeling of what’s there and I don’t want to wallow in stupid atm.
But I must say, PZ should take a break from the class-room to brush up his litterary skills. The author clearly shows that gender matters (blue for male voice and pink for female for example).
And I’m quite amused PZ missed the author had three options that wouldn’t offend anybody: Two equal bunnies, either female, male or gender-neutral.
The cartoon reproduces a pretty toxic meme (female=irrational). This meme is very ubiqious, so it’s no telling if the artist had sexist intent. There’s sexism there, but there’s sexism nearly everywhere. What about just nodding to it, then most rational people would move on.
ahs ॐ:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
http://www.racialicious.com/2009/12/21/and-we-shall-call-this-moffs-law/
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Moff%27s_law
tdesantiago:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
I didn’t know there was a fuss about it until I read this post… and I totally agreed. One data point is NOT sufficient when tryign to suggest there is something sexist about the cartoon. The people argueing over it being sexist have, as the comic stated, only but ONE PUZZLE PEICE and are already asserting to know the whole picture.
Grow up people, and to those in the US have a good thanksgiving.
Beatrice, anormalement indécente:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
This wouldn’t have blown up into anything resembling a battle if some people didn’t get all defensive when some others noted the possible unconscious use of a well known stereotype. Look, it’s there, it’s glaringly obvious. We could have noted it, been a bit disappointed and gone on with comments about the actual topic of the cartoon. So really, if there is a battle, it’s against sexism in the comment thread much more than in the response to the cartoon.
BrianX:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
PZ:
I’m inclined to agree on general principle, but taking a hard line on this one is a very bad idea.
rad_pumpkin:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Yes, thank you, PZ! Reason, finally, all I ever wanted to see in that other thread.
I’m gonna go buy a few of these stuffed bunnies and burn them. Damn bastards deserve nothing less…
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
@21, ‘Tis Himself OM, Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
Yeah, that’s exactly how I experienced it too.
Imagine my horror upon discovering this lovely piece of deja vu, with PZ saying exactly the same thing.
Stonyground:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
I didn’t even notice what the bunnies were wearing. The point is that the irrational bunny refuses to believe evidence that is overwhelming but not 100% conclusive. Sheesh!
Azkyroth:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
I think Carlie pretty much nailed it with this comment and it’s distressing that PZ seems inclined to blame Person 2 for the MRAs streaking and screaming.
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
@Pteryxx of 19
…I wish pink wasn’t associated like that. It’s really cool color in it’s own right.
But you are absolutely right about the artist’s responsibility to detect stuff like that. Unless his or her intended message gets lost in the controversy. As an artist myself, I am all too familiar with this. And have made few horrifying gaffs with negative consequences to the message I was trying to convey, which would of never been if I checked for those first before hitting the “send to printer” button. /sigh
Butch Pansy:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Poopyhead.
pelamun:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I didn’t notice the thing with the clothes initially, but agreed that there was probably underlying sexism once it was pointed out.
To those who say n=1. It really isn’t, as several people have pointed out, the depiction of women as silly and men as clever is pervasive in Western culture.
I mean for the purposes of the cartoon, it wasn’t really necessary to use gendered bunnies. But the artist did, and it transported, probably unwittingly, a sexist connotation.
It’s probably right that there are bigger issues, and that the cartoon still carries a powerful message about the irrationality of religion, but if it alienates a significant number of the audience, even if slightly, its effectiveness is diminished.
But as many, including me, noted on the previous thread: after noticing the bias, we could’ve moved on, but instead there was a barrage of defensive posts about how insignificant the observation was.
Yar Sir:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Hate To say It; But PZ Missed his mark =\. Father and Ahs are correct in the “finger-pointing” on who fired the first shot. Just check post 11 of the thread, Pretty sure that’s what started the ball rolling.
Pink and Blue Dialogue boxes, while not gendered language, reinforces “gender norms”. Pants + Blue text + rational etc. should be enough to make any feminist/humanist sigh… And to deny that IS belittling the real fight. Hence a Direct comment of “Fuck you. Paranoid Killjoy” A fight doth start.
Hopefully Your Family/Dinner festivities Iron out the anger! Don’t want this to go down as another “Dawkins Fumble” after all! ;D (That being Said, in 113% Jest, Stomping out People who deny others their valid sighs is where Ima headed!)
Ulgaa:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
One thing I learned from watching Hoodwinked, never trust a bunny.
PM:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I am a male. I frequently wear a skirt. On the other hand I have never worn pink pants. You may chose to see a harmful stereotype but that sure looks like a grasping at staws to me.
Jah:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Actually, both the bunnies are male, even though one of them is a transvestite… so the whole thing is sexist.
(Kinda like the Pope wears a dress, actually. There’s your clue, now get on with living life.)
evilDoug:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I didn’t pay any attention to the bunny clothes, until I read a few comments.
Could the bunny in the demifrock be – an imam bunny or a mullah bunny or a rabbi rabbit, or an orthodox bunny?
Pink and blue striped shorts with red suspenders? Lavender speech ballons? Probably best if I don’t go there. It would be sad to make the new server execute a Halt and Catch Fire instruction.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Shit, guys. What happened to all the groupthink and PZ worship?
pharylon:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
PZ,
I absolutely love Pharyngula. One of my favorite blogs. But in trying to join discussions about sexism, I’ve pretty much found it to be a cesspool of hate and vitriol. So, yeah. I’m kind of surprised you’re just now noticing.
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
@ 39, SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
MUTINY!!!
InsideTheSkull:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Why do people care what the rabbits are wearing? That wasn’t the point of the cartoon.
People see what they want to see I guess.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
We’re in Deep Rifts™ mode.
AoT:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
The people argueing over it being sexist have, as the comic stated, only but ONE PUZZLE PEICE and are already asserting to know the whole picture.
I imagine they have more of the picture than you’d think given the argument they made wasn’t that the author of this cartoon is sexist, it was that this plays into a long history of sexist ways of depicting women as being irrational. I’ve seen a lot of puzzle pieces that fit into that puzzle.
Tethys:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
I didn’t notice the gendering of the bunnies until it was pointed out. It’s most likely due to the depth of the rabbit hole.
It is sad that so many apparently male nyms had to get so worked up about it being pointed out that the gendering detracted from the more important message of the cartoon. (guys, don’t do that)
@Chigau
♥
wasp:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
“Yes, it’s still sexism — but if the comic in question had swapped the pants and dress on the bunnies, someone could object just as strongly. Given only two characters, one representing reason and one irrationality, there is actually no combination of sexes that isn’t going to offend someone, if you choose to see it only as a parable of sexual relations.”
This is definetly true, but I’m wondering wether it would’ve caused such a fuzz if the roles had been reversed.
BrianX:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I will say, though, there is a difference in scale here. There’s a significant amount of difference between a thoughtlessly constructed cartoon and intimidating someone on an elevator — the latter hints at danger, while the former is mostly just a reason to dope-slap the artist for carelessness. There are very good reasons to be hypersensitive about issues like this, in the current climate, but that doesn’t excuse submitting such sensitivities to critical analysis.
Dawkins’ big mistake was not acknowledging that the thing he was minimizing and the thing he was comparing it to are both issues of personal safety and respect. That, I think, is the basis of PZ’s logic here, at least as I read it. But as I said, it would be a big mistake to take a hard line on this one.
joed:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Professor Myers,
looks like you are being spammed. Seems the gist of your complaint is comments about totally subjective sexism.
It it obvious and evident that subjective sexism led to the complaint.
but, now some commenters want to take you to task for taking it personal. I will ignore them.
vexorian:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
1. I pretty much agree with PX that the lame derailing started in post 2. Really, people, it is a cartoon.
2. Once you go around name-calling (“MRA wannabee”) anyone not willing to agree with you that the cartoon is part of an attempt to make females look irrational, you undermine feminism as a whole.
3. In fact, I’d say that the comments undermine feminism a lot more than the author is undermining his anti-religion message by not constantly asking him/herself “would this appear sexist to some?”.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
This post makes me kind of regret claiming in the last thread that this blog was a safe space for discussion. I was thinking earlier that it’s nice to ‘be’ in a place where we can mention stuff that makes us uncomfortable without being shouted down as ridiculous and female. Perhaps I was wrong? I hope not. This post makes me honestly sad.
procyon:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
I enjoyed the cartoon and didn’t even notice the pink and blue or the male/female aspect. But then again, I am a middle aged white guy. On the other hand, when watching TV I am constantly aware that many TV commercials portray the man as stupid and the eye-rolling woman as the smart one, be it a commercial for banking, insurance, or whatever. One has to learn to see through the others eyes.
Beatrice, anormalement indécente:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Are you stupid or you just can’t read?
Show me where ahs said that you should agree with him on everything. The sentence you quoted sure doesn’t say that.
BrianX:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Wasp:
Probably not. Privilege makes a lot of things like this noncommutative.
Tabby Lavalamp:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
He has noticed, that’s why he normally has a low tolerance for MRAs.
OH! You mean it’s the feminists who are the cesspool of hate and vitriol!
Of course it wasn’t the point of the cartoon. Racism wasn’t the point of Amos ‘n’ Andy, but guess what? One thing doesn’t have to be the point of another thing to be a problem.
KarlVonMox:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Hahaha, to see feminism reduced to such triviality is commonplace on this blog – the fact that even PZ noticed it this time is amazing, and illustrative of the depths it has gone. I read the above post and I had a hard time believing its PZ that wrote it! Well done.
pharylon:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Sure, and there’s also a long tradition of big dumb guys being paired with smart, sensible women.
Seamus:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
“But because again and again men told women (and people perceived as such, and male feminists, also known as our enslaved lapdogs) that they were shrill and overreacting and should shut up.”
I would suggest that this as an example of gender stereotyping! How can I take the person making it seriously in their fight against stereotyping? (that and the fact that the term mansplaining was used later in the same comment: it seems that mansplaining has come to mean: words uttered/written by a man. Ironic that such a term could be so frequently used in a discussion about stereotyping!)
Personally I tried to make a case for why I felt the cartoon wasn’t gender stereotyping (#179 for anyone interested).
I received no response of note, (that I could see; maybe I missed one! I did receive one patronising condescending reply)
As point of interest, can people conceive of a circumstance where a person makes a claim of gender discrimination or gender stereotyping, where they are in fact incorrect in doing so?
Or should we regard the act of making the claim as sufficient grounds for validation of the claim?
It would seem to me from the previous thread that the mere suggestion that the cartoon wasn’t gender stereotyping was sufficient grounds for being dismissed.
(Why does that remind me about discussions I had with my CD (Christian Doctrine) teacher at school about not having an informed conscience as an individual, and needing instead to accept the superior wisdom and understanding of Catholic teaching!)
Longjocks:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
“I dunno what all the fuss is about. The bunny in the dress is obviously a male transvestite, & the one in pants is a lesbian.”
I was going to say it’s a fat bunny wearing a muumuu (sex undetermined). Obviously the author thinks fat people are dumb and this isn’t an issue of sexism, but fatism.
On the supposed ‘male’ bunny, how many males do you A) see wearing pants like that, and B) wear said pants with suspenders? And I mean outside of a circus, a rodeo or a costume party. To me it would appear both bunnies are female.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Easy fix; when using two characters to illustrate opposing viewpoints, minimize irrelevant differences between them. They don’t need to display a gender at all.
Example
Since gender is (or should be) irrelevant to the puzzle discussion, there was no reason to color the word balloons pink and blue in the first place, instead of choosing some other pastels without the baggage.
Assigning gender is a choice, not a default.
Matt:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Your commenters are assholes, PZ (myself included, but I’m prepared to admit it). You shouldn’t be surprised that they leapt on any excuse to talk about how sexist men are.
Bruce Gorton:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
I’m with PZ on this one. If we hyper-analyse everything to death for every possible subtext we risk ending up as humourless bores.
Beatrice, anormalement indécente:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Emrysmyrddin,
People may try to shout you down, but they will then be shouted down with such vehemence, it’s usually a delight to read. (bring some popcorn)
But yes, the post saddened me too.
joed:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
whats the matter with you people.
Your seeing sexism in the cartoon says more about you than the cartoon.
Any sexism you get from the cartoon is your sexism.
you are creating the sexism. you can’t find sexism in this one single sample. if you see sexism in the cartoon it is cause you bring the sexism to the cartoon
Your seeing sexism says more about you than the cartoon.
Read this article again,
“Without more information, you cannot possibly judge this cartoon as a reflection of an underlying bias against women. You cannot see a pattern in a sample of one. It’s also simply not true that portraying women as stupid is a staple of cartoons…”
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
No. Not even close. A commenter merely pointed out the possibility of unconscious sexism in the choice of roles. And that this could, possibly, be perpetuating a sexist meme. The assertion of a possibility is not an assertion that one knows all the answers.
And the only reason it became a big deal was that some MRA-like commenters showed up to deny even the possibility of sexism. And that even if it was sexist, so what, it is a small thing so get a grip.
Reading for comprehension? you failed.
A Fellow Eukaryote:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Long-time lurker here.
OF COURSE it’s just a silly little bunny cartoon. I thought it was pretty good at first, and didn’t notice the genders until it was pointed out, but I winced after that (the lovely thing about being male is that you don’t notice these things at first, since these little things don’t chipping at you your whole damned life). But we’re allowed to fucking note, calmly but annoyed, that it plays the old trope–which we did. Check the first few comments again. Then the MRA asshats had to come oozing from the cracks, just to whine about how fucking hysterical we are. And PZ of all people should sympathize with the subsequent stompfest.
No one’s throwing PZ under the bus. I still think he’s great, and he’s on our side. But we are just pointing out that it’s still awfully convenient that the bunnies’ genders are assigned way they are. And it aint a sample size of 1 when women fucking get this shit all the time. Smugly stupid, irrational bunny–>female. Smart, thoughtful, rational bunny–>male. Did we REALLY need the pink thought bubble for the irrational one, and blue for the rational one? We couldn’t have the two bunnies be the same gender? What if you had a cartoon of two bunnies, one of which was being a stupid asshole bothering the other bunny, and lo and behold the dumb asshole was black and the other was white. Wouldn’t you think it was unfortunate, EVEN if the author did not intend it that way? It might be far far less threatening than being cornered in an elevator, but fuck, we only did mention it to raise consciousness…only to get the Muslima treatment.
And Carlie and Azkyroth are right–it sounds too much like PZ is blaming us for the 300+ comments. As though we were just asking for it, for even mentioning the goddamn gender trope. PZ, just step back for a moment, and acknowledge that it was an unfortunate choice on the author’s part, that it was a small thing that we were mildly ticked about, and that MRA’s flocked in to derail. That is all.
vexorian:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I am seeing a lot of commenter get stuck after “THIS IS THE WRONG BATTLE”. And then ignore the rest of PZ’s post.
Let me retype it:
Are you really fighting for the right for the cute bunny in the dress in a cartoon to not be the religious one? I have never seen feminism reduced to such appalling depths of triviality as I have in that thread. I am literally embarrassed to see a 300+-comment thread erupt over this inanity, and to see it begin in only the second comment to the thread…it’s ridiculous.
I tried tracing down the source of the image, with no luck; it appeared on reddit, on a couple of discussion forums, but no one seems to give credit to the artist. If we found more examples of this person’s work, and there were a pattern of always making the girl bunny the dumb bunny, then you’d have a case — the artist is consciously or unconsciously expressing a sexist trope. Without more information, you cannot possibly judge this cartoon as a reflection of an underlying bias against women. You cannot see a pattern in a sample of one
1. No, PZ is not in the group of those saying that it is impossible that the artist is victim of a unconscious stereotype. He is admitting the possibility, but he, would like more data before making a conclusion.
2. Also, it is clear that PZ is criticizing all the commenters that are taking this discussion too seriously, both the ones claiming there was stereotype and the ones not claiming so.
———–
I think it is not bad/wrong to judge pop culture for stereotypes it shows. I do think it is wrong to claim it shows stereotypes when it does not. The simpsons for example, when Lisa was the evolutionist vs. Flanders’ creationist pushing for it to be taught in schools. How many people really did complain about it showing a stereotype about men being irrational? Would it make sense? I think it wouldn’t.
Beelzebud:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Much ado about nothing.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
To be honest, I didn’t notice the bunny gender thing at all either. But when someone pointed it out, I was like, “Oh yeah. Huh, gender stereotypes again. Oh well, moving on.”
I didn’t get angry at the person who pointed it out.
I think the people who got really angry because people noticed sexism need to check themselves. Seriously, what is so fucking heinous about noticing sexism, even if you think the other person is wrong about the sexism?
municipalis:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I remember, when I was a young boy (maybe 20 years ago), there was a series of advertisements for Crispy Crunch. The campaign, as referenced in the wiki article, was “The only thing better than a Crispy Crunch is someone elses”. There were probably a dozen ads in the series, and each one followed the same formula, with the same actors:
1) Man buys Crispy Crunch
2) Woman tricks man out of Crispy Crunch
3) Woman eats Crispy Crunch.
I doubt I noticed much when the first one of these aired, but after 3 or 4, the pattern became pretty apparent, and I got pretty upset at the commercials. I, of course, hadn’t studied any gender-theory at the point, but my little pre-pubescent head was smart enough to notice that the ads were really justifying deceit and cruelty over a candy bar – provided the woman was wasn’t the one being deceived.
The issue is, though, I saw several commercials before I realized what was going on. As PZ is saying, you can’t claim a pattern from a sample size of one. For all we know, the original author had flipped a coin to determine each bunny’s gender.
Yes, you can read into it and say “The female bunny is speaking in a pinkish red, while the male bunny has a purpley-blue!” But you could also point out that the female bunny’s dress does not cover her chest, or that the male bunny is wearing pink trousers. Unfortunately, without a bit more information, any determination of significance within this information is purely conjecture. Show me two other comics by the same author where the female is showed as a dumb sap, and I’ll be right beside you in the condemnation.
procyon:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Unfortunately this cartoon is not a “sample of one”.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I have to say that I was taken aback that people thought the comic played into a negative stereotype of women. I am familiar with many negative stereotypes that are often commonly applied to women, but I was not aware that “godbot” was one of them.
Perhaps, though, out there in the great wide world there are people who hold this stereotype, and other works in the media where this stereotype is portrayed? If so, the comic is unfortunate. I am just not aware of those people, or those works.
Tabby Lavalamp:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Not just commercials, sitcoms in particular are often very bad for that too. Stereotypes hurt everybody, but it’s apparently zealotry to point them out.
Gallstones:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
There was no gender stereotyping in that cartoon except where people injected it. Anyone who would assert that they can know the subconscious intentions of the artist is too full of of themselves to be taken seriously.
SteveV:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Well, Yes, but then again, No.
Yes, one point is not enough to determine if the sexism is deliberate,
No, one point IS enough to determine the sexism in THIS cartoon
Liesmith:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I’m always on the fence in these situations: I have to ask myself “is my thought process flawed? Am I overlooking something which is obvious to everyone else?” I get the impression that many people on both sides of this issue don’t ask themselves those questions.
Based on the comments in both threads, it seems many people didn’t notice the gender attributes at all (I fall into this category). PZ is also correct that the cartoon depiction of women is not typically foolish…he even cited examples (and there are many many many more, not to mention sitcoms and even commercials) showing that the comedic trend often has clueless males and intelligent females. I really feel like this is tilting at windmills.
All that being said, I’ll refer back to my first paragraph. I can often be clueless myself, and I rely on people with differing opinions to let me know what I’m not seeing or understanding. I think this could have been an interesting and civil discussion except for some folks who jumped in and stirred up the vitriol. I think Carlie put it best in the previous thread:
Emrysmyrddin:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
I’m not very confrontational, Beatrice; I admire a lot of commenters on here for being able to do just that, including yourself :)
A Fellow Eukyarote said everything my brain was trying to formulate, but much better.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
A single cartoon is not evidence of sexism. However, it may fit within a larger pattern of sexism. Just like a single hurricane is not evidence of global warming, even though it may fit within a larger pattern of global warming.
One thing you can say about this cartoon is that it certainly does not challenge sexism in any way. It does not break the sexist pattern at all.
shouldbeworking:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Thank you PZ or your intelligent comments. I couldn’t believe the furor about the cartoon. I am white, male and over 40. I honestly didn’t notice the outfits or the colors of the bubbles.
I was going to post a comment saying I liar things to PZ, but not as well written, but I didn’t want to be the focus of diatribes.
BrianX:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Also, I would have dressed the bunny in the dress as a priest. (The dress makes me think of the long dresses the women in the Twelve Tribes cult compound near me wear, but that’s sort of an unauthorized retcon.)
Geoff:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
The curse of the pedant.
AtheistAlabamanian:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
If you grew up in the 90s, you were aware that many sitcoms portrayed family men as dumb, obnoxious brutes. It was irritating at the time, and possibly, on a subconscious level, contributed to my desire to perform well in academics. If you want to fight a battle against stereotyping a sex as dumb and ignorant, I’m all for it. I think PZ’s problem was that the 300-comment flame war on the original thread distracted from a conversation about the intended message of the original content.
Azkyroth:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
The term “mansplaining” refers to a phenomenon where a person either with unexamined privilege or an unexamined urge to defend the privilege of others pops into a discussion, ignores what was actually being said, and condescendingly presumes to speak with authority on the matter – IE “uh huh. Yeah, see, here’s how it ACTUALLY is…” The term was coined because certain mindsets of men are extremely prone to doing this in discussions of women’s issues (a handful of women will also do this on behalf of men, and the language used is similar enough that it’s not easy to distinguish between them without explicit identification statements). Which is unfortunate because the concept has broader applications; groups who are prone to this kind of behavior include: middle-aged or elderly persons of either gender talking to young adults; rich people (and idiots who vote against their own self-interest in favor of rich people) talking to non-rich people; white people talking to non-white people; neurotypicals talking to anyone else. Obviously applying the term “mansplaining” in those circumstances is confusing and possibly prejudicial, which is why I favor the term “condesplaining” to describe the behavior in general.
And, yeah, there are spaces in which any comment identifiably from a man which in any way fails to conform to the consensus is dismissed as “mansplaining,” and where more broadly any comment failing to conform to the consensus is assumed to come from a man, regardless of commenter self-identification or lack thereof, and dismissed. Feminists are human, humans are flawed, and people who congregate together are often similar – including similar flaws. Combined with some of the often-problematic social instincts humans have, these particular flaws can create toxic environments. There’s nothing special about feminists in that regard, though, and I’m curious as to why you’re looking to hold them to such a vastly higher standard. Plus, Pharyngula threads only very rarely go that route, so it’s a bit of a red herring here….
danielrudolph:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
I’m sorry, did you just tell a bunch of women they were being too sensitive about sexism and reading it in where it didn’t exist? Isn’t this normally called mansplaining?
hughmcb:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
“Sometimes a bunny is just a bunny”
However the word cunt can definitely not be just the word cunt! LOL
Double standards methinks.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Emrysmyrddin,
Think of it rather as PZ is honestly sad that we didn’t even get to talk about the main issue in a post aimed at the trope “Science doesn’t know everything therefore God”.
I disagree with PZ inasmuch that the derail was not really about the cartoon as much as it was about the reactions to the “sigh”. And the “sigh” should have been a safe comment to make.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
vexorian #50
Your concern is noted.
Since I’m the one who “name-called” let me defend my use of MRA wannabee.
The cartoon was sexist. Probably unconsciously sexist but still sexist. The sexism was pointed out. A bunch of folks leaped into the discussion to say nope, nope, nope, not sexist at all and even if it is, no big deal. The sexism was minor and the original comment was made in regret, not anger.
MRAs try to marginalize any form of sexism, even the most trivial. Since the people, mainly (and probably only) men, who tried to make a peripheral bit of sexism disappear and complained about anyone who said yes, it is sexist were doing perfect imitations of MRAs, it wasn’t unreasonable for me to call them MRA wannabees. Because that’s what they are. Sorry if the facts are inconvenient.
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Bullshit. Not the asshole part, that I own up to, but the part about leaping “on any excuse to talk about how sexist men are.” Note was made of possible sexism (conscious or not) within the bigger message of the cartoon. Later commenters noted how unfortunate that was as it might make it difficult to discuss the message of the cartoon. And then came the cries of how mean Pharyngulites are to men, and hypersensitivity, and absolute MRA-style bullshit. Without the vociferous denials of even the possibility of sexism, the conversation would have been about the atual message of the cartoon. But, thanks to the reactionaries, we’ll never know.
Failing to examine extant art for subtext ensures continuation of current privilege.
So what does that say about those who refuse to recognize even a possibility of sexism?
The only ones asserting that they know the mind of the artist are those denying the possibility of sexism in the assigned gender roles of the cartoon.
The furor was from those who, after having the possible sexism pointed out, denied the possibility.
Same here. Which is why it is important to look for hidden subtexts.
A. R:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Of course, we have to consider that the intention of the author was to illustrate the religion vs. science issue (which I would still like to discuss), and not to challenge gender roles. Of course there were elements of unconscious gender bias here but that was not the point of PZ’s post. Someone noted it, and we should have moved on. Instead a bunch of trolls came in and assisted the regulars in totally derailing the thread into oblivion. PZ is, in my view, understandably frustrated.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
An obvious newbie. I have privilege up the wazoo. White, male, AARP card carrying and well educated in my field individual. There is one difference critical difference compared to the apologists for privilege. I have learned how to shut the fuck up and listen to those without privilege. What is your excuse for not shutting the fuck up and listening???
Emrysmyrddin:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
echidna:
My comment was honestly just a sigh – there was no topic longevity or derailing meant on my behalf *worry*
jose:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Surprise! The scientific bunny was also a she. She was just wearing pants because women do that sometimes, too.
Tabby Lavalamp:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
A story based around established characteristics of long-running characters in a show isn’t the best example. I would have been fine with Maude Flanders being the one pushing for creationism based on what had been established about her, but I would have wondered why she was getting the story and not Ned because she was never really featured as a main protagonist (as far as I can recall).
Dhorvath, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
I am concerned. This doesn’t seem complicated, the comic was good, but it could have been better, voicing concerns over how it could have been better shouldn’t produce a shitstorm. That it has is the push, and resisting that is important even if the specific issue was slight. I can’t see this post as doing anything save discouraging people from resisting that push.
Fatima:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
You know … reading all about the sexism that someone noticed in the picture, I’m inclined to wonder if people want to invoke racism as well … cause the bunnies are white with no representation from any other race or something … i wonder if with two white males only, it may still have been an issue of why is there only one gender representation …
I didn’t really notice the whole sexism and gender thing until i started reading the comments. and even then i found it more funny then trouble … you’re right, it’s there … a little bit … does that mean that with every cartoon, there should now be a disclaimer of how this doesn’t represent all possible personalities or views? Like PZ said, with only one sample it’s difficult to determine if this was meant to portray women as irrational … for all we know, there may be an entire line of cartoons with various characters and for this strip specifically, there was a rational male or irrational female … i saw it more as an intelligent design vs evolution debate … I mean, after reading all the posts PZ does on shaming and poking fun at MALE creationist “scientists”, the whole sexism thing wasn’t even noticeable …
And who is to say that the artist was infact implying that the pink-dialogue-box skirt-wearing bunny was female? Whose to say it wasn’t a gay bunny? Pink can also be associated with gay men, can’t it? I’m reminded of Scottish kilts. Assuming that the bunny is female is thinking inside the box, no?
vexorian:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
“Since gender is (or should be) irrelevant to the puzzle discussion, there was no reason to color the word balloons pink and blue in the first place, instead of choosing some other pastels without the baggage.”
Many webcomes color the speech bubbles so we could differentiate which character the bubble comes from. It is specially common in comics in which the speech bubbles do not have the pointy thing that originates at the character’s position.
The character design, pink dress vs blue pants kind of dictates that you use pink and blue speech bubbles. I think that it is you who is assigning gender on the colors.
puppygod:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
N of bunnies: 2
N of roles assigned: 2
Null hypothesis: bunnies are distributed randomly (P=.5)
Observation: n=1, Assignment conform to stereotype.
p-value=.5
Even with extremely loose α of .1, we have still way too weak result to reject null hypothesis.
So, yeah.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
If you look closely, it’s not “whatever”. It’s not which mutual fund to invest in. It’s not which college to choose. It’s not, heavens to betsy, who to vote for. It’s which fabric softener to use. It’s which brand of chicken to buy at the grocery store. It’s how to coordinate Tommy’s baseball practice with Susie’s ballet performance and still have time to make a nice dinner. It’s all the shloppy chores that nobody wants to do where feigning ignorance can frustrate the other person into doing it just to avoid the argument that a grown adult can certainly figure out how to wash whites without throwing a new red shirt in with.
george.w:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
My reaction was; “Great analogy!” But then I read the comment about gender stereotypes and thought; “Didn’t think of that but yeah, it would definitely be better if the artist had.” And both thoughts are still active for me.
I’ve noticed oscillations in commenting that make me think some kind of positive feedback loop is in play. Not just here. We need to figure out how to dampen the cycle a little. Make it easier to tell small offenses from major outrages.
Yar Sir:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
@Emrysmyrddin: Agreed. =\ I blame Jesus. But Mainly Ignorance.
I Strongly recommend Comparing ‘Post 2′ to ‘Post 11′ of the last thread for everyone attempting to ‘dismiss’ this whole thing. It was never about the sexism in the comic; It was the rejection of stereotypes. To all people nodding along to the “ahhhh! It was just an innocent comic guyz!” are completely dismissing the “sigh of lament” that is all the initial (post 2) comment was about. If you dismiss this, you are feeding into the great big wheel of inequality. No, No also no, Nobody is up in arms over “the comic!”. It is your dismissal!
Dismissing obvious gender/sex stereotypes IS sexist/sexism.
GOOD NEWS! You can all Easily Redeem yourselves by doing what many have already done… “Oh, I didn’t even think of those gender norms! Whoops silly me! *insert other relevant discussion point here!*”
Off-topic: The Comic was really cute.
On-Topic: Let me re-iterate; PZ Goofed saying it was about the comic. I don’t blame him. Takes a lot of time to read through all those comments! Or… maybe it was a quick skim reading! Which makes me a bit sad… cause My quick skim totally showed it was a bunch of people whining over others having an opinion. Weird.
Some of the Dismissals on this thread are pretty funny too. “Guyz! It’s just a cwute wittle comic about bunniez! Won’t anyone think of the children?!” Yes; We are thinking of the cute children, forced to be assigned a symbol before they can even comprehend what it means… still based in belief, but how supernatural is pink and blue balloons? Cars/trucks and bows/dolls? Turns out religion isn’t the only thing force fed into the young…
Emrysmyrddin:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
That’s what I don’t get. It was a few offhand comments, noting a possibility – y’know, what happens when you deconstruct something for meaning? And the reaction to those comments turned into flamethrowers at dawn…
F:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
I thought we did this very same comic about a year ago, but I can’t seem to zero in on when that was.
Image search anyway
kieran:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Bunnies are notourious crossdressers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWATAnuudIE&feature=related
and look carefully at the start of tiny toons notice what Babs bunny is doing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-uad6zBG1o
Didn’t notice the bunnies gender on first reading, plus the speech bubbles do suggest it is a girl bunny rather than a boy bunny in a dress. If you watch QI you find out pink used to be a male colour… I’m over thinking this
wasp:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
BrianX: “Probably not. Privilege makes a lot of things like this noncommutative.”
Well, I’ve never seen anyone being accused of using sexist pronouns if they consistently use the feminine one; maskuline ones on the other hand get called out pretty quickly. It doesn’t bother me, but you’d think the MRA (or whatever they are) were all over this.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Who are, noticably, always the star of the show, and always forgiven their stupidity, and totally more awesome/important.
Tell me, who’s better known and has more merchandise: Bart or Lisa? Homer or Marge?
Seamus
Ehm, do you understand the difference between stereotyping and observing?
It’s an observation several people made, it’s one we can back up with quotes and evidence.
Nope. Mansplaining: Mostly men (and sometimes women) telling (mostly) women how wrong they are about gender and sexism and how they are actually terrible people for even daring to raise the subject.
If you read carefully, you’d notice that quite a lot of those arguing that there is indeed some underlying sexism are actually men.
But we can haz orthography.
The artist didn’t bother thinking for 10 seconds about whether the choices regarding dress and balloons reinforced bad stereotypes. Sexism is everywhere. We’re all sexist to some degree because we live in a patriarchal society. Only there’s some of us who are trying to change things. We generally do start with ourselves.
Noticing sexism is the first step.
Seamus:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
@ Azkyroth (#83)
Thanks for your comments about mansplaining, and your explanation. I appreciate its origins, and that is why I commented, and used the term “has come to mean”.
My main point is: Why use the term at all? I personally believe that the term has become a stereotype and pejorative, and as such undermines any argument that includes it.
“I’m curious as to why you’re looking to hold them to such a vastly higher standard.”
I’m not. I am pointing out the irony of people complaining about stereotyping, operating with such stereotypes themselves.
Beatrice, anormalement indécente:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Right. No wonder PZ couldn’t find the author. (S)he is living in another dimension, with no contact or knowledge of our culture – no cable, no internet, no shops with pink department for girls, blue for boys. Must be a nice place, that other dimension.
Ganner:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
I agree with PZ. I was thinking to myself “well if we found who wrote this and saw a pattern of female characters as the religious or unscientific role, we’d have a point here. If we found that there is no pattern of genders fitting into any stereotype, there is no point here.” Without knowing this, and seeing only one comic, I don’t think there is any argument to be made.
Just as one way of looking at whether or not there is a gender bias in atheism cartoons, I popped over to reddit’s atheism comics page and surveyed the front page comics including women as characters.
5 had a woman as a main character atheist and no other women. 3 had a woman as a main character atheist and had at least one other woman as a christian foil. 4 featured a man as the main character atheist and at least one woman as a christian foil. 1 had a man as a main character with a woman as a secondary character atheist.
So, yeah, obviously a small sample size (25 comics, 13 containing women characters) and not a definitive way of measuring this but kind of confirms my gut feeling/recollection that atheism comics don’t seem to have a pattern of gender bias. I really don’t feel like you can make a rule that women can NEVER be put in the role of the Christian/unscientific character in a comic.
vexorian:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
I would like to clarify: I am not denying that it is likely that the cartoon has at least a subconscious stereotype. But I’d like to take PZ’s position that we do not have anymore comics from this author, so we do not know if that is true. And without further info discussing it and taking a strong stance about it is pointless.
If you bring more data confirming the subconscious stereotype then I will agree that it is unfortunate. If you bring data showing that the comic also has some intentional chauvinistic or misogynistic views I will bring hell to it.
I also recognize that the mere act of participating in the discussion makes it worse, and thus I will avoid further involvement, bye.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Pink and blue have been used in our society for the last few decades (about 10 or so) to signal gender, especially in baby clothes. It allows people to look at a baby, and say “Oh, isn’t [he/she] adorable” with confidence.
changeable moniker:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
They (the Cottontail Rabbit Family) are, however, massively gender- and hetero-normative. They’re incredibly popular with my daughters, yet not my son. :-/
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
There’s a reason the dumb male + smart female character pairing shows up where it does: sitcoms, commercials, cartoons. Role-reversal from accepted norms is a comedic staple. Smart competent male + dumb or less competent female juxtapositions are more or less baseline, show up in serious settings or genres, and generally go without comment as long as the female character isn’t too egregiously portrayed.
Take a look at the gender roles of serious-toned commercials versus comedic commercials sometime. Example:
Youtube link -State Farm
versus
Youtube link – Allstate
Dave R:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Ah, the irony. PZ getting upset about too much vitriol over minor issues?
Welcome to the concern/tone troll corner! I’ve been waiting for some company over here…
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Using misogyny to reinforce anti-intellectualism.
wanion:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Just pointing out the source is reddit. The thread has the poster asked if it’s OC (original content), to which they say yes, and also has the person discussing the decision of which puzzle to use, seeing as the pooh puzzle has 24 pieces while the duck one has 25, so there will always be a ‘missing’ piece even if it’s complete.
changeable moniker:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Actually, the whole collection.
Don Quijote:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I’m going to casserole the fucking bunnies and open another bottle.
Terry:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
But PZ, – your sycophant’s can be classified into two groups, the Fan-boy’s, and the folks who try to scribble on this blog what they think you want to hear.
(Actually there is a third group; the people who must educate the rest of us on how smart they are.)
So, it’s not surprising that this degenerated into “war” as you call it. These guys, and it’s evident every time you make some sort of righteous rant (i.e., Cowards spraying passive students,) one can see sides chosen; and the battle joined.
It’s “trivial and inane,” and immensely entertaining.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
There’s actually a short discussion on why the artist made the girl bunny the ‘believer’. Conversation starts here: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/kvpbc/evidence_vs_belief_a_tale_of_two_bunnies/c2nlq3f
Interesting reasoning. I believe that the reason for higher levels of female religiosity have been discussed here before.
Tethys:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
I’m sure your inane comment and choice of nym is a poor attempt to stir the pot.
municipalis:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
You’re a bit off there. Pink was still considered predominately a boys colour in the 1920s. It wasn’t really until the 1940s that PINK=GIRL was hard-coded into American culture. [source]
Jafafa Hots:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I’m not reading the other thread’s comments.
I’m just reading the comments in this one.
Wow. Just… wow.
I’m gonna go eat food.
ahs ॐ:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
PZ,
But the artist’s intentions and the artist’s biases are not the only population we’re sampling here. It’s not as though this artist is the first person to ever portray gender in art.
For social representations of femininity in general, we already have an enormous sample size. This population is where the cartoon fits in objectionably.
Imagine you’re shopping for books with a friend, who has a daughter of primary school age. You see this cartoon in a book, and suggest it to your friend. Your friend says “It’s cute, and it has a good point, but I’m sure my daughter is exposed to ten stereotype-reinforcing representations of women at school each day, and I don’t want to read her an eleventh at bedtime.”
Would you argue that your friend’s decision not to buy the book, on that basis alone, is “fighting the wrong battle”? Or is it understandable and acceptable to ask for one less such representation in the world, rather than one more?
PaulG:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
“I would like to clarify: I am not denying that it is likely that the cartoon has at least a subconscious stereotype. But I’d like to take PZ’s position that we do not have anymore comics from this author, so we do not know if that is true. And without further info discussing it and taking a strong stance about it is pointless”
This was my argument and is now being used by PZ myers.
fred:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
<> I suppose if this had appeared on a Fundie blog the indignant protests would be because the boy bunny was the one portrayed as the blasphemous numbskull…
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
vexorian #109
Your concern continues to be noted.
You’re wrong, we do have further info. We have millennia of sexist stereotypes to compare the cartoon with. The stereotypes are that women are illogical, emotional and unreasonable whereas men are logical, lucid and reasonable. The cartoon reinforced these stereotypes.
I await your denunciation of the cartoon. However I expect you’ll continue to play the dismissive “you womenz are too illogical, emotional and unreasonable about this cartoon” game.
Please collect your porcupine on the way out, asshole.
Muffit:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Girls can wear pants? It was obviously a lesbian couple.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
No, I disagree there completely. It’s not a role reversal. It’s a lingering theme from earlier decades. Much of earlier Australian (*not only Australian, but I’m more familiar with it) literature includes the background of the sensible woman holding things together while the man gambles, drinks and otherwise is unhelpful. It matches the world I grew up in quite well.
It’s not just my observation. C.S Lewis, quite cluelessly, describes the common problem of having a smarter woman (like a school teacher) henpecking her not-so-educated husband, because of course the “proper” pairing is to have a dominant male.
What has changed since not-that-long-ago is that smart women are now able to achieve status through their own achievements, more or less, and don’t need to put up with idiots for spouses, unless they so choose.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
*sigh*
The problem is that it’s pervasive in society.
Nobody said the artist set out to create a series of clever cartoons to reinforce bad gender stereotypes.
The artist, most likely, just reproduced the standard tropes present in society.
I sometimes write short stories. And then I read them again and often i notice that I’ve written the same crap people have been writing for ages: strong heroes, rescue-needy women-folks.
And then I’m half-mad because I did it again, and half glad because I noticed it.
Why do i tell you this?
To show you that we’re not demonizing anybody. We’re trying to raise awareness.
The Rat King:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Thank you PZ.
Seamus:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
LOL!
I give up!
One bunny wearing a skirt, speaking with a pink/peach coloured bubble.
Another bunny wearing a pair of red and purple dungarees, speaking with a purple bubble.
(YES! They are NOT pink and blue as people keep suggesting!!)
Anyone who reads gender stereotyping into that really need to take a deep breath!!
KING LORFADORF:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
You guys are crazy. In like a million RPG’s I have played all the girl characters have higher magic power/intelligence then the dudes for the most part and you don’t hear me crying that guys are portrayed as brainless muscle-heads.
God.
Really now. I read this comic, and I thought nothing of the color bubble thingies or the clothing. Like, I read through the thing it was like, this funny thing about religious denial and stuff. I thought it was pretty funny and sick. Sick and funny. Like, sick as in SICK, DUDE. Not SICK sick. Then looking at it again it’s like-
“Oh. Alright. I suppose there is a guy and a girl bunny. Going by the colors and outfits and stuff. I guess. One of them is the religious denial dude and the other is the rational one that follows the evidence. Alright. Gotcha.”
Uh, yeah. Not this insane patriarchy conspiracy some of you guys are flipping out about.
I suppose if I ever decide to make a cartoon or some story where one dude is the fool and the other dude is rational and stuff I have to make both of the dudes be the same gender so that people can’t flip out over it. Wowzers mowzers, like, chillax with the over-analyzing, gaiz.
And for any crazy dudemanbros that are angerfied at me, please don’t use the words “cupcake” or “dear” or something about a porcupine in response. That is SO uncool, and makes you look like a total LOSER trying to look cool.
Cupcake.
Rock out, yo.
……….That was what I was going to post, then the thread got closed by Lord Badass. Good stuff, dude.
Like seriously. I like never post anywhere. But the ONE time, CLOSED. WOW, dude. Wow.
But yeah. Crazy stuff going on in these CRAZY days. It’s just a cool cartoon about crazy religious dudes spitting in the face of evidence, right?
Wait. More then anything, the comic was a visual “god of the gaps” thing, right?
I think so.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Quite right. I should have said 7 decades.
Alethea H. Claw:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
PZ, I am disappoint. This is exactly the same old usual feminist/MRA discussion, as seen recently with reference to elevators. The exact topic really doesn’t matter.
Feminist: Huh. Here’s a small thing. Guys, don’t do that, kthx?
MRA: BAAAAAAWWWW U R OPRESING ME!! FREE SPEACH! coffee means coffee not sex. RIDICULOUS SPACE ALIEN CULTURE FAIL!!! skirts & pink don’t mean woman. BAAAAAAWWWWWWW!!! CENSORSHIP!! U R OVERREACTING!!!
Funny thing is, the more they BAAWWW about it, the more puzzle pieces we get to put together, and finally the picture is quite clear. Oh look, it’s a sexist trope! BAAAW NO ITS WHAT IT SAYS ON THE BOX ITS BUNNIES!!!!
Emilie:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
I don’t see why some people (including PZ) are calling for more samples from the cartoon’s author to find a pattern…of what, exactly? That this person is a misogynist? The issue is not to put the cartoonist to trial, but noting something that might be another example of unconscious sexism…among a sea of other more potent examples.
I reacted to the comic as many people here did: I enjoyed the message, but still noticed that the bunnies and colors used were rather clichéd.
As to saying that we should choose our battles, that the fight is elsewhere and don’t sweat the small stuff…how about letting me choose my own battles, and let me deal with the consequences if and when I choose unwisely? Right back atcha.
municipalis:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
I would rather “my friend” teach their daughter critical thinking and expose her to a wide variety of viewpoints rather than censor otherwise good material on the shallow basis that it is not explicitly opposing gender-stereotyping, or any other nastiness. Not being explicitly sexist, racists, etc. is enough for me. I think that level of child “care” is on the same disgusting level as a fundamentalist Christian family refusing to buy anything but “Christian-Certified” products for their children and themselves.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Would one of you guys pretending the cartoon isn’t sexist please show how it supports women? Come on, you’re all so sure it’s not sexist, so give us some evidence it’s pro-women. Or are you all too intellectually dishonest to deny your male privilege?
Tabby Lavalamp:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Seamus (and others arguing over what sex the two characters are), did you read the link provided earlier? http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/kvpbc/evidence_vs_belief_a_tale_of_two_bunnies/c2nlq3f
The religious rabbit IS supposed to be female.
Now can we please stop arguing over whether or not the comic’s creator used established iconography to depict the sex of the two rabbits and discuss whether he was right or wrong to do so?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Yep, your posts are trivial and inane, but not entertaining…
Nope fuckwit, you had no argument, merely concern trolling. But then, to have an argument, you must be able to recognize one. You are incapable of that, but also incapable of shutting the fuck up and listening…Why is that???
A. R:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Hmm, noticed the author’s explanation as linked above. Quite interesting.
Cosmic Snark:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Thanks PZ, that needed to be said. That was the most ridiculous, peurile thread I’ve seen after three years of reading this blog. A complete embarrassment to the community.
Ibis3, denizen of a spiteful ghetto:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
I couldn’t even finish reading your post (though I will do so when I calm down). You are wrong, wrong, wrong, PZ. This isn’t a sample size of one. This is a sample size of my whole life. Every book I read, every image I see, every ad on television, every song I’ve ever heard, every toy store I’ve ever been into, every social interaction with other people, every teacher in every class I’ve ever attended. The majority of all that input says: girls/women = dumb, stupid, vapid, irrational, less than full human beings, or even non-existent.
You didn’t see it in this instance? Not a surprise. The message isn’t meant for you (well, it is, but since it makes your life generally better, that’s not so much of a problem for you if you don’t notice it). But when people point it out, don’t fucking mansplain and pooh pooh it and say we should just lie down and take it. It will only ever change if we keep pointing it out. You denying it? That makes the problem worse. We can’t ever move beyond trying to convince people that the fucking stereotype exists if every instance of it is treated in a vacuum. FUCK!
Dave R:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
So does that make PZ a cupcake / MRA?
Seamus:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
@134 Alethea H. Claw
“Feminist: Huh. Here’s a small thing. Guys, don’t do that, kthx?”
“MRA: BAAAAAAWWWW U R OPRESING ME!! FREE SPEACH! ”
So, apparently, all feminist points are made calmly…
Whereas all who oppose the notion of the cartoon being a gender stereotype are MRAs(which like mansplaining appears to generally be used as a pejorative).
So, in the serious debate about gender stereotyping, tell me, how does your portrayal actually help matters (as it is clearly a misrepresentation)?
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Interesting, thanks. In my interpretation, I can see why the artist justified having believer-bunny be the female one, citing greater religiosity among women. (I think that justification’s a mite thin, but okay.) I still think color-coding the word balloons pink and blue took the gendering too far, because it was a) too blatant a gender association and b) gave away the conclusion by giving one speaker a less-serious color association before the argument itself became obviously irrational. Personally, I’d have picked a couple of shades of aqua and yellow to contrast with the background. /artstudent
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
By which I deduct that you don’t have a daughter.
Or at least not one old enough to be in much contact with the world outside, like school and kindergarten
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Seamus #144
Your tone trolling is noted, asshole. And yes, I called you an asshole on purpose. I did this for two reasons:
(1) To show my disdain for your tone trolling; and
(b) Because you’re an asshole.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
The author seemed to think carefully about using a female for the religious one, and based it on the fact that there are more women who are religious. That’s fine, but what message was he/she trying to send? If it was “be like the boy bunny”, or “the girl bunny is wrong”, they might have stopped a moment to think about how women in the atheist movement are already marginalized and not taken seriously even in such an “enlightened” group, and how that decision just marches right in step along with it.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
And still, why did the bunnies have to have gender in the first place?
municipalis:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Because without further information, you’re accusing the cartoon and the cartoonist of ‘unconscious sexism’ on the basis that other cartoons (“more potent examples”) fall prey to such stereotyping. Hmm… I know there’s a word for when you assume commonality among things on the basis of a shared characteristic, but it’s slipping my mind right now…
More to the point, there is a rather disturbing implication from some that any media containing a “dumb” female and a “not-dumb” male is inherently sexist, even if (for all we know), the genders were assigned by random chance.
In this case, we now have more information: the author stated in the reddit thread tahat he based the genders on the fact that women are more likely to profess a belief in god. Right now I’m unconvinced that the use of demographic statistics to determine the gender here had any sort of “unconscious sexism”, but I’d be willing to listen to a good argument to the contrary.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
PZ:
When I read this, before I got sidetracked by the comments, I thought of the the women who will be unveiling themselves for 5 seconds every Thursday starting this week in Tehran, Mashad and Shiraz as a protest against systematic oppression.
Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
which is pretty much all anyone here has been saying.
not that it matters. apparently the artist chose to perpetuate the link between religiosity and women (and reasoning and men) on purpose, as per the discussion linked above
Suezboo:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
The patriarchy rules the world. Men, even the most well-intentioned, seldom notice subtle or unconscious sexism because they don’t have to.It’s not part of their everyday experience, just as white people seldom notice subtle or unconscious racism, although they may well deplore its more overt expression.
So, pointing out that this cartoon, cute and clever as it is, contained subtle, possibly unconscious sexism, was trying to make our brothers-in-atheism see what we see for their own edification and education in the ways of the ruling class.
Women know from sexism. When we point it out to you, say: “Huh! Really? Jeeze, I never saw/thought of that. Thanks.” Apt response. Unlike denial, mansplaining or melodrama.Unuseful responses.
municipalis:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
I admit, I don’t have a daughter. I don’t have a son either, but if the discussion here was about, say, militarism and machismo within Farwell to Arms, I’d say the exact same thing.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Good point; I’d clarify that I was speaking primarily about on-screen portrayals, in which women’s competence is usually shown to be nonthreatening somehow, often via comedy. (And men’s INcompetence is also nonthreatening because comedy.) It’s not funny when considered in any sort of depth, much less in real life.
———–
I’d assume they’re toys from some line or other, which the comic artist acquired, so the heavy gendering of the figures themselves may come from the toy line’s designers (I don’t recognize them myself). The artist probably didn’t notice; most people don’t realize gendering isn’t natural law.
I’m still wondering why folks are assuming the artist is male. ~;>
Krasnaya Koshka:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
I did not even think of the girl vs. boy thing when I showed my Russian girlfriend the comic. To me, the most important part was, “Hey, we think philosophically in America!”
Russians think Americans are philosophically impaired.
In my real world dealings, it has been half and half–ardent god-bot boys and ardent god-bot girls.
Is there actually a turmoil about this?
Andy Groves:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
I think some of the commenters on this weblog can sometimes be one puzzle piece short of a duckie………..
Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
actually no. the artist was not “accused” of anything. “unconscious sexism” is pretty much a given for people who grow up in sexist societies, even for people who actively work to purge themselves of that programming; so unconscious perpetuation of a stereotype is a perfectly sensible hypothesis, given how attitude formation works.
but again, it doesn’t matter. the artist admitted to have made the girl-pink-religious, boy-blue-rational choice on purpose, consciously
mythusmage:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I have to wonder, would we be so quick to anger if the economy wasn’t so screwed up? So eager to blame and condemn if we had control over our lives?
Dave R:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
echidna:
Yeah, but why would we want to talk about oppression of women in Iran if we can get angry at each other over bunnies, elevators and ice cream instead?
splenda:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
You are creating a false dichotomy. It is not true that something is either misogynist or it is not. If I write a text on higher homotopy groups in algebraic topology, the text cannot be said to be “pro-women” per se. Does that make it anti-women?
The cartoon implemented one of the three possible gender pairings of two people, and people are having a knee-jerk “sexism” reaction? Unless someone can present evidence that cartoons really have an unfair anti-female bias, I am chalking this one up to personal feminist confirmation bias.
Yar Sir:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Yay For the sharing of Information!
Knowing that pink was a boy color in the past will allow for more disarming remarks to people I chat with that are set in their “current-culture is the one and only truth!”.
Well, I can only Hope they will be disarming =\.
anon commenter:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
In contrast to what the elevator guy did the cartoon clearly is sexist. But it’s okay that the cartoon is sexist. We noted that and hope that in the future when somebody has a cool idea for a cartoon she will brake the stereotype. And then some day we will wonder way the boys are always displayed as irrational.
municipalis:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
I can see your point, but I can’t agree with its inherent cynicism. Lest we move into “thoughtcrime” territory, the assumption of innocence before proof of guilt should rule.
Grimalkin:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
You were overreacting, and it was not just men saying that you were.
Look, I get that there is a lot of “Geez feminists overreact so much”, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t ever be actually overreacting.
And for the record, the thread did not go from “Oh look, the irrational one is a girl bunny” to “NOPE NOPE NOPE SHUT UP WOMEN.”
It was more “Oh god, they REALLY jumped to stereotypes” without mentioning the subject matter at all, someone else calling them out on being a killjoy, and then going on to explain how insanely vague that assumption was.
If ANYTHING, the “The bunnies are sexist!” side was overreacting and had ALREADY taken over the comment thread before anyone disagreed, so don’t try to pin the blame on some imaginary MRAs trying to silence you.
Disagreeing =/= silencing.
James C:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
I’m deeply saddened that all this nonsense has detracted from the real prejudice here: Rabbit Bias.
Not one person has suggested that these might be hares, not rabbits. For too long hares have been overshadowed by their more socially acceptable cousins. Equal rights for all leporids!
Tabby Lavalamp:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Dear Muslima…
That’s twice I’ve had to use that now. Here’s the thing, Dave R… We can do both.
Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
“inherent cynicism”? “thought crime”? my comment implied none of those things, it merely noted that implicit attitudes usually reflect the culture one comes from, so growing up in a sexist society creates implicit sexist attitudes in everyone who isn’t immune to social learning due to atypical brain wiring.
And no, you don’t get to come back and say you know you don’t have any implicit sexist attitudes; because you wouldn’t know, since it’s near impossible to accurately know a person’s implicit attitude. The subconscious is a wee bit hard to measure. (there are tests for racial implicit attitudes, but i don’t have the link right now)
Grimalkin:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Oh, so you’re trying to say that HARES get into more religious battles than RABBITS?
Bunny bigot.
DaveDodo007:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
What’s wrong P Z.
The chickens coming home to roost:-)
Dave R:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Tabby:
Well, I for my part would just reduce the ‘anrgy-at-each-other’ bit, but then again I’m a proud member of the tone troll brigade.
Tom S. Fox:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
[blockquote="Carlie"]It was just an offhanded notice – as remarked several times, a simple sigh of “oh, this again”.[/blockquote]
The problem is that by doing this you pretty much say that a woman must never, ever be portrayed negatively and that a man should be used for this purpose instead, making you the sexist you accuse others of being.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
municipalis
And you’d probably change your mind if, despite your best efforts, you saw your son turned into the worst possible incarnation of violent macho guy at age 5 because the outside world chose to reinforce those stereotypes 24/7.
You’d probably tell your friend: ya know, how about something different for a change, how about a story about a cool guy who doesn’t turn the rest of the characters into mash but who actually cares and has emotions and is allowed to be a full human being?
Because that’s what happens in the world.
That’s what this fuss is all about
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
#167 James C: Well, would you look at that. Another white-knighting hare defender overreacting to every little thing as usual. I swear, you morons won’t be satisfied until every single rabbit is dead, will you? Hares and rabbits are equal these days. Get over it.
By the way, I have two hares at home and they both thought these were rabbits. Are you going to accuse them of holding pro-rabbit biases? Plus, I love my hares like my own children so I could not possibly be anti-hare.
Randomien:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Carlie said:
Yeah, it’s Womanspace, basically.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Unfortunately, “unconscious sexism is pretty much a given” is demonstrated by evidence. See implicit association, chilly climate, and stereotype research.
Starter: What? Me Sexist?
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
* stereotype THREAT research, misplaced my copypasta.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Not at all. If it were a woman being portrayed as knowing nothing about taking notes in a meeting, or doing laundry, or doing dishes, or cooking, or taking care of the kids, and it was the man who knew about it, I’d find that a bit refreshing, actually. Heck, I’d find it refreshing if there were situations portrayed wherein there was a clearly defined right person and wrong person where it wasn’t a binary woman/man combination.
I think I know the solution. I mean, it’s got to be tiring for the guys to keep having to knock us down when we get all unreasonable and suchlike. So tell you what: you guys come up with a scale showing levels of sexism (with descriptions and examples, of course), and a nice bright line indicating where all levels below it are too insignificant to mention and we should just pretend not to notice. Should be pretty easy to do; you must have that scale all figured out already, since you all seem to know exactly when we’re crossing that line and overreacting. Just give us a nice chart to refer to, okay? That way we only bother you about sexism when it’s really important and worthy of your attention.
Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
no one was “offended” you idiot
*sigh*
I give up.
David Marjanović, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Oh no. Rabbits are leporids, too.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
#173 Tom S. Fox:
No, that is not what is being said.
The statement is that women should not be portrayed in ways that reinforce damaging stereotypes. In a possibly more familiar context, it is not a problem to have a black man (or a bunny representing one) in your comic. It is not a problem even if the black man happens to be an unsympathetic character. But it is a problem if the black man happens to love watermelons.
A bunch of people here perceive that there is a damaging stereotype of women as godbots. Personally, I was not aware of this stereotype, but if it exists (and I quite honestly have to concede that the people who say it does are much more observant about these things than I am), then this comic is a bit like having the obviously black bunny be a big fan of watermelons.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
What’s next, calling me “hysteric”?
So, #2 in the last thread was overreacting:
Yep. Basically violent and calling for a boycott of all bunnies.
Oh, and my personal overreaction:
A first grade flame war.
Ah, yes, I see. We just needed people to point out that the pink/skirt bunny probably wasn’t even female and that the female one wasn’t intentionally the stupid one (which has been confirmed by now, are you still saying the cartoon doesn’t reinforce women=uncritical?) because we’re just too stupid ourselves to find out.
Anything else you need to tell me?
Aquaria:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
“Feminist: Huh. Here’s a small thing. Guys, don’t do that, kthx?”
“MRA: BAAAAAAWWWW U R OPRESING ME!! FREE SPEACH! ”
So, apparently, all feminist points are made calmly…
In that thread they were, fuckface. Why don’t you deal with them in a calm way, rather than in a privileged, dishonest scumbag way, eh?
Krasnaya Koshka:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
This is exactly why some (perhaps armchair) feminists are not taken seriously. You get yourselves bunched up by this?! Have you lived in the real world? Have you been a lesbian?
Let me break it down. Boy rabbit is sensible. Girl rabbit is not.
Hey, that’s normal. As is vice versa.
Do you NEED it to be Girl rabbit is sensible and Boy rabbit is not? Do you want to be equal? Girl rabbits, I assure you, can be as dumb as boy rabbits. EQUALLY.
Sometimes I really think you get on some sort of roll and don’t look up. Ugh, I can’t believe I’m fighting for the equality of rabbit toys here. I have enough real fighting for myself to do.
capnxtreme:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Can we maybe just stop associating colors with things that have nothing to do with light wavelengths? I mean, sure, it’s useful in applications such as traffic signals or warning beacons, and so on, but I grew out of the whole “pink is a girl’s color!” thing when my age could still be described with a single digit. The artist of the comic in question may (if unwittingly) be perpetuating the stereotype of the irrational woman, but I’m seeing a lot of people here perpetuating the equally asinine idea that colors need to be associated to genders.
And that’s not even considering the possibility that both bunnies are female! Women are perfectly capable of wearing pants and speaking with blue speech bubbles! This whole thing is fucking outrageous, and for all the wrong reasons.
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
When I saw this post talking about perceived sexism in a previous post, I immediately scrolled down to see the subject of controversy, and failed to see what all the fuss was about. My first guess was the choice of pink border for the Christian’s text, but then I noted that the rationalist’s text was in a purple border, so it’s not like one is more feminine than the other in any meaningful way; my guess would be that since the characters are both bunnies, whoever made this chose those cutesy Easter colors for their dialogue borders. Not really something to get worked up about.
I didn’t notice until it was pointed out plainly in this post that the bunnies were wearing different clothes. They’re bunnies; it’s kind of odd to think of them wearing clothes in the first place. But isn’t there a simpler explanation for what’s going on here? The maker of this comic was trying to make a message with some toys he or she had lying around, and among them were some bunnies wearing different clothes.
Suppose the person making this comic didn’t have two bunnies. Suppose they had a bunny and a badger. Would that make the whole thing a racist allegory instead of a sexist one?
To give some background on my own views here (and to address some rather misguided analogies I’ve seen in the comments), I’d like to state that I was firmly on the side of feminism during the whole Elevatorgate debacle, for a simple reason that is missing here: There was a great deal of precedent of hateful, abusive, demeaning, bigoted rhetoric that was exemplified by an inappropriate proposition with hideous implications behind it. But here, as PZ has stated, we only have one isolated event, for which there are much handier explanations than “it must be sexism”.
Which is not to say that it’s not sexism here, nor that it should be overlooked if it is. I just don’t think there’s enough information to start lunging for each other’s throats.
In closing, I guess one positive thing to come out of this, as with any debacle where axes of difference come up, is that it does expose a number of people who stick to their guns about bigotry being something that can be ignored.
David Marjanović, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
You mean you don’t want to agree with it.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
You’re a liar, hares can’t be kept in captivity
;)
Good night, everybody
Nonentity:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
I didn’t notice the gender thing at all on first reading, but that’s pretty much because it had nothing at all to do with the comic aside from a way to visually distinguish between two rabbits.
But evidently one should never, ever, EVER make an internet cartoon with a feminine character who does anything that could be considered silly or not rational. Male characters are the only ones that can safely be overly religious, or weak, or emotional, or anything else that might fall under someone’s definition of a “bad” female stereotype. Even if you’re dealing with characters who have almost nothing in terms of distinguishing characteristics.
For all the people blaming the flamewar on people denying sexism: the very second post completely dismissed the comic based on this one incidental detail. Would it really suck so much less if the religious one was wearing pants and had blue speech bubbles? By all means, seek out and prefer examples of strong female characters who don’t fall into stereotypes you dislike. But expecting every author of a throwaway funny to think “oh, no, the religious character can’t be female” is a bit much.
Since when is religious denial of scientific evidence a female stereotype, anyways?
I’ve had english teachers who loved to read all sorts of extra things into the stories we had to read. Even the author directly saying “no, that didn’t have anything to do with it” and explaining *why* it had nothing to do with it had no effect on them – they still insisted that their interpretation showed what was really important in the story. Rather similar to religion in a lot of ways.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
#187 capnxtreme: The bunnies could actually be frogs. Frogs are perfectly capable of dressing up as bunnies.
But if they are frogs, then why did the author use the traditional method of depicting bunnies to depict these frogs? Is it just to confuse us?
In the absence of ALL evidence (and actually in the presence of the author’s own statement that one of the bunnies is male and the other female, and that the female one is the religious one), your suggestion that the author is deliberately using the traditional signals of gender to mislead the reader of the comic is quite frankly idiotic. As I am sure you well know.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
This fuckwittery from someone who believes bigfoot the imaginary is real??? Come on, get real.
Emilie:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
municipalis:
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
C’mon guys, quantify. We need that chart.
Cause and effect, man. We’re not perpetuating it, we’re pointing out that it exists. It’s pushed from infancy on. And the author has already said they used pink because it was supposed to be a girl.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Colors don’t need to be associated with genders. Unfortunately, culturally, they are. (That’s an is-ought fallacy, correct?)
David Marjanović, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Please explain to this non-American.
Over here, women are culturally expected to go to church and to have a social life there much more than men. They’re also much more expected to believe in woo.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche – children, kitchen, church: where women traditionally belong.
Adi:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
You know what’s weird? I think I read that cartoon about 3 times, and I resized it to fit on my Facebook, and I actually had a conversation with a graphic designer about the layout, and the actual depth of field…
I honestly didn’t realize one was in pants and the other a dress. They’re so abstracted they were just wearing ‘clothes’.
But… well, that’s why my boyfriend is a costume designer who dresses me and I’m just the skinhead-fag producer.
That this thread happened strikes me as really weird.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
#190: They are not in CAPTIVITY. What a horrible suggestion. They are my FRIENDS. After all, many of my best friends are hares.
melior:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Some day a cure will be discovered for Ellen Jamesianism. It’s like PTSD, only more threadkilling.
Lizard:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
I wrote a really long post that I constantly edited and changed to make sure my meaning was perfectly clear, then lost it due to hitting the wrong button. Sigh. So, I’ll let The Onion say it for me:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/graphic-artist-carefully-assignsethnicities-to-ant,1588/
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
I’m really disappointed, PZ. It wasn’t that long ago you posted Someone took the red pill, which was about noticing how surrounded we are by sexism.
My initial comment in the other thread (#21) would have been it, if it hadn’t been for all the MRAs and mansplainers showing up. There’s nothing like being told to be a chill girl and lighten up.
That said, have a good holiday. I’m out of here for a while.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
#197: Regarding watermelons: http://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/the-watermelon-stereotype/. (As it says at the top of the page, “WARNING: Racist images follow.”)
It is mostly of historical interest (as far as I know), but at times it has held a major position among the common stereotypes of African-Americans.
Regarding women and religion in Europe (Germany?): That is interesting. I wasn’t aware of it (obviously).
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
EBWOP: Link fail, sorry.
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Seriously, PZ? You’re just going to tell the silly wimminz (and otherwises, and male allies) that we’re just being irrational and overreacting to sexism, of which you have a far better understanding? That’s disappointing. You could have slapped at the MRAs/misogynists/assorted fools/fervent deniers for blowing up an offhand statement remarkably similar to “Guys, don’t do that” into a flamewar, but no, you’re going to complain that pointing out sexism is doing feminism wrong?
I am disappoint.
As opposed to Carlie, Ahs, Giliell, Pteryxx, Ogvorbis, Nerd, and others. Who are awesome.
Rachel P:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
There’s nothing wrong with taking note of the fact the stereotypically female gendered bunny was portrayed as the dummy bunny, which is frustrating for women who struggle to be taken seriously as thinkers. It would have sucked if it went the other way too. Men may not have the same social challenges as women but being deemed stupid sucks. I’d much prefer if neither bunny had been gendered and we didn’t see any association between dumb and a specific gender.
I just don’t see any evidence it was intentional and malicious.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
In my, oh so humble view, there was no need to assign gender to the cute little bunnies at all. By assigning gender to the bunnies, this becomes part of the artists statement, which indeed the artist describes as deliberate because females are more likely to be religious than men.
As part of the deliberate statement on the part of the artist, it is up for discussion.
As for whether it’s important, the unspoken assumptions that people make without thinking are really important when in a new situation.
For example, when trying to establish Indigenous cultural norms, the Australian Government talked to men, assuming men controlled society, rather than women, who traditionally have a large role as cultural custodians. The Indigenous men, I am given to understand, were not always completely honest in their representations, and tipped the balance of power in favour of men.
Examining these assumptions is important, and difficult. It can only be done by listening, not by shouting over people trying to tell you something.
shawnthesheep:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
The way I saw this was that the producer of the bunny piece had two identical bunnies in different types of clothes. He had to choose one to be the “fundamentalist” and one to be the “rationalist.” The fact that the woman is chosen as the “fundamentalist” did not smack to me of sexism at all. If these two bunnies were being randomly selected for the two roles, the “female” bunny would be selected for the less flattering role just as often as the “male” bunny. So perhaps the producer of this piece did randomly select the bunnies. We don’t know. To insist that the gender of the bunnies is further proof of institutionalized sexism seems to simultaneously miss the point of the piece while proving the point of the piece. Those screaming “sexism” don’t have anything like a complete picture of how this piece came to be. But they are looking at a single data point, or puzzle piece, and seeing sexism, when the completed puzzle looks like a couple of bunnies puzzling over a puzzle.
Cat of Many Faces:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Hey wait, did you get mad at Dawkins for this sort of thing?
My first reaction was “meh, just a cartoon, no need to get worked up about it.” then I realized that the bubbles and clothes for the rabbits are a bit more work for it to be just a bit of luck. (seriously, it looks like the clothes just come right off…)
This is comic shows the sort of thing i hate about ‘Romantic Comedies’ these days… The woman is always the one who is un-fun, or a wet blanket. The woman is Especially shown as irrational about things.
Now, you are right that we can’t be sure that it’s on purpose without knowing the source, but sexism IS present in this.
just my 2 cents.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
We do know.
Jerfoo (the artist):
Randomien:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
I don’t even know what to say about this post. I frankly kept checking to see if it wasn’t supposed to be a borked opening quote from someone, to be followed by PZ’s analysis/mocking. It’s not that you can’t have a different opinion from the Horde, the feminists or whoever. It’s that I don’t think you can coherently maintain both this line of reasoning and the one you seemed to be endorsing when posting about red pills, elevatorgate and pink microscopes.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
But we do now know the artist’s intent. Check the link that I posted above, where they discuss the deliberate decision to make the female bunny the godbot. Reading the whole thread would be helpful. A discussion on the issue now that we know the choice was about religiosity would also be helpful. Plus? No one’s screaming here.
Human Ape:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
A newspaper article in a recent New York Times, I don’t have time to search for the link.
In Afghanistan, a woman was threatened and raped by a relative. She was put in prison for it. And she was expected to marry the idiot who attacked her.
We’re wasting lives and taxpayer money in that dirtbag country for what?
capnxtreme:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
The idea being that we can do something about that. Cultural “norms” like gender/color association aren’t set in stone. Letting go of them would be just one more positive step toward gender neutrality.
I see your point, and in retrospect I do feel sort of silly posting that bit. It was poorly thought out and sort of off-the-cuff.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
#214: Wow, that response is like 200 times more rational than I expected.
I agree. We should do something about the stupid association of colors with genders. I don’t actually mind it in the context of this comic (it’s just an artistic convention), but I hate it when it comes to actual people, clothes, etc. because it leads to very harmful bullying of kids in the early grades of school if they happen to like the “wrong” color.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
On second thought, I’m not really sure how separable the comic version and the real-life version are. Probably to some extent they are separable, because even though the little bathroom symbol still has a woman wearing a dress, it is now perfectly acceptable for women to wear pants. But I don’t know.
shawnthesheep:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
I consider myself a male feminist, but this whole flaps seems silly. And I don’t mean, “The wimminz are silly.” I mean your reaction to this particular cartoon is silly.
BTW, in the future, if you want to be taken seriously about eradicating all gender bias, please refrain from using insulting terms like mansplaining, k? It’s not constructive.
bookworm:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
I agree with Emilie @135 – authorial intent is not the significant issue; finding a pattern with which to talk about the author is not the issue, and, frankly, a bit pointless, unless you want to move from the cartoon to a discussion about the author’s role in gender relations. The product exists outside the author’s intent. Eco describes this beautifully in his book Interpretation and Overinterpretation when he bemoaned the myriad readings of his books, some he could accept even though not consciously intended, and some he emphatically rejected, even if his voice as author was simply lost in the interpretive stream. His conclusion: he wrote it, but had no control over how it was received. I confess I read the comment without noticing the gender roles, but when it was pointed out, I didn’t feel slighted (as a white male who grew up in a small conservative town) that yes, it was stereotyping, and it forced me to think a bit harder. Since we don’t often read/interpret without reference to wider sociological and cultural norms, and our own experiences, there was nothing wrong in someone noticing and pointing out ‘good cartoon, pity about the sexism’. Pity it couldn’t just end there as an heuristic observation.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 24th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
First off, an admission. Like ‘Tis and some others, I did not immediately see the sexist subtext to this cartoon, and so I experienced a little consciousness raising of my own in the last thread, but once it was pointed out to me, I found the logic of the argument hard to deny.
As such, I think PZ is wrong on this. As has been observed by other commentators, the trope that women are flighty, irrational and emotional, whereas men are supposedly empirical, logical and considered – the ‘bimbo meme’ if you will – is pervasive in our culture. In isolation, the cartoon is harmless, and I think it likely that sexism was not consciously intended, but it is the unconscious replication of discriminatory tropes that is the hardest to eradicate, and this cartoon has to be viewed in its broader social context as part of a clear pattern of depictions of women in our society as lacking critical faculties and a serious turn of mind. Yes, pop culture has it’s ‘smart girls’ but they are the exception, notable because our society still views academic ability and rational thought in women as atypical.
In a culture where the spheres of the public, the intellectual the serious and the authoratative have for so long been seen as a boy’s club, with women relegated to the sidelines, it is not good enough to dismiss concerns over the possible unconscious discrimination in an image by essentially saying “there, there, calm down, it’s only a cartoon” – these images are still part of the social discourse, and cartoon or no, they can still replicate harmful memes.
The way I read the last thread was a couple of commenters stating that they felt that the message of the piece was undermined by an unfortunate subtext that seemed to denigrate the rational faculties of women, only for a tidal wave of angry male privilege to flood the thread, with charming terms like ‘fembot’ being thrown around. We have seen this before – angry ‘what about teh menz’ types who think they have something to prove taking a shot at feminists. What I can’t work out is how PZ got on what I still genuinely think is the wrong side of this issue this time.
On the up side, the next time some troll says that Pharyngula is just an echo chamber where PZ keeps his sycophants, we should really point them to this thread…
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
J Crew ad sparks controversy
Boy dresses as Daphne for Halloween
(I love that quote.)
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
@Caine, Fleur du Mal of 102
That’s exactly what happened. Somebody points this issue out from the start and some ignorant MRA dude in isle 11 tells her to STFU. Thems are fighting words – ballooning an issue that may have died few comments with reasonable discourse if that idjit left it well alone. I’m a little disappointed though that PZ didn’t pick up on that, instead in a fit of dispair decided throw up his hands and walk away. I see MRA trolls are already lining themselves up telling him, “I told you so.” This does not bode well for this blog that has been up to now very strong on women’s rights. Just saying.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Specifics? Who are you talking to? Which reaction? There have been quite a few.
capnxtreme:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
#215: I always try to maintain a certain amount of rationality on the internet. It’s thankless work, but somebody has to do it, you know?
Back on topic, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking along this line as of late. About the various stereotypes that are almost inherent in culture that nobody questions, that is. Comics like this can be great consciousness-raisers. I don’t bother with stereotypes like women only wearing dresses or liking pink, so I read it as simply an atheistic “parable” of sorts. Gender never entered the equation. Nonetheless, the stereotypes are still present. It may be just the tiniest bit misogynistic, almost to the point of insignificance, but it all adds up. I feel like I’ve learned something here.
Arkady:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
@David Marjanovic: Eigenperson has already posted a good explanation for the watermelon thing, apparently fried chicken is also commonly included in the stereotype. As a fellow european I only read about this during the 2008 US elections when some of the less-than-pleasant right-wing pundits started trotting out that crap about Obama.
Yes the stereotyping in the cartoon is pretty minor, and there are bigger problems (e.g. Not a sexism issue, but personally I’m currently putting off walking home as there were 10 violent attacks on students last night near my campus. Specifically targeting students near Halls of Residences, and the victims have said that the violence seemed to be more the goal and the robbery was incidental). Pointing out, ‘Great point on the religion, but huh, way to unthinkingly use existing gender stereotypes’ hardly prevents us from caring about the bigger stuff! I’m a big fan of a lot of classic SF but still cringe at the casual sexism, I don’t stop reading or enjoying the rest of the novel but I acknowledge it exists (e.g. currently rereading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and once more noticed the bit where the narrator thinks that a woman raped and murdered led her attackers on in some way). Would those complaining of our ‘overreaction’ please show us where they magic the line to be about what we’re supposed to care about or ignore?
Emrysmyrddin:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
It does all add up. I think the proper sociological term for it is microaggressions.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
shawnthesheep @ 271;
A male feminist who lightly dismisses the concerns and experiences of women in relation to gender issues as ‘silly’?
You might want to reconsider how you self identify. This is not a position that most feminists would accept as feminist.
‘Mansplaining’ is a recognised meme with a specific meaning used to describe men who engage in gross condecension to women, often based on the assumption that their opinion must be right by virtue of their gender, particularly those who like to explain to women how they should go about feminism properly.
Oh, look, rather like your august self, in fact…
And, lest I forget, your concern is noted.
Ricky:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
I demand a comic where the clothes and chat bubble colors are switched, if we don’t get to see the girl bunny being the logical one then the world will never take sexism seriously!
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Jerfoo (the artist):
A little more thought could have easily rendered the comic fantastic and free of sexist tropes. Yes, women are more likely to believe in god, and more women are now going into science fields. So…making both bunnies girls and losing the pink and blue text bubbles would have lost the standard sexist tropes.
It’s not a terrible thing to point this out, so that a bit more thought goes into doing such works and helps to eradicate entrenched sexism at the same time. That’s a win-win.
Pinkamena, Panic Pony:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
PZ.
Ban every single person who throws the bombs. Every. Single. One. If people want to turn on you for daring to disagree, then turn them away. If they want to defend you for what they see as supporting their stupid, destructive biases, turn them away as well.
If it means there’s nobody left, then it means there’s nobody left. If you must scorch the fucking earth to make the point, then scorch away.
I await my turn beneath the banhammer. I would prefer it, in fact, to the company I would be keeping were I to stay.
The Rat King:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
So an entire forum goes totally librarian poo over a comic about bunnies and because the overlord of the forum, a human with demonstrably pro-feminist views, is shocked at a bunch of people squabbling over a fucking colour selection like it is heralding in a law forcing women to wear gingham dresses 24/7… you think it is the end of Pharyngula.
Chicken fucking Little or what…
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Emrysmyrddin:
Yes. For those who are unaware of it: http://microaggressions.com/
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
@227: Just because something is recognized as a meme doesn’t mean it isn’t a *shitty* meme. For example, the meme of referring to all constructive criticism as “concern trolling”.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Pinkamena:
I know you are new here, but this is incredibly idiotic and most certainly unhelpful. This isn’t the first time much of the commentariat have disagreed with PZ and it won’t be the last.
If you don’t like it, instead of whining for a banhammer, take the simple route and leave.
Dave R:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Kwolek:
Or anyone who says “maybe we should be less angry” a tone troll, for that matter.
Caine, Fleur du Mal, didn’t you want to leave this thread? I remember you calling me names for posting I’d leave but then didn’t. Well you called me names for any sort of opinion I had, but hey.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
#230 Pinkamena:
It appears you are suggesting PZ should ban people for disagreeing with him.
This makes no sense to me.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
And Godwin. My parents were children in Nazi Austria, and this experience shaped their lives, and mine as well. Crying “Godwin” effectively shuts down discussing important events that shaped the world, and that are personally important to me.
echidna:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Ook.
Thanks for the smile.
Richard Eis:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I’m with Carlie on this.
but… oh look, the genders he chose WERE directly related to the artist’s idea behind the comic.
So much for probability eh rad_pumpkin.
Philip Legge:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
PZ:
For my part, I think you’ve missed the point PZ: the defining characteristic of almost every Pharyngula flame-war on the subject of feminism of late has been that there is no rebuke too mild, no criticism so small and trivial, no minor point that reasonable people would consider and come to the conclusion, “Oh, now I see!” and then move on, no thread touching however obliquely on feminism, where some of your readership can’t help themselves but dig themselves in to troll and derail the thread with the standard anti-feminist clichés, and often employing substantially more vitriol than is being used in return.
I’m really surprised that wasn’t noticeable to you on the previous thread, because it bore all the hallmarks of say, the recent thread on the Pharyngula shop where a couple of trolls determinedly dug themselves into troll bunkers and one of them went nuclear. That was unusual because the content of the thread was so innocuous. The bunny derail was not unusual, because once a point on feminism or sexism occurs it happens every single time. The reasonableness or the unreasonableness of the point at hand (was there unconscious sexism in the cartoon or not? Perhaps) is completely immaterial: it’s the merest of pretexts for the anti-feminist trolls to move in and begin #occupypharyngula with persistent “la la la I can’t hear you, let me post again and again and again until I’ve drowned out everything else” derailing.
miller:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
The trouble with sexism (and marginalization of other groups) is that much of it consists of these small actions and silent attitudes, and much of the time you’re not even 100% sure a thing is actually sexist! And when you point something out, you’re forced to make a big deal out of it, and forced to be certain in your accusation.
I did not notice that the bunnies were gendered, but I’m noticing it now thanks to this post. I think the proper response is to not worry about the specific example, and just be more aware of the stereotype in the future.
Pinkamena, Panic Pony:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
@#236: And you’re illiterate. Now shut up.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Funny how often this happens:
–
–
–
–
Yet from all the discussions I’ve seen in the last year, how often can an instance of sexism be called out and NOT get condemned as absolutist, no matter how mild the critique? Well… never.
fort nerd:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
In other news, here’s a video of an octopus crawling on land:
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=66015
Will Moore:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
I don’t think you understand the concept of impression if you cannot see the sexism about this (I am a guy by the way). In the world today amongst a lot of educated people the argument of religion is seen to be without logic and facts while science is seen to be logical and factual and hence more reliable. Attributing those traits to women reinforce stereotypes we already deal with. The repeated impressions of such subtext or should I say sub image ultimately serve to solidifying the very ideas that birth feminism from stereotyping. This is the foundation of branding and advertising. In this case women are being branded an advertised in a certain way. It might have been an outright mistake, but is definitely suggestive of sexist behaviour and as such should be taken seriously. Just how I see it.
Dracontes:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Yeah, I noticed the inherent sexism as I was reading it and it’s unfortunate even if the author has an arguable justification for it. I should note that he’s fighting this stereotype in another front: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/kvpbc/evidence_vs_belief_a_tale_of_two_bunnies/c2nmils
@Carlie (#180): Actually, there is such a scale, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfGenderInequality (wiki walk warnings apply).
TommyP:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
It’s funny, many of the women I’ve known have been more reasonable than the men I’ve known. It’s an arbitrary experience yes, but I fully expect the little dress bunny to be in her burrow tonight thinking about Duck and Pooh, and come back and sit there sipping cawwot juice and considering. And then she’s probably going to end up writing a note to duck expressing her disappointment and future unwillingness to judge a puzzle by it’s beautifully printed and compelling box image.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Pinkamena:
It would seem you don’t understand the definition of illiterate. As you’re now going to do nothing but troll, put more effort into it.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Christopher Kwolek #233
Why look, a concern troll is pretending his “concern” is actually constructive. Why he thinks whining is constructive is a puzzlement, but I’m sure he can pull some kind of explanation out of his rosy red rectum.
Dave R #235
And his buddy the tone troll pops in to whine about tone trolling.
Gentlemen, thank you for showing that stereotypes can be true. Concern and tone trolls are generally regarded as whiners and you two are no exception.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
#242 Pinkamena:
If you are going to write “If people want to turn on you for daring to disagree, then turn them away,” how do you expect people to interpret that?
Circe:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Pteryx:
This is almost begging the question. What you are implicitly assuming is that there was sexism there in the all those instances in the first place. To me, it seems that people are just too ready to cry “Sexism” whenever a feminine character is portrayed as the not-that-perfect one, and are all too ready to impute intention where there might have been, and probably was, none. And I can understand why someone would try to condemn strongly any such inaccurate hyper-deductions of their “intentions”.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Yes, exactly exactly exactly. This is the atmosphere that silences anyone who dares to say “hey, maybe please think about this a minute?” I know I’ve thrown up my hands and quit and left it to other people a countless number of times. Swallow shit, or ruin the entire afternoon?
Yes, it gets old. Yes, we sound like broken records. Yes, it gets brought up all the time. Why? Because it fucking happens all the damned time. Because I’m a privileged white overeducated middle-class white-collar woman who’s never been raped and (almost) never sees overt condescension to me at work and never paid enough attention to notice if people were telling me I couldn’t do something because I’m a girl, and I still feel the energy sap out of me every time I see little tiny reminders everywhere that everyone really knows the place women are supposed to have, and how many people really believe that, and realize what some men really think of me because I’m a woman. And this happens, at the minimum, weekly. It’s only not multiple times daily because I don’t watch tv most of the time and I carefully choose the media outlets online I read and what I listen to on the radio. And every instance of a meek “hey, that sucks” gets attacked like that woman just suggested castrating all men. It makes me weary to my very core, and it’s only my evil heart of spite and the huge backlog of privileged easy times I have built up that keeps me from just giving up trying to ever point it out altogether.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
#251: Where did you get the idea that anyone was imputing intention?
For that matter, where did you get the idea that for something to be sexist, the author had to INTEND for it to be sexist?
Because I’m pretty sure none of the feminists here have been advancing that view.
Ray Fowler:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
aw, shoot. I was hoping that we could rally together and make the creator grovel out an apology, only to then throw it back in his face.
Apparently sexism is not as bile-worthy as theism.
municipalis:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Maybe I should have been clearer; I’m not against restricting exposure to the mindless pap like Call of Duty. But barring For Whom the Bell Tolls because it contains elements of machismo and militarism would be silly, because the treatment of those elements is far more complex than simply “TURN PEOPLE IN TO MUSH”. And for the record, I don’t really have a problem with people raising the point that the cartoon used a stereotypical color palate – I agree that it did. But if you go back to Crys T’s original comment, she wasn’t raising that point, she was dismissing the whole thing as “brainless” because the ‘girl’ character was the fool in the piece. Baby with the bathwater, as it were.
Maybe cynicism isn’t the right word, I’m sorry for that. I think what I’m uncomfortable with is the usurpation of the neutral position; of the null hypothesis. The idea that we should assume everything is tinged with sexism until proven otherwise, and regardless of how much information we have on it, resembles far too closely the “god of the gaps” epistemology. I’m fully willing to concede that, probabilisticaly, you are correct, but I think it’s always better to make post hoc judgments rather than pre-conceived assumptions.
I’ve italicized the part above which I think shows how much common ground we have here.
As I said above, cynical was the wrong word for what I was trying to express. Otherwise I agree with you fully, especially your insertion of “might (after one thinks about it)”.
greame:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
I knew that I’d seen the whole missing puzzle piece premise beforem somewhere. This one’s better then the bunnies IMO. It’s animated, and it’s about knowledge, not Whiny the Pooh and ducks.
Ytrus:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I didn’t even notice the bunnies were wearing clothing until someone pointed it out.
timwascoe:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I have been reading your blog for about a year and a half. I’ve never commented before, but you are the reason that right now I’m still struggling to reconcile my own white male privaledge view points. But honestly, sex did not even register to me with the cartoon in question. If you had not brought the different sexes of the bunnies into light, I never would have noticed. I thought the cartoon was a valid lampoon of the theist mind set and nothing else. Now, I know that I still have a way to go, but doesn’t that mean something when sex doesn’t register when reading a satirical cartoon?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
I’m curious is any portrayal of a character who is a less intelligent woman sexist at all times.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Circe, except that you’re mistaken.
I said nothing in #243 about the call-outs being accurate. But you assumed that I did.
You may note that when I critiqued this comic way back in #19, I specifically said that pink is feminine-associated, and being not worth listening to is also feminine-associated, with references. For any reasonable argument, I’d expect someone who disagrees to say “I don’t think this is sexist, and here’s why” or at least “I don’t think those associations you’re describing hold up, and here’s why”. Not to use blanket statements like “always” and “never” as a lazy discounting tactic.
sigh.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Rev, this is a particularly sore trigger point given the sexism specific to the atheist movement have been dealing with for the last year. And again, by a dozen comments in it was no longer about the comic, but about the overreaction to a mild criticism.
frankb:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
I am another white middle aged guy who initially didn’t notice the gender thing in the cartoon. But when it was pointed out, I did notice. Even the obnoxious PaulG admitted to the unintended sexist stereotype so those who are denying that genders were assigned have lost all credibility. But PaulG and others still don’t get it. Noticing and commenting on the stereotype has brought out all the fierce and angry deniers. Complaints that the artist’s intent is unknown is irrelevant. Complaints that the comic is only one example is irrelevant. The flame war is about the angry deniers who don’t have a leg to stand on and the commenters who are calling them on it.
Ganner:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
I’m continuing to look up atheism comics (first mentioned in post 108) and I’m continuing to find that women seem to be portrayed, similarly to men, in both rational/atheist and irrational/christian positions. I’m not finding any patterns of one gender being put into certain roles more often than others. I really do just want to get a clear answer, then, that we’re being asked to NEVER portray a woman in an irrational perspective compared to a man in any medium or format. Because that’s the only way I’m able to interpret this.
I’ve been with the feminist side on pretty much every argument up to this point. I was with you on elevatorgate. I’m with you on pretty much all the ideas of the subtle stereotypes that get portrayed over and over, with the conditioning of girls to be different than boys, and how it’s wrong. I’ve identified myself as a male feminist (though, according to some in this thread, I’m not worthy of the title and to ever disagree with a woman on a point of offense makes me an MRA when I’m anything but and look at women in an equal light as men) But what I take from all this is that I need to treat women equally to men. And that’s what I do. If I draw comics (I don’t, but from my surveying of what I can find this applies to the people making them) I’m going to have examples of men irrational compared to men, men irrational compared to women, women irrational compared to men, and women irrational compared to women. I certainly respect your right to take offense if I do this, but in this case I would not change my behavior when I absolutely do not think I’m in the wrong, and think it is not a serious request that any comics I draw be limited to men irrational compared to men, men irrational compared to women, or women irrational compared to women. If I went out and looked and saw a predominance of atheism comics portraying women as irrational and men as rational, I’d completely agree that its a problem and this comic was a piece of the problem. But I don’t see that.
Ali A. Rizvi:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
If this was gender stereotyping, shouldn’t it have been the guy who was the dumb one?
From what I’ve seen on virtually every family sitcom – from Married With Children and The Simpsons to Everybody Loves Raymond and Family Guy – it’s the man who’s the bumbling idiot while the woman is the smart one who keeps sanity alive.
This comic strip certainly attempted to reverse THAT stereotype.
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
@The Rat King of 231
…if you think that then you are missing the point. /shrug
osteenq:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
I’m sorry, but this all just seems beyond insanely retarded to me.
It’s not sexist. We all know that there are just as many male bunnies out there who have crazy beliefs.
Phoenician in a time of Romans:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
The artist didn’t bother thinking for 10 seconds about whether the choices regarding dress and balloons reinforced bad stereotypes.
From the link here
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/kvpbc/evidence_vs_belief_a_tale_of_two_bunnies/c2nlq3f
“I know, I know. I deliberated on it for a while then I let the Internets decide. I did a few searches to confirm my suspicions: women are more likely to believe in god… so girl bunny lost this round.”
David Marjanović, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Arrrrr.
We’ll find out when he’ll come back from dinner.
I think your screen has a red tint. On mine, the blue is precisely baby-boy-clothes blue (nowhere near purple!) and the pink is precisely baby-girl-clothes pink. Because everyone else except Christopher Kwolek says they’re pink & blue, I think your screen is the one that’s off, not mine.
Interesting, and quite surprising. Thanks.
Probably by not having time to read the entire thread but commenting anyway.
Why don’t you make one yourself?
What bombs? ~:-|
Why wait for the banhammer? Why not leave just so?
PZ has already posted it.
shawnthesheep:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Gregory Greenwood,
Fuck you. If I see something as silly, I will dismiss it as such. As a gay man, I occasionally see other LGBT folks complaining about something that I find silly. It does not mean that I’m homophobic or uncommitted to LGBT equality. It just means that sometimes everyone–women, men, feminists, fundamentalists, astronauts, epidemiologists, sexists–are silly. I don’t have to agree with every member of an oppressed group in every instance to be considered an ally to that group.
I’m not dismissing any and all concerns about institutionalized sexism as silly. Just this one. Personally, I believe that distractions such as this one are a waste of time and do little or nothing to advance the cause of equality. Feel free to call that concern trolling. It doesn’t make it any less true.
As for “mansplaining” being a widely recognized meme, so the fuck what? It’s still gender biased. If I came up with a term like womansplaining, regardless of the explanation or definition, I would be skewered and rightfully so.
I’m allowed to have an opinion on effective ways to fight for equality. I’m allowed to have an opinion on what I see as good uses and bad uses of our limited energies/efforts. I share PZ’s disappointment in the ridiculousness of this controversy.
I don’t need to re-examine how I self-identify. I am a feminist. I have worked hard to eradicate gender bias anywhere that I’ve encountered it–at school, at work, on the intertubz, etc. And I’m sure there are some forms of institutionalized sexism that I don’t recognize and/or unconsciously perpetuate. But in this instance, after really thinking about it talking to several women that I know and respect greatly, I just don’t see a there there.
Your condescension is noted.
HMDK:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Sure, it’s only one sample.
Here’s the thing, though:
The point could be made without any gender at all.
It could be just two non-sexed bunnies talking.
Why make one feminine and the other masculine, when it isn’t even needed and only distracts, unless you’re making a point?
I do think there’s been an overreaction to it, but no reaction?
mikeslater:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Maybe if the author had bachamaneyzed the godbot-bunny it would have been completely inoffensive. http://bachmanneyezed.com I suspect even Michelle Bachman wouldn’t be offended!
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Well shit.
How the hell is he going to know you want him to shut up?
David Marjanović, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Read this thread before adding to it.
Besides, dumb guys are a very new stereotype. Have you watched any 1950s TV? Chock full of living, breathing blonde jokes – this is not an exaggeration.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I give up. Certain people* are unwilling to admit sexism is pervasive in Western culture. Nothing that’s said will show certain people that male privilege exists. They’re too busy sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU to actually shut up and listen to womens’ genuine concerns.
*Notice I didn’t call these fuckers MRA wannabees even though I really wanted to.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
All anyone has asked for is “hey, writer person, would you consider not making the girl the dumb one if you do this again?”
Why is that bad?
Alethea H. Claw:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Did I mention before that evolution is impossible? Because teeny tiny microscopic changes can never ever result in a macro event like speciation. No teeny tiny microscopic thing can ever be important, or worth studying, or even worth noticing.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
I still can’t figure out what it is about sexism that triggers this reflexive retreat into all-or-nothing binary-world.
Look, you people in Never-Never land. Y’all can figure out sliding scales and balanced responses. You figured out how much sugar you want in cookies and how much heat you want in chili. You know about Goldilocks and the Three Bears. You probably drive slower in the rain. This ain’t rocket surgery.
It shouldn’t be so darned difficult to develop a sexism-meter so you can run a quick check and say “Ew. Better dial it back a notch.” Yeesh. It’s just consciousness-raising, people.
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
@249: So, who determines what’s “whining” and what’s “constructive”? Should there really be an arbitrator of what deserves consideration and what should be ignored?
Or should any seriously-offered comment be regarded and replied to seriously, without resorting to the lazy and dishonest tactic of discounting any and all dissenting or unwanted opinions as “trolling”?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 24th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Yeah and it isn’t relegated to any one camp.
joed:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
any sexism found in the cartoon is created by you.
saying the cartoon is sexist says more about you than about the cartoon.
The cartoon is about claiming to have the real picture when infact you only have a small amount of the picture.
Does anyone else see the irony here.
Calling the cartoon sexist is like the probably female bunny saying she has the real picture.
There just ain’t enough info folks. info in this one cartoon that is.
so, tyr some introspection to find out why you be so uptight about a cartoon. why are you so very uptight about the bunny seeing a whole picture when infact the picture is not whole.
Ganner:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Because there is nothing to dial back, in this instance. My consciousness is raised. Sexism exists. It’s all over the place. I’m usually found arguing against the people who refuse to accept that women may be put off in a situation where they’re fewer in number and overwhelmingly hit on and reflexively sexualized, telling people to consider the position of the women involved. But a comic where a woman is irrational and a man is not, compared to a balance of atheism comics I’ve been able to find where there is no pattern of women being more likely to be the irrational subject than the rational subject, or more often irrational than men, is not an example of sexism needing to be dialed back. If any single instance of a woman being portrayed as irrational merits “hey that’s sexist, dial it back” then an all or nothing IS being established by YOU. It’s saying, in the only way I can interpret it, I am never allowed to portray a woman as more irrational than a man, in any isolated instance, or else I’ll be taken as sexist. Even if I’m not, even if I’m just as likely the next day to have a man be irrational compared to a woman, or have gender-neutral characters, or have only men or only women in a situation.
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
@Caine, Fleur du Mal of 248
Pinkamena is most likely a troll. On who has named him/herself such for the color being debated for the controversy of this thread. Since I don’t recall this person ever posting here before. This person is either not taking this debate seriously but wants to stir the crap anyway, or has likely some nefarious motive. Hense a troll. Either way, I wouldn’t give this person the time of day.
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Shawnthesheep, here’s an actual feminist, who has actually lived as a woman, telling you that you don’t, as a dude, get to say what’s sexist. Especially to women. So stop trying to speak for them. You wanna help with feminism? Go right the fuck ahead. As an actual ally, not some mansplaining asshole.
Also, LOL, claiming that mansplaining is so meeeeean. Asshole, it’s all about some dude like you telling the wimminz what’s what. Which you’re doing. Stop that, and go collect your porcupine.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Ali A. Rizvi:
No, it didn’t. Portraying the man as always stupid is sexist, portraying the woman as always fuzzy-brained is sexist. If you think the latter isn’t pervasive (bimbo trope), you aren’t paying attention.
Please, read my post @229, which addresses the artist’s choice as to portrayal. A sexist trope was easily avoidable, in more than one way. There’s the one I talked about in #229, if the artist was intent on having the religious one female. The artist could have chosen to take the clothes off both bunnies, and lose the pink/blue, going with no gender issue at all.
Reinforcing sexist tropes, either way, don’t help anyone. It’s by drawing attention to them when they happen, that raises consciousness and changes perceptions.
Bob Loblaw:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
I want to apologize for my poor behaviour on the other forum. To Crys T and to Caine, Fleur du Mal. My humour was wrong and off putting and didn’t add to the dialogue. I believe strongly that poor stereotypes of women and men exists and that people have a right to be sensitive to these stereotypes.
I misrepresented Crys T’s, as well as Calie’s points of view for my own trolling entertainment.
By trolling I took away from the serious discussion of subliminal imprinting of traditional gender stereotypes in rabbit cartoons.
I have no wish for men to have power over women or vice versa.
People react poorly though when someone attempts to frame the issue as follows: the rabbit can never just be the rabbit and if you don’t agree you’re a sexist.
Women can be/ not be zealots
Men can be/not be zealots
There is nothing wrong with asking the author to not repeat it.
There is nothing wrong with the author refusing as long as there is no consistent pattern.
I just want them to make the same cartoon in each possible combination of genders so we never have to revisit this again.
Improbable Joe:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Shades of “when all you have is a hammer… “
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Utakata:
Oh, the colour is innocent enough, I think, as they first showed up on the my little pony thread. I’m pretty sure the nym is associated with the pony thing.
iangreer:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
So where in the comic was it evidenced that the girl bunny was stupid because she’s a girl?
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
@283: I’m left to wonder where the idea of referring to observations made by men as “mansplaining” comes from in the first place. I mean, men exist, as a part of this world, and we see things as individuals in it. Is there not, then, some level of validity in our observations on things that are happening in the world?
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Ganner @281: You’re mistaken when you draw a line around “atheist comics I’ve been able to find” and pretend they’re floating in a void. Sexism’s an established pattern in culture as a whole, as I cited back in #19. Atheism didn’t establish pink and blue, or dresses and pants, or women being taken less seriously than men; so you’re making a flawed generalization, similar to cherry-picking.
I stated my critique of the comic already in #19, #60 and in #145 quoted here:
How do you justify calling my interpretation “all-or-nothing”?
cyberCMDR:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
It’s obvious that a number of people have a “hare trigger” when it comes to sexism.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Have you not read the links you were provided? Because the initial incident was a man explaining a book to a woman who happened to be the author, he refused to acknowledge her corrections of his misunderstandings of the book at all, then refused to believe she was the author because he was sure the author was a man, and when it was proved to him that she was indeed the author and he was actually wrong, he simply turned his nose up and walked of. This was followed by a deluge of hundreds and hundreds of comments by women relating stories that followed exactly that pattern of a man telling them things they had more expertise in than the man did and the men refusing to believe it. Most of them also clarified that this had never happened to them in conversation with a woman, and that it generally happened with a certain kind of man whose views on the roles of men and women in society were distinctly patriarchal.
AlanMacandCheese:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Yes. That would be Stephen Harper, Prime Minster of Canada. He has declare that women in Canada are equal therefore the Government will no longer fund women’s organizations that engage in advocacy and/or activism or support pro-choice, which is essentially all non-religious women’s groups.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
A quick question here.
So, after the “wars” have been waged, and a consensus is formed one way or another (if it gets to that point), how does one proceed? Do you say, “okay, so we’ve agreed it marginalizes women, is sexist, and has no place in an equal society”, and drop it? Find the artist and lecture them on the error of their ways? Demand an apology from PZ? Campaign harder for equal rights? I’m being serious – once you’ve convinced people of your viewpoint, what do you plan on doing with it in this particular instance?
Perhaps you agree that this one data point is inconclusive. Where do you go from here? You’ve made that determination, now what actions come of it?
Maybe you stick with the idea that it’s not sexist in some way. Again, what do you do with your decision going forward?
My point is, you’re all arguing for what you think is right, but the N+1 point after you’ve finished your argument has never been explored. You’re arguing to prove your point, but to an end that hasn’t materialized yet. Sure, you convince more people to open their eyes a bit more and see the subtle sexism in culture (if that’s what you end up agreeing upon) but that’s the end of it as far as your involvement is concerned. I’m fairly certain you’ll continue doing what you typically do, and won’t immediately go out and be any more active against injustices like these because of the comments made on this forum.
I think that’s PZ’s point. Once the dust settles, and most everyone agrees on a conclusion, we’re all left feeling a little more enlightened and… that’s it. That’s why this is a trivial fight. Why sit here arguing about a comic when there are better and more productive ways to promote enlightenment and equality? Sign a petition, protest, write a blog, write your congress member, enter into a public debate (not on the internets), or any other number of things that promote your message. Arguing about the thoughts of a comic artist, intent of color usage, subtle sexism in anthropomorphic characters, or rabbit stereotyping with the unwashed masses of the internet is a huge waste of your energy.
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
@289: You could fucking google the term? Or read the explanations of the term in this very thread.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
You are seriously not paying attention. The goal has been stated a few dozen times between the last thread and this one. No, I’m not repeating it for you again now. Go read for comprehension.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
#259 BigDumbChimp:
No, I don’t think so. Only if it plays into a specific stereotype.
For example, if you have a work with a Jewish character who is really greedy, that’s probably anti-Semitic. But if you have a work with a Jewish character who is stupid, I don’t think this plays into any existing stereotype, so I would not say there is a real problem with that. Now, if the work has 30 different characters, 10 of whom are Jewish, and all of whom happen to be stupid, that would be problematic again, but for a different reason (now it’s more revealing some bizarre internal bias of the author than playing into cultural stereotypes).
Also, it makes sense to consider the work as a whole rather than parts of it. If you look at a work like Harry Potter, and focus in only on one small part of the work, you would notice some rather characters who conform to unfortunate stereotypes, like Moaning Myrtle (just one example that comes to mind). If Harry Potter consisted only of the parts dealing with Moaning Myrtle, then it would probably be a sexist work (regardless of the author’s intentions). But if you consider the work as a whole, I do not think it is sexist. Especially as Myrtle is a very minor character.
In this case, the work as a whole is very small. I do think this places the onus on the author to treat the issue carefully. Normally if you want to write some material that is not sexist, you would have some characters who conform to certain stereotypes and some who do not, because that is how things are in the real world. However, in a miniature piece like this one, you have only two characters, and in this case, they both conformed to the stereotype in question.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Gentry:
No, it’s not a waste of energy or time. It’s called consciousness raising. Raising awareness is never a waste of any kind.
As for your presumption “the unwashed masses of the internet” – no. That’s being an idiot. Yes, we get a lot of MRAs and assorted douchecakes, however, many of the people who end up discussing the deeper issues of entrenched sexism are simply people who are new to the concepts of privilege and the extent of everyday sexism. They aren’t terrible people, simply people who haven’t delved far into this aspect of life.
We’ve had a lot of people who have learned, thanked us for our efforts and they are not only better human beings, they go on to help educate others.
Staying silent and shrugging over it certainly doesn’t change anything.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Did you even read what he wrote? Who are you to be the ultimate authority on sexism in general? Apparently because he’s a man he can’t comment on sexism. Yeah, that’s not sexist. Not being able to comment about sexism against women? I might be able to see that, but to call him out like that without cause is asinine.
He makes a good point- people can still have dissenting opinions about particular instances of a movement, but still support the movement overall. What about that do you disagree with?
PZ Myers:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
This is entirely true. The question is whether the cartoon is trying to promote it.
Equality does not mean that the smart bunny in the dialog will always be the one in the dress.
It does mean that the bunny in the dress isn’t always the dumb one.
There is a difference between those two sentences, you know. It means you can’t focus on a particular instance and declare it an example of the general phenomenon.
Alethea H. Claw:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
The origin of mansplaining, as far as I can tell, refers back to this article about an incident where a man was explaining to a newly-met woman how he knew oh soooo much more than her on some subject, and she would surely appreciate a little lecture on the topic. He’d just read some very important scholarly work on the topic, and would like to explain it to this little lady here, at length. Shoosh, interrupters, this is an important subject! As it happened, she was the author. Oopsie.
It turns out that most women don’t really like it when men act like an authority on something that we actually already know quite well, thanks. And also it turns out that this is incredibly common behaviour. Solnit’s phrase “men explain things to me” went rather viral for a while, and settled into mansplaining somewhere out there on the innertubes.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Bob Loblaw:
Thank you.
eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Addendum:
I also notice that some people have mentioned the coloring of the speech bubbles, and said that perhaps this makes the work more sexist because it calls extra attention to the genders of the bunnies (essentially, encouraging the reader to identify them principally by their genders). This is true, I think.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
I’m aspiring to the field of science communication, so clarity in communicating through artwork is important to me, as is reducing sexism.
In fields such as CVA and forensic anthropology, students train to identify human or animal bones. Leg from arm bones, cervical vertebrae from thoracic, which pair a particular rib is from, whether a wrist bone is left or right, whether a given bone is human or animal. When students are just starting out, a practical exam’s worth of bone samples to identify may come in a paper grocery bag. By graduation, the entire final exam could fit in a matchbox.
The character portrayal in this comic’s a small, very subtle instance of sexist association, but it’s there nonetheless.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Wow, you guys are missing the point, big time.
I’m aware of the sexism of the comic. I see that. I don’t particularly like it.
However, I’m not gonna sit here and “raise awareness” on the comments section of Pharyngula to enlighten only the people that read this site.
I’m gonna go out and campaign for equality. I’ve already written plenty of emails to my representatives about the issue. I’ve donated money and time to the cause.
Those are far worthier endeavors than complaining on this site. That’s my point.
Randy:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
The cartoon neglects the possibility that the centre of the apparently missing piece (which we are never shown) does in fact contain an entire miniature picture of a duck.
Sure, it may be a duck-of-the-gap, but while we can make reasonable guesses about what the gap contains, and there’s little reason to expect a duck, we cannot actually know what it contains until we see it. This is science (and product testing). I’ve seen too many projects fail because it was “obvious” what the missing piece was, to let this go.
Alethea H. Claw:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
PZ, you’re answering the wrong question. The question that needs answering is why, when a mild note is made of how an otherwise good comic adheres to a sexist trope, the response is so disproportionate.
Bob Loblaw:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
@287 no
@AlanMacandCheese : And religious groups that do advocacy work as well.
@Everyone: You are all perfect just the way you are. I love you all
Ganner:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Pteryxx 288:
Your quoted argument is not all or nothing. My interpretation though continues to be that, if I’m drawing a comic, I am ok to make it gender neutral or a woman more rational than a man, but never ok to make a woman less rational than a man. THAT to me, still seems all or nothing, if my genre I’m working in, or my personal art, has no pattern of gender stereotyping. I do understand where you’re coming from in your argument, but I disagree with you. It is enough for me, in my opinion, to be unbiased, and for my genre to be unbiased. I am not sexist, or perpetuating sexism, or mansplaining (You have not accused me personally of this and I don’t inted to imply as such) if I equally as often treat a woman as irrational compared to a man as I treat a man as irrational compared to a woman. You can disagree with me, but I will stand by my position. And where there IS a pattern of gender bias, I’ll stand with you in opposing it. Where there is explicit sexism, I will stand with you in opposing it. I just don’t see it in this instance and don’t think it wrong for me to express this.
Tethys:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
This is an extremely red and highly odiferous herring.
No cupcake, you aren’t an expert on being female. Your opinion is beside the point, and your deflecting only serves to prove the point.
Could you possibly admit that the cartoon can be interpreted as sexist?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
PZ:
It’s one more example in a sea of them. So much for the red pill. The author said they chose to do it that way because after checking with the mighty internet, women are more religious. Why couldn’t the author have thought a bit more, as I suggested in #229? More women are going into science fields, too. So why not two female bunnies, and lose the stupid pink/blue? The same great message gets across, without a wealth of women looking at that and feeling exasperated at seeing the same old trope.
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
@290: See, if “mansplaining” were only used in those situations, I would completely understand and accept it as a legitimate term and argument against sexist behavior. But overwhelmingly I’ve seen it just as I initially said, as a catch-all term for any time a man has a viewpoint that is potentially dissenting, unwanted, or inconvenient.
@293: I’m sure if I Googled it I’d find more examples of my wrong view of the term than the original correct usage.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
I agree that raising awareness is good. I disagree with the disproportionate amount of energy used in this forum to promote that awareness. It’s simply not an efficient use of resources to get a very important message across.
That was meant sarcastically. It’s tough to convey via text when mingled in a serious comment. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I’m not advocating that. I’m asking what you would do to not remain silent since you and I agree its sexist. What are you going to do (other than post your comments here)?
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
@308: Never said I was an expert on being female. But I have seen females as they exist in this world, as I do, and have seen the interactions that go on in our world, many of which involve women.
And I *already have* admitted that the cartoon could be legitimately interpreted as sexist; that was my first comment in here.
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Gentry, I did read what he wrote. It was horseshit.
No, men cannot be as informed on sexism, because women don’t have the institutional power to commit it. Men are the fish not noticing the water. Sorry, dumbass, words mean things.
As a dude, he gets no fucking say on what’s sexist to women.
Russell:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
“, it may be a duck-of-the-gap, but while we can make reasonable guesses about what the gap contains,”
Duck ?
Why not Drake ?
Has the hominten wecruited these silly transwestite wabbits into waging culture war against Western Ciwilization ?
Why are there no playboy bunnies in the puzzle ?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Gentry:
FFS, I am so tired of this shit. What, exactly, makes you think it’s not possible to both raise consciousness and be involved in other activism? I’ve been a feminist and GLBTI activist for over 30 years. That doesn’t make what we do here less valuable. All you’re doing is a form of Dear Muslima.
Your reading comprehension isn’t too sharp. Discussion does not equal complaining. Once again, raising awareness is a good thing.
As you seem to be feeling happily superior to those of us here, perhaps you shouldn’t be wasting your ever so valuable activism time by continuing to complain about us on the internet. I’m sure you have letters to write.
shawnthesheep:
November 24th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
happiestsadist-
You’re full of shit. I’m allowed to have an opinion on what is sexist and what isn’t. I don’t cede my ability to discern sexism to a woman because she’s more sensitive to it. I respect the opinions of women. I love, work with and am friends with many wonderful woman feminists and there are all sorts of things I’d respect their opinion on above my own. That does not mean I have to trust any woman’s opinion above my own any time sexism is brought up in discussion. That’s ridiculous. I’ve emailed this thread to a few female feminists I respect and none of them seem to have an issue with it. If one or many female feminists I knew said to me, “Shawn, this is sexist. Trust me/us,” I would accept that it’s sexist and seek to be more sensitive/understanding in the future about such forms of gender bias. But this is a few posters on pharyngula I do not know. The women I do know and love and respect don’t seem to have a problem with it.
Oh, and mansplaining is still a sexist term. Just because it’s a term the oppressed use to describe their oppressors does not mean it’s any less gender-biased.
I love and respect women. I revere women. I long for the day when they gain true and full and lasting equality. But I still think the bunny controversy is stupid and silly.
Dianne:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
I love and respect women. I revere women. I long for the day when they gain true and full and lasting equality.
And some of your best friends are black too, no doubt.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
I suggest taking another look at my quoted argument, since you accept it as not all-or-nothing. In my critique, I just described what change I would have made to that comic to reduce (i.e. “dial back”) its problematic sexist association to a level I’d find acceptable. It would then be a comic portraying a woman as less rational than a man, in a manner acceptable to me.
If you can understand why my critique works that way, then you should be able to apply similar troubleshooting to any character portrayal you might make where a woman was shown as less rational than a man. You’re not expected to never do it; just do it well.
Kate:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Pink microscopes?
Does anyone remember them? At first, they were kind of cute looking being a pink color. But then, there were scientific microscopes being sold right next to them and we all puzzled as to why. And it turned out the pink microscopes had a sort of “EZ-Bake” lense, but the scientific ones had the real lense.
Anytime I see pink (other than the artist), I suspect cultural conditioning and not in a good way.
I got the broader meaning of the cartoon but I didn’t like the delivery since I am a woman.
Dianne:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
This post really does have a “Dear Muslima” feel to it. No, the bunny cartoon isn’t the worst example of sexism I’ve seen in the last month, week, or day, but it is an example and why shouldn’t it be pointed out as such?
I haven’t read the original thread extensively, but the posts I saw complaining about the sexism were fairly mild and non-accusatory. Generally along the lines of “funny cartoon…but check out the implicit sexism: the author could have avoided it by doing X, Y, or Z”. Why not point that out? What harm does it do apart from drawing the ire of MRAs? And if the MRAs ire can be drawn over this sort of trivia then that suggests that maybe it isn’t just trivia and there is a problem that should be explored further.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Please read again what I wrote.
Feel superior much? I agree you’d know more about sexism against females, but to state that you know more about sexism than any man is a bit much.
Also, I can recognize that you read what you want to and not what’s actually written. You’re detrimental to the cause for equality because its a vendetta to you, apparently.
Feel smug in your victimhood and fight people who are on your side. Good idea.
Jeremy:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Can’t something perpetuate a stereotype and not also be sexist? I at least associate sexism as a quality belonging to a person, so when people point out that they feel this comic is unconsciously sexist, it is implicit to me that they are saying the author is unconsciously sexist. You simply can’t come to that sort of conclusion from a single comic though. It can be easily concluded, though, that this particular comic perpetuates or conforms to a stereotype, which is no sin, though it may be regrettable and unfortunate.
Daniel Schealler:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Note to image creator:
Next time, use baby Cephalopods.
Bob Loblaw:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
@ Gentry. Really??????
@Jeremy. You’re worse than Gentry. For shame sir!
A. R:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Oh, wonderful, this is turning into a Bunnygate, complete with “Deep Rifts”
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
You’ve convinced me. I shall continue to flamespray anyone I think isn’t promoting my viewpoints on Pharyngula. Yeah, I can do that and continue my other work, because spending 3 hours here is exactly worth 3 hours of writing letters, organizing events, or otherwise being active.
Most of this isn’t real discussion. It’s people reiterating their positions over and over again. It’s heads banging against walls.
And the superiority tables are turned, Fleur. Why don’t you take a second to get off your pedestal and realize people are fighting for the same thing you are.
I do have letters to write, even if you feel you’re too good to write yourself.
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Gentry, I’m not a woman, idiot.
Here’s a top: You are part of the problem. You are not part of the “cause”, not matter how much you feel like pretending you are.
Dianne @317: My thoughts exactly.
“Listen Missy! I’ll tell you what’s sexist and what’s not, because I’m a
MANfeminist, that’s why!”eigenperson:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
#322 Jeremy:
I think it’s fair to say that if the comic perpetuates this negative stereotype, then the comic is sexist by definition. But I wouldn’t take that as an implicit indictment of the author. I think that’s reading too much into the assertion.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
In the meantime, I’ll gladly take my porcupine and leave this comment section, as the discussion has devolved into the banging of heads and gnashing of teeth. Good day.
Tethys:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
ChrisK
If you accept that, why are you asking for definitions of mansplaining?
Dianne:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
The question is whether the cartoon is trying to promote it.
I disagree. I think the question is whether it is promoting it, whether it is trying to or not. Subconscious bias is still bias and still causes problems.
Equality does not mean that the smart bunny in the dialog will always be the one in the dress.
I agree. One problem I see with the media at the moment is that female characters are ONLY allowed to be anything other than complete comic relief if they are “perfect”: smart, beautiful, etc. Men can be flawed-less than brilliant, not so great looking, unable to hold a job, etc and still be “serious” characters, but women, never.
My main problem with the cartoon is that it would have been so easy to avoid gender signifiers altogether. For example, make the blue boxes associated with the bunny in a dress and the pink with the one in the pants. Confuse the issue a bit and no one will have much of a complaint. Or put them both in pants and use yellow and green boxes. It’s not exactly difficult.
But most of my problem isn’t with the cartoon at all. It’s a tad questionable in isolation, maybe the artist is sexist, maybe not. Maybe the complete works of the artist would look entirely different. But the hysteria over people saying, “Please, could we just for one minute notice the possible sexism here a little? If it’s not too much trouble?” is more concerning. It’s yet another in a long line of trivializing every complaint women make. And not something I would have expected from Myers.
Oh, yes, and the cartoon is cute, if a bit anviliscious.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
See, this is the really insidious thing about privilege and prejudice and patriarchy. We can absorb it without knowing. And even if we had the best of intentions, there will always be the lingering doubt in the mind of a woman or a person of color or a gay friend, “What did he mean by that?” And we will always look at what we said after the fact and wonder if it was taken the wrong way.
What can we do about it? We can be aware. We can talk about it. We can listen to each other’s perspectives.
I do not doubt the author of this cartoon is a smart, funny, progressive person who means well. I hope that if they looked again at the cartoon, maybe they’d see, “Oh, yeah. I guess it could be taken that way.” Maybe next time, they would do things differently. Maybe next time WE can do things differently.
The goal is freeing ourselves of the bonds of patriarchy. The reward is interaction as free men and women.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Oh, one final jab:
See
So, by your logic, when you are a woman you can speak for them, but when you’re not, you cant.
You are no longer a woman, ergo you can’t speak for them anymore. Perhaps you could even say that since you’re not a woman any more, yet you’re speaking for the cause, that you are part of the problem, no matter how much you feel like pretending you are.
Your words, not mine.
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
@327: If you’re a man, and if, as you say, men have no place stating opinions on what’s sexist towards women, then why are you stating opinions on what’s sexist towards women?
@330: Because I’ve seen the term used in wildly different ways than its original usage, and wanted to see what’s up with that.
HidariMak:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
I remember one of the older podcasts from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe. They were interviewing the head of an action group who would examine the school texts for accuracy, and as you might imagine, the guy at the head of the operation had become quite jaded. He recounted how history texts were being rewritten, in order to have equal representation of all races and genders in the historical discoveries. Since many discoveries of the past involved white males, many key figures had to be removed for “equality” purposes, and many more minor people in those discoveries had to be pictured as if they were somehow the ones responsible.
But it gets worse. Despite all that effort, there were still complaints of unfair representation. Some group had counted the appearance of each gender in the animals, and was complaining that the two sexes in the images of the animals wasn’t fair and balanced enough.
Sorry I can’t remember more details than that, like the name of the person being interviewed or the name of his organization. But arguing over the representation of the genders in childish stuffed bunny rabbits in a single cartoon somehow is no longer surprising.
ariamezzo:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
I think people are missing the true underlying pro-woman message of the bunnies. Notice how the “female” bunny is really wearing a skirt, not necessarily a dress; it covers her lower extremities. This bunny, if we take it to be a woman and not a man, is not wearing any top covering. Coincidentally she’s religious, but she’s free and liberated from society’s double standard of forcing women to cover their shame.
Some people are so shortsighted. Geez.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Gentry:
My nym happens to be Caine. Work on that reading comprehension. I’m not on a pedestal. I’m not the one who insists that internet discussion is worthless and that we should be doing “important” stuff. Raising awareness and educating is important stuff, and yes, it often involves having to reiterate points.
When you show up here to simply whine at people and pull a Dear Muslima, you aren’t helping and you are not fighting for the same things I am.
Good, go write them. I don’t seem to recall saying I was too good for anything in particular. I pointed out that I’ve been an activist for over 30 years. That has involved protesting, fighting for education rights, access to birth control, equal pay, equal rights, escorting, and being an advocate and counselor, along with many other things. I don’t just sit on my ass and write letters.
Be sure to stick your flounce, Cupcake, you wouldn’t want to dent your “credibility”.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
A_Ray:
QFT.
Dianne:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
@335: I think you have your outrage backwards. I can see the argument for not demanding “equal time” in history-white men did shape the current western society more than minorities or white women simply because they had more opportunities, both to act in a meaningful way and to have their contributions acknowledged. Some attention to making sure that the contributions of those not white Christian men are acknowledged is needed because of the infamous unconscious bias that we’re not discussing here because it has no relevance at all, really. But a simple body count is not the way.
Animals, OTOH. I have no idea what excuse there is for showing more male than female animals. Did male animals contribute more to history than female animals or what?
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
I don’t think sexism/stereotyping in a work implies anything specific about the author’s mindset, especially when it’s this subtle. We know what’s in the image itself, and that the author stated believer-bunny being female was a deliberate choice. Past that it’s a matter of degree; the author either chose the clothing or colors to strengthen the gender association, or chose them for other reasons or just by instinct. The association still exists either way.
However, part of the necessary consciousness-raising about sexism in culture is to point out that implicit bias exists in the first place, and has real effects that need to be countered. People seem really fixated on sexism as something only nasty bad people ever express, instead of a near-ubiquitous cognitive error.
——–
…I swear, everyone needs to watch more MLP. (youtube link)
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Gentry,
I, as a male, cannot speak for any woman. I can try to amplify what she says and repeat it until a bonehead, such as you, hears and maybe even understands it. I can speak for myself as a male who has lots of women friends and would like to see a society in which men and women interact more freely and with more equality, security and trust.
procyon:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Even though I am a privileged white male I have always considered myself non-chauvinistic. Both my daughters, my sister, and my girl friend have told me over the years I am not sexist or condescending toward women. But reading what some of the women on here have to say, especially Carlie, my eyes have been opened to the fact that in order to really not be sexist I have to be as conscious of the insidious “micro” issues as I am of the obvious “macro” issues.
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
All right, let’s say that something conforming to a traditional gender stereotype that women are less rational than men is, in this instance, completely not sexist at all. Given that 90 some-odd percent of the time things that conform to that stereotype ARE sexist, how exactly are we supposed to tell that this one instance is not? What is the magic characteristic that makes this “woman is irrational” story different than the sexist “women are irrational” stories?
And again, it’s really not about the comic any more. The sexism was very tiny, and the response was equally tiny, and then it got all blown to hell because some guys couldn’t handle that there was any response to that tiny sexism at all.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Been off having T-day dinner with the Redhead. Some of the same arguments going on as when I last posted.
Looking at the cartoons, I can see how it can interpreted as being a tad sexist. Small things that could have lessened the effect, even just different colored text balloons, would have helped here.
There is still the problem of folks telling those who do see sexism in the cartoon, that they are being zealots, over sensitive, out of perspective, and it is these deniers that are the ones really continuing the argument and keeping it going. Your opinions, once voiced, need not be repeated umpteen times to get everybody to agree with you. There is a difference between having your say, and attempting to impose your will upon others. Five posts might be considered where the line is crossed from having your say to attempting to impose your will. How many of you trying to ignore the sexism went over that line?
It is also a bit sexist to try to poo-poo the concerns of folks, especially the women, who do see sexism. The only way to end sexism is to be sensitive, aware, and vocal when it happens. Otherwise, male privilege remains in effect, which is what some of those doing the poo-pooing really want. That is something you need to keep in mind too. Being too vocal about perceived oversensitivity is really helping the MRA brigade, in exactly the way Dr. M. L. King thought of those “sympathizers” in his letter from Birmingham, where he expounded that the real problem with civil rights in the south wasn’t from the real bigots, but from those who said “I support you, but not now, as the time isn’t right”, and other delaying tactics that weren’t really confronting the problem of discrimination. Take a look in the mirror and see if you are really doing the same thing.
Ganner:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Pteryx, I guess I’ll just have to disagree with you that the color of the speech balloons pushes it from ok to not ok territory.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Carlie:
This^. As exasperating as PZ might be over the tiny response to the tiny sexism, I’m just as exasperated by the overblown response of the menz circuit.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Me:
Dammit, that should be: As exasperated as PZ. Sorry!
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Ganner, that’s fine to disagree with me. I appreciate it. My main point was that it’s possible to have fuzzy boundaries between okay and not-okay, and to have critiques that aren’t absolutes.
—
*ahem* MLP link part 2
theophontes, Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane Wielding Tardigrade:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
It would seem that sexism is a fractal problem, the deeper you go, the more you see. I must concede (to my embarrassment) that my own eyes are not sufficiently in focus to see the fine grained nature of it without squinting. It is easy for me to see the Elephant in the Fridge and the 800-Pound Gorrilla in the Living Room. But the CL-20 Weilding Tardigrades? There I need some help.
We must not go and ringfence this problem. As ahs ॐ points out, we should not be restricted in our scope when examining or discussing the issue of sexism. Sexism is pernicious and we must not fall into the illogic of the “Dear Muslima” trap.
Once we have become more sensitised, we can point it out. When we point it out we raise the awareness of others. It is that simple. Just say “did you notice what happened there” and move on. I don’t think feminists and their allies do more than that in the first instance.
But for some reason this pointing out gets under certain peoples’ skins and festers there. They are really put out by it. Which seems to prove my point: We must point it out wherever we see it, we must raise awareness. Especially in the skeptical community. If we follow the obtuse middle ground we might as well call it a day.
To paraphrase Sally Strange : “it is puzzles all the way down”. It is in the nature of a scientific mindset to want to solve ALL of those puzzles. Let us not back away from the issue of sexism at all scale levels.
So, Dear Ebil Oberlawd, on this matter I need to disagree with you (also on the issue of Teh Supremacy of Cats, Making Tea, Teh Awesomeness of Physicists & Engineers, etc etc etc).
Carlie:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Thanks, procyon.
I find that the little stuff is a lot harder to talk about than the big stuff. The big stuff is easy. It’s clear-cut. The small stuff? That’s the kind of thing you can get gaslighted about. Hell, that you can gaslight yourself about. That’s the stuff that you think well, I ought not to be bothered by that, but somewhere in the back of your mind it prickles anyway. It’s such a small thing, and it’s likely to start such a large battle, and it’s really not worth it because it’s not a big deal, right? And yet if you don’t say anything, it keeps happening again and again and again. And really, it’s such a small thing that perhaps saying something would be ok, because the change to avoid it would be so minor too? Like if someone always leans in a little too close when they’re talking to you, and it really isn’t a big deal that they do it, but it really wouldn’t be a big deal for them to stop doing it either. So maybe you could say something, but then the shitstorm might start and it will be all your fault for bringing it up in the first place. So most of the time you don’t say anything. And occasionally you do, and occasionally it works, but more often things go bad and it’s all your fault. And all over that tiny little thing.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
See, it’s things like this that make me have to respond after I said I wouldn’t.
(a) I never said men could speak for women.
(b) The bonehead comment was uncalled for, especially since you didn’t read my posts.
(c) Please re-read posts. I’m saying simply that one gender can’t speak for the inequality another gender sees. Therefore, a man can’t speak for a woman’s inequality, as a woman cannot speak for a man’s inequality.
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
@Caine, Fleur du Mal of 285
…hmmm, that’s interesting. Just that name orgininally and the subsequent replies of this person got my trolldar going. Thanks for explaining that though.
As for my handle, incase your wondering…well, it’s based on my avatar (which for some reason I cant find how to display it on FTB) which has pink hair. And been that way for 6 years before this contoversy. I just happen to find the Nickname display mechanic for that this evening…which is completely unrelated to the discussion. :)
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
…btw, I wonder what Crypt Dyke’s take is on all this. O.O
Philip Legge:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Obligatory link du jour
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
@Christopher Kwolek: I’m not a man either, shitforbrains.
And Gentry: I’m read as a woman by most people, I lived as one for 20some years, and get to suffer from many misogynist assumptions based around those. Seeing as I am not a man, I get the same shit from the same worthless dudes. Like you.
MyShirtIsBrown:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Re: this
PZ Myers wrote: “…I truly, deeply despise the idea that religion must be a walled garden that may not receive the same criticism as any other wacky idea…”
The mark of true losers is the complete inability to handle any criticism in an adult manner. Your walled garden is very, very churchy. Just when you think you can’t make yourselves look any more like some 3rd world tinpot junta too… You are so special, criticising you is enough reason to bring back the electric chair isn’t it? Sensitive little creatures.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
@Caine,
Fair enough – you fight for what you believe in, and I’ll fight for what I believe in.
As a side note, I’m not belittling your methods of getting your message across. I only said I thought there were better avenues and ways to do that. If that wasn’t to your liking, I apologize for offending you unintentionally, but my opinion is unchanged.
Also, I’d expect a tad more civility when discussing a topic like this. If I were someone that didn’t agree with the sexism in the joke because of my ignorance, people calling me “bonehead”, “cupcake”, “fuckface” etc etc wouldn’t be the best way to convince me. It’s at the very least impolite, and at the worst condescending and inappropriate. Again, just my two cents.
Again, I’m heading off to do what I think is the best way to create a fair and equal world. If you think my brand of activism fall under Dear Muslima, that’s your business. I don’t see it that way, but to each their own. Good day.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
MyShirtIsBrown:
Disemvoweling is not a common occurrence here. According to the dungeon write up, the person in the post you reference was someone from the slimepit.
In case you didn’t notice, there’s a whole thread of people disagreeing with PZ and criticizing his stance. That’s hardly an effective walled garden.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
So instead of amending your statement to mean unless you have lived as a woman or been a woman then you can’t speak for them, you have instead continued with an ad hominem. Well played!
ahs ॐ:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
PZ
That is not the question that is relevant to many of us, because we have to live with the outcomes no matter what the artist’s intentions were.
But all the other indicators show we haven’t reached equality yet, so it’s silly to pretend that here we’re witnessing a brand new state of equality—achieved 24 November 2011, apparently—like this is the Allegory of the Cave, grudge-holding feminists just can’t see the new dawn for what it really is.
Rather, it is more likely that equality is delayed ever so slightly every time the dumb bunny is the one in the dress.
So, sexism can only be studied either in aggregate or by rooting out the wicked intentions of an individual? We can never be rationally justified in thinking that an individual might be well-intentioned but contributing to a pattern?
That’s incorrect. Again, for social representations of femininity in general, we already have an enormous sample size. We can in fact measure in which direction the mean shifts when we add this new sample.
+++++
Does it mean we shouldm’t be able to say—
“Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself. Because that would truly suck.”
—without being blamed for embarrassing you, PZ? That’s where you identify the problem beginning, in comment #2 from the last thread.
So maybe you could do your readers the favor of quoting that quote and explaining just what you find so objectionable about it.
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
So you’re actually telling me how to describe my previous experience as a woman?
I see.
That stands rather tellingly on its own.
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
@355: This is getting to be more hilarious than infuriating. The best you can do is fling insults and say “you’re wrong” without actually offering a correction? If you’re so insistent on being this nebulous figure that’s not anything, then fine, be nothing and have no impact.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
And the mark of an MRA bore is ignore what is said, and complain about how it is said. Real adults concentrate on the real message, not the delivery. Right immature loser?
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
O_o
Oooo, this should be interesting. *fetches popcorn*
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
I’m sorry, was that a request for junk pics? I think I’ve been amply clear.
I love that my actual, for-realz lived gender is apparently a game or joke to you. How about you go cram yourself throughly with porcupines, you transphobic piece of waste?
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Apparently, to our mansplaining idjit friend here, if you ain’t cis and binary, you ain’t shit and are actually nothing. I have been told, y’all.
Wait. No. Actually, he just waved his ass around a bit.
PolPot:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
You people need a good famine.
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
@365: You’re making an awful lot of assumptions, though I guess that should be no surprise. And you haven’t been clear, though that may be due more to the nature of this medium for conversation; the sum of what you’ve said so far is fragmented across a multitude of posts, directed towards several different people in separate conversations. I would think, then, that a modicum of patience would be appropriate, rather than jumping to assumptions of what people do and do not know going into a post, and what they do and do not mean when writing a post.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Fodder for the compost heap, happiestsadist. Sometimes, there’s nothing to do with a cis-brained idiot.
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
@366: You know, after posting that I thought I’d need to explain it a bit further, and what do you know, I was right.
I wasn’t saying “if you ain’t cis and binary, you ain’t shit and are actually nothing”. I was complaining that you’ve only given negative details about where you’re coming from, which makes it awfully hard to know what you’re trying to say about where you’re coming from.
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Shorter Kwolek: Because I couldn’t be arsed to actually read the comments here, I demand an inquisition of your drawers!
I said I wan’t a man, and I’ve said I’m not a woman either. That should be fucking answer enough for you. So, what are you demanding here: labels that will likely clear up nothing for those as uninformed as you? chromosomes? diagnoses? surgical records? junk pics? Is it junk pics?
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Caine @#369: I know, but I’m tired, yet insomniac and kinda tetchy.
And I would worry about anything grown from that compost.
Bruce Crutchley:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
If you want a good example of sexism, my sister provided one a while back. She and here fiancé were looking for a a student to help work on the farm on the holiday. She complained on Facebook that every time a student would call about the job the first thing they would do would be to ask for her fiancé (who I might add had only live on the farm for a period of months). I don’t think she took it that seriously, but if I had been in a position like that it would sure piss me off (and do no good to their job prospects).
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
@371: See, if it were only a matter of “who is happiestsadist”, then that would certainly be enough for me. It’s not for me to ask for more than that. But for the topic at hand, you’ve used identity as a cudgel to tell people their opinions are irrelevant and they should be ashamed for showing those opinions in public. You made identity important, not me. So don’t try to tell me I’m wrong for trying to get a better idea of just what you’re doing when you swing identity around to try and shut people up.
shawnthesheep:
November 24th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
And fuck you too, Dianne. I realize that, to you, because I have dared to challenge a female opinion on sexism that I must be a sexist asshole. But guess what? Your attitude is part of the problem. Placing your own opinion above mine strictly based on your gender is no better than me doing that to you.
As a gay man, I understand how insulting it can be when someone who has not experienced the prejudice you have tells you what should and should not be offended by, but I also recognize that, looking back, sometimes those people were right. Sometimes, I was so angry that I lashed out at every perceived slight no matter how small or imaginary. I was so filled with righteous anger that I attacked friends for their subconsciously homophobic/heteronormative behavior even as they supported me, loved me and fought for my rights. Sometimes it took others who were a level removed from my anger and frustration to tell me that I was tilting at windmills.
I have the greatest love and respect for women. I was raised by a family of strong, smart, dignified women. I fight for their rights as an oppressed group just as I fight for my own as a gay man. I see our struggles as sharing a great many commonalities. I have ended lifelong friendships with men because of misogynistic behavior. I have left jobs because of the sexist attitudes of my co-workers. Hell, I reported my own grandmother for housing discrimination after she refused to rent the apartments she owned to women because they were “too much trouble.”
But feel free to dismiss my dedication to gender equality with an insulting cliche like, “some of my best friends are black.” A man can both passionately advocate for gender equality and disagree with women from time to time. It is allowed. It does not make him a misogynist or a traitor.
crissakentavr:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
There’s a simple answer to this: The fact that this isn’t a sample of one. We have an entire context imported to mass media with the main character is a boy, compared to a very small segment of it containing main characters being girls. Then of those samples, most often the main character is ‘reasonable’ and not-main characters are ‘unreasonable’.
By that standards, this is an example of sexism in the world.
Is this particular item intentionally sexist? I don’t know and I doubt it.
But that doesn’t stop it from being a symptom.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Gentry, you being more civil is you actually shutting the fuck up and listening to those who disagree with you. You are preaching your gospel, not listening. Think about that. If you were listening, you wouldn’t be poo-pooing peoples feelings which is uncivil of you.
And my two-cents is that tone trolls like yourself should be trebucheted to the Bering Straits. And this is typical tone trolling. You are worried more about how things are said than what is being said and why. And if you are a full adult in your thinking, you would realize that the message is more important than the delivery, and you are condescending when you pretend otherwise.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
happiestsadist:
I know the feeling. In between reading and posting, Imma trying to work too. We could use a Cerberus signal right about now.
Zerple:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
About 70% of the feminist threads I see are stuff of equally low consequence. The other 30% are amazing. Unfortunately, most of the, inane or not, tend to devolve into shouting matches about rape, which is not relevant in most of the threads.
crowepps:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Carlie @ 350
This!!
And every single time you decide not to say anything, you are reminded that when something bothers you, that doesn’t matter, which makes you feel like you don’t matter.
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Practical, lived experience of decades = cudgel in a argument. Gotcha. Not like those entirely theoretical assumptions of yours! (Well, those are pretty insubstantial and dull, so they would make a poor melee weapon.)
Also, I love the my list of mostly absurd, non-answering answers would be “enough” for you if it were just your curiosity about my being.
Liesmith:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Since the great deal of strife here doesn’t seem to be directed at the comic, itself, but instead about attitudes revealed by someone making an idle observation, I want to get a little back on track.
The next question I ask isn’t asked to be a smartass, but because I genuinely don’t understand. If it’s already been asked and answered, I apologize…there are now over 300 comments and I just couldn’t keep up.
If the cartoon was misogynistic for implying that the foolish character was female, then is it *ever* acceptable to create a completely fictional negative character that’s female? All of this is in the context of having an intelligent or wise male character as a contrast. I might be dense, but I do understand that two opposing female characters would effectively cancel each other out, as far as reinforcing stereotypes go.
If there are no acceptable scenarios for a foolish completely fictional* female character, are any negative attributes acceptable when contrasted against a male character?
Conversely, are any/all attributes which it is sexist to assign to a female character acceptable to assign to a male character?
Again, I ask because I genuinely don’t understand, and the discussion was buried under buckets of vitriol.
I look at that comic, and I see exactly two characters that are a parody of the overly cutesy style I associate with sickeningly saccharine Christian-moral posts on blogs. I didn’t notice any gender indications at first and, once I did, I thought it was just a continuation of the parodied style.
Zerple:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
*most of them, not most of the
Christopher Kwolek:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
@381: It’s because I understand that grasping at labels can be futile that I would be satisfied with what you’re provided thus far–after all, there is a decent amount of detail in simply saying “not man, not woman”. And it’s not that your experience (or anyone’s) *is* a cudgel, but you’ve been using it as one.
Cassius Corodes:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Nerd: “And if you are a full adult in your thinking, you would realize that the message is more important than the delivery, and you are condescending when you pretend otherwise.”
I don’t know where you get this idea from. In pretty much all of society delivery is just as important as the message (or rather its considered an integral part of it). It becomes more so the more your grow older. This is why people dress nice for work and social occasions, and behave politely. It is a way of showing respect to one another and not some kind of sign of immaturity or weakness. If you are unable to formulate your ideas without insult then your argument is weak or non-existent.
happiestsadist:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Liesmith! I have discovered the small bottle of good faith I was hiding from myself after the last binge, so I’ll answer you.
The cartoon displayed an unintentional piece of sexism in an otherwise lovely cartoon about bunnies. The flamewar that was touched off was actually a result of outraged defenders of sexism piling on a small, offhand comment expressing disappointment that that was in an otherwise fine comic. So it wasn’t so much about the comic as about how people reacted to it.
Answering what you actually said now! One of the things I do with a lot of my time offline is tell stories. And the people I tell stories about are all flawed, fucked-up people, because they make for good stories. However! I try to avoid Unfortunate Implication Cliches in my characters and stories, because that is both hurtful and really lazy in terms of storytelling. There are plenty of negative attributes that you can give to characters of any and all genders that don’t have the weight of centuries/millennia of oppression and belittlement, so why be an asshole and a hack one at that?
Hopefully this makes sense. I can see how you would not notice the sexist implications, because, as others have said, microaggressions work that way.
Ariaflame:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
I agree that the colour bubbles could have been made better. Though I’m not sure that the artist/author could have removed the clothes. A lot of children’s toys don’t have them removable easily. And cutting them off might have made the author’s preschool daughter unhappy with what parent had done to her toys.
Sometimes working with the materials you have to hand leads to non-optimum conditions.
I have noticed that some, but not all, people commenting on this thread have made the assumption that the author was male. Is there proof of this? Or is this another subtle assumption about genders that we tend to make?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Shawnthesheep:
I think you need to have a chat with Josh, Official Spokesgay. Waving “I’m a gay man!” about like a get out of sexism and privilege free card isn’t helping. It doesn’t matter how much you love and respect the women you know. Saying you “love and respect women” is both insulting and not true. Yes, you love the ones you know and who are important to you. There are men in my life I love and respect, however, I’m not going to say “I love and respect [all] men.” I can truthfully say I don’t have a problem with men.
You have, no doubt, experienced bigotry as a gay man. I’m not a man, so I cannot speak to male experience any more than I can speak to male privilege. I do understand much of what men face in life, I do understand much of what gay men face in life. However, I am not a gay male and it would be extremely presumptuous of me to say that “yes, I grok your life and experiences completely.” That would also be a lie.
I’m a female. I’m bisexual. You have not lived as female, Shawn, and no matter how much you love and respect [some] women, you’ll never know what it’s like to be a woman or what it’s like to live as one day to day. This is why I wish Josh, OSG were here right now, because he groks this and freely admits it took him a while to realize all that.
What you are doing is not empathizing with women. What you’re doing is telling them that you know exactly what it’s like to be one, and that we’re all being silly. You just keep piling on more insult with your insistence of loving and respecting all women. Please, stop. We don’t need love, what would be helpful is listening and trying to actually see things from a woman’s point of view.
*Sets off the Spokesgay Signal™.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Liesmith:
The toon wasn’t misogynistic. It simply repeated an old, tired trope of entrenched sexism. As these things go, it wasn’t all that bad, either. The problem lie in that a couple of people wearily pointed the trope out, expressing a wish that it was handled better and immediately, there was a rash of over-the-top reactions to that, telling the silly fembots to shut up, chill out, lighten up, pick our battles better, etc.
Liesmith:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
@happiestsadist 386
Thanks, that does make sense. I still can’t say I fully agree with the initial observation, but I do understand where Crys T was coming from a little better now.
PZ Myers:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
No. I am not claiming that equality has been achieved, but that we won’t achieve it by self-consciously making the man the villain or dummy in every fictional dialog. You’re raising a ludicrous straw man here.
The claim that equality is delayed if we don’t force every plot decision in a story to favor a woman is absurd. That’s suppression of diversity and denial of reality, and it’s just as sexist as painting women as uniformly ditzy.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
(What’s with the EVER and ANY and ALL again? Much less “misogynistic”? Yeesh…)
Of course there can be negative female characters, as long as they’re not just stereotypes. Even when contrasted with strong male characters. Off the top of my head, I suggest Dolores Umbridge contrasted with Dumbledore (from Harry Potter) and Azula contrasted with Zuko (from Avatar TLA).
Not necessarily. For instance, squeamishness is generally sexist whether applied to a male or female character, because having a squeamish male character makes them “girly” and thus of less consequence. Another example: stupidity can easily be sexist in both masculine-coded and feminine-coded ways, depending on how it’s handled and what character the stupid one is paired with.
*refreshes* Also, what happiestsadist said in #386 about Unfortunate Implication Cliches. They exist; so be aware and try not to make the same old mistakes.
Honestly, there’s a reason I keep mentioning My Little Pony: FIM in this conversation. It’s the best and most accessible example I know of well-played female characters, where being cute or dainty or clueless are just part of someone instead of the end of them.
MikeM:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
This doesn’t surprise me, after my own experiences.
After Harold Camping’s failed “prophecy” of May 21, a bunch of Reddit pranksters bought what was clearly a spoof ad. Clearly.
So I forwarded the link to PZ, who published some pretty harsh criticisms of some of us. In short, PZ didn’t get the joke, and led the charge against those of us who found a joke to be, well, funny.
This one:
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/wghp-story-nc-man-billboard-110523,0,2180059.story
I’ve been reluctant to come back here ever since.
Gentry:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
(a) I’ve listened to them and value their opinion. Since you can’t be civil how about you shut the fuck up and listen and value my dissenting opinion?
(b) I don’t preach a gospel, asshole. I voiced my opinion. You calling it gospel and telling me I’m not listening instead of trying to convince me my opinion is wrong isn’t gonna change my fucking mind.
(c) I’m concerned about getting a point across in a civil manner. Apparently you don’t get that, so I have to cuss and berate you and call you name, like fuckface, fuckface. Apparently the only way I can be “real” and have an opinion that isn’t tone trolling is to cuss and be condescending. Does this speak more to your level, you insufferable fuck?
I hope so, and I hope you recognize that you’re a fucking idiot.
Sir Shplane, Grand Mixmaster, Knight of the Turntable:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
@385
No, it’s a way of pretending to show respect. Fake respect is for assholes.
PZ Myers:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
You’re easily scared off, MikeM. Here’s the post in question: my objection was to the parroting of biblical authority to mock Camping, not because I was against mocking the bozo, but because it reinforces biblical authority. And I don’t find that very funny.
Cassius Corodes:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Sir Shplane: If you only pretend to respect people around you then the problem is yours not anyone else’s.
Pteryxx:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Personally, I glanced at the reddit thread and saw nothing identifying the artist’s gender, so I’m inclined to think people are assuming, yes. Obvious sexism’s more likely to come from men; but this instance is SO subtle I don’t think it tells us anything about the artist’s gender. That just leaves the default-male assumption.
Arthur:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Jumpin Jehosaphats this got out of hand
morvaadam:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Sexist rabbits. lolcopter.
I too am embarrassed.
raygarton:
November 24th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
“The ship is sinking! Everyone to the lifeboats! Women and children first!”
“That’s sexist.”
“What?”
“That’s sexist! You’re suggesting that women are weak and need coddling, that they should receive some special — ”
“THE SHIP IS SINKING FAST!”
“But you’re just perpetuating sexist stereotypes that have held women back for centuries.”
“Okay, okay, FORGET the women and children first part and everybody just GET INTO THE LIFEBOATS!”
“And by FORGETTING it, we’re simply allowing it to continue. It needs to be pointed out and STOPPED!”
“This is neither the time nor the place for this discussion because the ship is — ”
“Then when IS it the time and place for this discussion? By ignoring the existence of these sexist stereotypes, we allow them to continue and women go on being — ”
“THE SHIP IS SINKING!”
“Maybe so, but this is important. We can’t just go on repeating these sexist tropes that continue to hold women down and allow them to be oppressed!”
“GET IN THE LIFEBOAT!”
“And allow you to go on oppressing women? I’m not going to stand here and let you — ”
Glug-glug-glug-glug …
====
There’s a time and place for everything.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:02 am
… ARGH *facetalon*
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Pteryxx:
I’ll join you. Do you think if you repeat “What’s with the EVER and ANY and ALL again?” another 50 times or so, it might sink in?
StarStuff! Because f**k you, that's why:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:08 am
PZ at #298:
But why put the bunnies in clothes to begin with? Why make the bunny in a dress also have a pink speech bubble unless you’re indicating that this bunny is female while the other is male?
The comic would have made the same point if the bunnies weren’t given those clothes or those specific colors. The fact that the person who made it went out of his/her way to indicate that the logical one was male and the illogical one was female shows some sexism (it may not have been conscious (as these things often aren’t).
Anyway, I’m not the first person to point these things out nor to point out the obvious solution. I’m a little disappointed that you’re not replying to these points (which were made many, many times in this thread and the other).
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:09 am
I’ll argh you right back. I was referring to ahs’s comment:
I’m glad you agree that that is absurd hyperbole.
Gyeong Hwa:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:13 am
I’m posting kinda drunk, so bare with:
I just glanced over this thread. For what it’s worth, I think the whole thing would be a non-issue if people weren’t so reactionary of criticism. The problem here is that people see these type of criticism as “knee-jerk accusation of sexism” rather than accepting the criticism as valid, and moving on. Generally, people who point out elements of sexism aren’t going “OMGZ YOU’RE SEXISTS” but rather “Oh, there are some unfortunate implications about sex and gender. Perhaps we can view it more critically next time.”
At least, that is what I thought the problem is about. And I hope that make sense. I’m kinda drunk, so if I say something wrong, please don’t hold it against me.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:16 am
Gyeong:
You thought right.
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:16 am
Only in a mansplainin’s wetdream would ever raygarton’s scenario would ever hold weight. /shug
Cesar Hechler:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:17 am
It is an odd argument to get into. The bunnies are from the Calico Corner Critters series, and my little girl loves them. The fact that if you get a box with the kids in it, you get 2 figures, one of each gender. You have a 50/50 chance of choosing one gender for one side of the cartoon and the other going to the other side of the argument they got into. If someone is defaulting to self-ruffling of feathers because they thought misogyny was going on, there’s a 50/50 chance they are just looking for a fight when there isn’t a reason for one. If the world is now wired in such a way that the guy always has to be on the side of wrong and silly, Fox is already running with that ball on The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, Cleveland Show, and whichever failed fillers came and went the last few seasons.
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:18 am
Sure. You could strip out all the anthropomorphisms. You could just use stick figures. You could just use genderless text. So?
Part of the art of the comic was to put it in childlike terms: little talking animals, animals dressed in kid’s clothing, a child’s puzzle. It’s rather glib to suggest that all you have to do is rip all of visually interesting elements in the comic to make it palatable…because then there wouldn’t be anything attractive about it in the first place.
I disagree that the artist went out of their way to assign stereotyped gender roles. It’s not making a point about sex! For all any of us know, the artist flipped a coin to determine which of their two bunny dolls would take which role.
happiestsadist:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Hey, drunk Gyeong Hwa, I agree, at least those commenters who are arguing in any kind of good faith. As Jay Smooth has put it, it’s people turning a What You Said/Did into a What You Are conversation, and those seldom go anywhere productive.
I suppose what I’m saying is that you’re talking more sense drunk than a lot of folks here are (presumably) sober.
Sir Shplane, Grand Mixmaster, Knight of the Turntable:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:20 am
@Cassius Corodes #397
I am fairly certain that only respecting people who earn respect is a sign of psychological health and/or not being an idiot. The idea that everyone should be respected all the time forever is an incredibly shitty one.
Also, god damn this thread holy shit.
I guess the bunnies could be construed as a smidge sexist? Like, I can sort of see that, and don’t really see why the two characters had to be so far to either end of the gender stereotype scaleamabob. In fact, I’m reasonably certain that they didn’t have to be at all. Having a Male/Rational bunny and a Female/Irrational bunny on its own seems like it would be fine, but did they need the dress/pants and blue/pink dichotomies? Was it necessary to rub everyone’s faces in the facts that “THIS SMART BUNNY IS A BOY” and “THIS DUMB BUNNY IS A GIRL”? It’s only really that the two bunnies both invoked so many gender stereotypes that hits flags for me, personally.
Now, it’s not to say that I don’t find this whole situation a tad inane, but I don’t see anything wrong with the actions of the feminariat here. Some peeps posted some comments to the effect of “Hey that’s a little sexist” and some other chucklefucks decided to start a four billion post argument with it. Could the 4th Airborne Estrogen Brigade* have backed off? Sure, probably. Does it make any goddamn sense for anyone else to try to force them to? Fuck no. These are blog comments. This is the internet. Pointless discussions about animals are what we do here. In fact, I kind of thought that semi-pointless discussions about sexist animals was the whole point of Pharyngula? It’s at least a significant subtheme.
*Sometimes I make up mildly offensive names for things because I like making up mildly offensive names. This is not for offending anyone and is not always actually indicative of my actual views. I honestly mostly agree with the segment of the Pharyngula population I am referencing here. I just have a weird sense of humor.
MoonShark:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:20 am
Maybe not the first to say it, but goddammit I’m angry that people refer to rabbits as “bunnies” and anthropomorphize them as bipeds with human clothes. Grow up already. Sheesh!
(this post brought you you by my tongue from within my cheek)
Gyeong Hwa:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:21 am
Caine:
That means I’m either good at reading comprehensions when I’m drunk, or that I’m not drunk enough. :D MOAR RED WINE!
happiestsadist:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:21 am
PZ, there’s a link to the artist upthread, saying they picked the girl bunny to be dumb because women are more religious.
So no.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:21 am
Heya PZ.
Well, stereotype threat effects can be seen with one single reminder, even one as small as students checking a box for male or female before a math test, instead of after. So I’m not sure it’s hyperbole at all, at least to the stereotype’s targets.
But it’s definitely been hyperbole to claim that any critique is absolutist critique, as in the four, now five w/ Liesmith, instances I’ve quoted in this thread before your post.
StarStuff! Because f**k you, that's why:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:24 am
First off, it would be sexism, not misogyny, that we’re talking about here. Secondly, those clothes could easily have been removed. The fact that they weren’t, and the fact that the artist chose the female bunny as the irrational one, indicates that this may have influenced by conscious or unconscious sexism.
I also find it really annoying that you say that we’re “defaulting to self-ruffling feathers”. I really wish I never had to think that a cute comic like this might be sexist. It’s not like I enjoy thinking about these stereotypes. And I’m sure that’s true for most people who pointed these things out.
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:24 am
@PZ, 416
No. Sorry, but you’re wrong. From the artist, found on Reddit:
(Soource
Someone just pointed out (paraphrased) “hey, that was maybe an unfortunate reinforcement of the ‘women are irrational’ stereotype. Still, the bunnies were funny”. And then the doodz came in to say “Fuck you, killjoy” (that was comment 11, if I remember correctly) and slinging around words like “fembot” and “hypersensitive”. Which is par for the course and what got addressed and challenged.
So no. Sorry, but no. You are wrong.
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:25 am
All hail Tpyos! My offering to you is in 418. Enjoy your extra o and have a ).
Cassius Corodes:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:25 am
Sir Shplane: Respect is not binary. You can give someone some respect without making them your personal deity. You can and should afford a basic level respect of respect to everyone you meet, and then increase/decrease it as needed.
You make it sound like you turn up your nose at everyone who hasn’t done something to impress you.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:27 am
…I CAN’T STOP SEEING IT EVERYWHERE GYAAAAAH
StarStuff! Because f**k you, that's why:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:28 am
PZ at #410:
That’s just not true. If the bunnies didn’t have clothes and the speech bubbles were different colors it would still be cute and visually interesting. This has to be the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever seen you use. I’d expect this from a troll, not you.
happiestsadist:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:33 am
StarStuff: Nude adorable toy bunnies, green/yellow/purple/peach speech bubbles, and we’d have all agreed on a cute comic being pretty excellent.
Sexism is why we can’t have nice things.
Cesar Hechler:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:35 am
It’s Yanksgiving (because it’s only in the US today). You’re supposed to be yelling at relatives, not SIWOTI’s on the intertube thingies.
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:35 am
In fact, here’s Carlie @ comment 6 (comment 6!) in Ye Olde Threade:
That was really all it was until the shouting about being killjoy hypersensitive paranoid fembots for pointing that unfortunateness out started and was subsequently addressed.
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:38 am
Also, in all the furor, I really feel that laurentweppe‘s hilariously lulzy comment @ 17 getting lost is a shame. A crying shame, I tells ya. So I’ll be reposting it.
Sir Shplane, Grand Mixmaster, Knight of the Turntable:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:39 am
@Cassius Corodes #420 (Hurr hurr pot hurr hurr god I am so tired)
Of course things like “Respect” and “Disrespect” are a continuum. However, it is somewhat nonsensical to call the baseline point where you are neither respecting nor disrespecting anyone “a basic level respect of respect” is nonsensical, and not just because of the typo. The neutral baseline by which you treat someone cannot really be defined as “respect” unless we want “giving respect” to not actually mean any fucking thing.
Then there’s just how moronic our society’s ideas of respect/disrespect are. “You didn’t wear a type of clothing that has been arbitrarily defined as formal! YOU DON’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THIS JOB!!!” “You used a word that people have arbitrarily decided is bad! YOU DON’T RESPECT PEOPLE YOU TALK TO!!!” “You didn’t perform some meaningless, perfunctory token gesture that has no real effect on anything and is ultimately just a waste of everyone’s time! I HATE YOU!!!”
Personally, I am actually far, far more foul-mouthed and frank with people I respect, because I expect them to not be morons.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:40 am
PZ:
Oh c’mon. Who said anything about ripping out all the visually interesting elements? What would have been so deadly dull about having green and yellow text bubbles? Just that much of a change would have helped tremendously.
The artist said they let the internet decide, in that a little searching revealed that women are more religious.
Sir Shplane, Grand Mixmaster, Knight of the Turntable:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:42 am
Readers: Feel free to cut out either “is nonsensical” constructions from the second sentence of my previous post. Either one would do, really.
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:43 am
That’s what’s irritating. What I was saying was the opposite of absolutism: I’m arguing that you can’t expect uniformity of role assignment, that you CANNOT demand that in every story women have one role and men have another, and that was in reply to ahs’s comment that every deviation from female superiority harms the cause of feminism.
And I’m the one who gets accused of making an absolutist critique? That’s entirely backwards.
Now THAT’s a smoking gun. OK, point accepted: the cartoon was originally made with part of the point being perpetuation of a sexist stereotype gleaned from the internet. In light of the evidence, I change my mind.
What was the guy thinking? He let the internets decide? Stupid. And then he puts another datum on the internets to further bias the case.
raygarton:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:44 am
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome — The scenario is, of course, ridiculous. Like this discussion. Which was the point.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:44 am
PZ:
Given that girls still hear about not being naturally good at math along with a whole lot more crap, this point doesn’t help from my perspective. Childlike is great, I get the delight of that, but it hardly invalidates the negative implications of the worn out trope that girls=no critical thinking skills.
Sir Shplane, Grand Mixmaster, Knight of the Turntable:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:46 am
Oh hey, look at this thing I missed.
In light of this, I have to say: Fuck that guy, and fuck his bunnies.
GodotIsWaiting4U:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:46 am
I could express an opinion here. I could, but I won’t, because I’m not sure what the opinion would be but it would probably be wrong.
I will observe, and hopefully learn something. That is all. I am essentially posting to say I will not post anything.
StarStuff! Because f**k you, that's why:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:47 am
So, if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it just might be a duck.
PyreSpirit:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:48 am
There is more sexism present in claiming that the pink one wearing the dress is female and the blue one wearing the pants is male, than there is in the cartoon itself.
Dress+Pink=Girl is way more sexist than having a female character taking the role of the twit is.
Of all the women I know, a very small minority of them like pink and wear dresses.
Sir Shplane, Grand Mixmaster, Knight of the Turntable:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:52 am
@PyreSpirit #436
Except that Pink+Dress is a very, very widely accepted cultural marker for “Has a vagina”. The fact that the marker exists may be a symptom of sexism, but that doesn’t make people who pick up on it sexist.
Agent Smith:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:52 am
Trouble is, the sexism was observed in the wrong place. Sexist tropes are supposed to be found chez religious-right rants and the mumbling of musclebound jocks who never got the memo that women are humans, not props or appliances. Then, when someone points out the sexism, everyone can breathe deeply and murmur in agreement while enjoying a bracing schadenfreude jolt.
But this time, His PZNess and many others were sitting back to bask in the reverie of a cute cartoon and its gently subversive message. Instead – oh noes! – someone pointed out that it was just a wee bit sexist. That struck a discordant tone. To all you pink and blue people, I say that the brown note is real. It’s called mentioning a sexist aspect in something we were supposed to be enchanted by.
That’s too bad. Privilege stoners like me need to be told when something’s a bit off, otherwise how will we ever learn? Sexism can, indeed, show up in things we have an affinity with, not just nasty stuff we would’ve rejected anyway. I think it’s important for those of us on the listening end to learn how to take an observation on board, to say “Yeah, you’ve got a point” rather than treat it like a Gremlin that needs a good dousing.
eigenperson:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:55 am
#438 Agent Smith:
Yeah, I have to agree. I am glad that this was pointed out, ESPECIALLY now that it turns out the “unfortunate implications” were not in fact unfortunate, but rather deliberate.
RahXephon231:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:56 am
I can’t be the only one seeing shades of Elevatorgate in this. It’s not the same subject but it has similar components. In both cases, something sexist occurs that a feminist calls out with the mildest of criticism, as in “hey, isn’t this kinda sexist?”.
Instead of receiving rational responses, the criticism itself is denied (“There is no sexism, move along!”) and the critic concern-trolled (“You need to pick your battles! Don’t you have better things to do?”) or just normal trolled (“You’re oversensitive! You’re looking for reasons to get mad!”). Then the trolls look back at their own mess and claim it as evidence that the entire incident was an overreaction, glossing over the fact that the original criticism was, and remains, “hey, isn’t this kinda sexist?”
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:00 am
PZ:
Nope; what I said was, that slight critique gets taken as absolutist. The flaw isn’t in what you claimed, but what you inferred in order to make your claim. Specifically, compare:
to what ahs actually said:
Nothing in there about female superiority or deviations thereof; just noting the pairing of “dumb” with “in a dress”. Again, because there are proven negative consequences of stereotype threat that can be evoked by a reminder as small as checking a box, I don’t think ahs made a hyperbolic statement. But you reacted as if it was one.
I don’t understand this reaction, but it’s happened so often in this thread, by so many different individuals, that I don’t think it’s just coincidence anymore.
crowepps:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:04 am
If anybody has any spleen they’d like to vent, the NEW Cross on the hill above Camp Pendleton poll is trending Leave it Up
http://camppendleton.patch.com/articles/poll-camp-pendleton-cross-stay-up-or-take-down
Tethys:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:05 am
The titanic analogy is pretty arghh inducing. Raygarton wins the award for biggest clueless dolt of the thread.
It reminded me of some other bunny entertainment. I thought I would share some giggles.
Titanic Bunnies
March of the Pengbuns
RahXephon231:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:12 am
One other thing I wanted to address was that I hate the phrase “pick your battles”, because that’s not what the person who says it actually means. They don’t mean that one should establish what battles they do and do not want to fight based on their own experiences, but that which battles are valid or not rely on the approval of the person saying “pick your battles”.
There’s also something in there that, if this were TVTropes, I would be tempted to call “Feminists Can’t Multitask”: the idea that a feminist cannot, for example, combat gender discrimination in the workplace and also call out subtle forms of sexism. The thing is, yes we can. Not only can we do both, but I think feminists do a damn good job of ascribing appropriate degrees of interest in both things. That’s why gender discrimination gets legislation and Subtly Sexist Bunnies get a “hey, isn’t this kinda sexist?” offhand remark.
Phoenician in a time of Romans:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:12 am
I deliberated on it for a while then I let the Internets decide. I did a few searches to confirm my suspicions: women are more likely to believe in god… so girl bunny lost this round.
BTW, if you’re interested in the actual odds, check out the Pew Report 2008 – page 62-64
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-3.pdf
The chances of a Protestant/Catholic American being female are almost the same as those of a voter in 2008 voting Obama.
pelamun:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:21 am
I’m glad PZ came around.
However, I think context matters more than the artist’s intent, a work can be sexist without the artist having such intentions.
I like the Harry Potter example brought up by someone upthread; if you have a large work with many characters, this is different from one cartoon with only two characters. And at the time of the posting, it wasn’t known if there was a larger context for the piece in question. Taken as one piece of art, the selection of the roles for the characters was sexist, irrespective of the artist’s intent. Any piece of art gets contextualised within (or with?) our societal norms, which do have this sexist stereotype.
Steamshovelmama:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:24 am
445 comments so I’m sure someone has said this but it bears repeating. It’s NOT drawing a pattern from a sample of one, it is recognising that this is yet another trivial representation of gender roles that is one small insignificant strand amongst many other small, insignificant strands that make up the huge hawser of the Patriarchy.
pedrotimoteo:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:45 am
To anyone who thinks this comic is sexist: are you saying that we can’t EVER have a cartoon where the man is right and the woman is wrong?
Gallstones:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Gawd save us from the “feminists”.
What a pit of shit this place has become.
pelamun:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Context matters.
StarStuff! Because f**k you, that's why:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:49 am
@ pedrotimoteo
Have you even read anything from this or the last thread? Wow. Just so you know, the person who made this is indeed sexist.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:50 am
…AISJHAFGHHARGHAA *explodes*
*feathers drift down*
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:51 am
shawnthesheep:
I have been summoned by the SpokesGay Signal (which I’d never seen before and which tickles me more than I can say). Having been roused from my post-prandial stupor, I crankily pronounce:
1. I know you think of yourself as a progressive guy who fights against sexism and homophobia. And you are. No one is questioning that.
2. But that doesn’t make you perfect. It doesn’t mean you don’t have blind spots.
3. You do. Read that again. You do have blind spots. That’s not a character flaw, it’s not an accusation; it’s something we all have.
4. Stop typing right now and get over your fit of indignation before you respond. Go yell at your houseplants or something. And yes, I know you’re getting all indignant and defensive because I do the same thing. Stop it. Once again, no one is questioning your sincerity of character.
5. We all have differences of opinion. But that doesn’t mean that you aren’t, quite unintentionally, supporting sexist arguments when you poo-poo concerns brought up by other people, or say that you find them ridiculous.
6. You most certainly do not have a get out of jail free card on misogyny issues just because you proclaim how much you adore women. Or just because you’re a gay man who (and we all do) experience many of the effects of misogyny when homophobia is directed at us.
I’ve been there, done that, thought that, and said that. I’m just like you that way, shawn. But I was also wrong on some counts, and very blind for a while. It’s OK to admit that possibility, and we need good, well-meaning people like you and me to put down the defense screen when it’s called for and re-examine our gut reactions.
Please think about it.
StarStuff! Because f**k you, that's why:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:53 am
Hurr durr derp, feminazis! Hurr, I like making pointless comments on a site about how shitty it’s become but I clearly like it enough to read and comment.
How was my impression of an idiot? I think I’m getting pretty good at it.
Gyeong Hwa:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:59 am
I am really disappointed by this. Some pointed out that the comic had implications that were sexist in nature. The reasonable thing to do is acknowledge it and in all likelihood there would have been a peaceful discussion with things we already know about sexism. But no, ya’ll decided to go at each other’s neck.
It’s a privilege to not notice these, but not everyone has that privilege. What’s so hard to understand about that? It’s not like people are calling you a terrible person because you didn’t realize it.
/rant
(One the positive side, despite disagreeing with PZ, I think he’s been well mannered in the situation. I like how he immediately crushed misogynist who wanted to use this as their victory point.)
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:59 am
It worked, yay! Thank you, Josh.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:01 am
pedrotimoteo:
Aauuuggghhh! Read. The. Thread.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:03 am
Gyeong:
PZ finally saw how the artist decided on the girl being the dumb bunny and changed his mind. See #430.
Candra Rain:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:04 am
Gyeong Hwa:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:05 am
Caine,
I just notice that.
/somewhat sober now
RahXephon231:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:06 am
We aren’t yet in a world where such things lack cultural context. Having a comic where a man explains to a woman exactly how stupid she is is not, in itself, sexist. However, in the context of a culture where women’s intellects and opinions are devalued like our own, then it is sexist.
As has been said many times before in many places, this shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
nickhuebner:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:22 am
Wow, people need to slow down, think, and read through the other comments before posting. For all the people saying “what if they’re both women” or “it’s about the unconscious sexism,” please read post #119. It explains that one is male, one is female, it’s NOT unconscious, and there’s a reason. Now, we can debate whether it’s a valid or sexist reason, but it’s annoying to see people ignoring important information like this.
Someone tried again to point this out again at post 138, but again it was ignored. I just wish our culture was less impulsive and we didn’t always feel like we had to restate what other people said, just so we could feel self-important and get our 2 cents out there.
So that’s my 2 cents =D
Butch Pansy:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:22 am
So, is it a duck?
ibbica:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:29 am
I’m not American, but have been inspired to offer a few words of thanks anyway:
PZ, for the above statement: thank you.
All of you who lucidly pointed out the underlying tone of the cartoon: thank you.
All who replied with “Huh, I hadn’t noticed it, but now I realize…”: thank you.
If anyone leaves this discussion “a little more enlightened”, it was not a waste.
Happy (belated) Thanksgiving!
JesusFuckingChrist:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:36 am
I fucking love this shit. Keep it up.
Rawnaeris:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:40 am
PZ, thank you for conceding the point.
I didn’t instantly pick up on it, but I agree it is there.
I’ve become so inured to the microaggressions in my work place that I appreciate all the consciousness raising the comitariat here engages in.
Apologies for any misspellings. I’m on a phone. All hail Tpyos!
coutsoulis:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:45 am
“..if you take a moment to instead come up with real instances of oppression, discrimination, and intimidation of women (they’re not hard to find), rather than railing about the importance of toy bunny dresses.”
Well well. Sounds much like the response from RD during elevatorgate. How the wheel turns.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:46 am
I am not sure I get how “sexism” (at least how I see it) can be deduced from just this. Would the cartoon still be sexist (by your definition) if the roles were switched?
Alethea H. Claw:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:47 am
♥♥♥ to steamshovelmama for the bestest analogy. A single thread in a hawser. Nice.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:51 am
The question remains:
Why did PZ need the artist to point out that xe was indeed intentionally using harmful gender stereotypes to recognize that the artist was indeed using harmful gender stereotypes?
Intent isn’t magic, in either way.
Before we knew of the quote, those of us pointing the sexism out thought that the sexism probably wasn’t intentional and that the only “crime” the artist had commited was that xe didn’t pause and think about gender stereotypes.
Most sexism is unconscious. It needs to be made conscious in order to change it. Nobody of us is perfect in this.
Regular readers will know my frustration about todays sexist children’s culture. It’s probably hard to miss.
I confess: It takes me some real effort not to unthinkingly compliment my daughter’s female kindergarten-friends on their looks every time while it takes hardly any effort to do so for her male friends.
Because I live in patriarchy, I grew up in it, I’ve been conditioned that the looks are the most important things about a woman to notice even if that woman is only 4 years old.
But once I make the effort to consciously not say anything about their looks, I manage to find a friendly word, a compliment, a question about what they’re actually doing just as easily as i do with the boys where I’m conditioned to go for the things they do and not for how they look.
Sometimes I’ll throw in a compliment about the cool Spiderman shirt and the haircut as well.
Another bit of anecdata:
This morning (yeah, morning here), my little daughter has brought me three different books to read so far. None of them is actual crap. I don’t tolerate crap-books here. One is a non-distinct cute anthropomorphized animal story about a fearful little bunny, one is by Elizabeth Shaw, a left-wing author and illustrator, one by my current favourite pair of children’s books writers, Axel Scheffler and Julia Donaldson, who simply rock.
Total number of female characters: four.
Yes, you’re right, four in three books.
None is openly sexist. The Snail and the Whale by Donaldson/Scheffler is the best, having a male/female protagonist who both have strengths/weaknesses that are mostly due to their respective sizes. But still there’s the female humorless schoolteacher who turns pale at the sight of a snail.
Would it have worked the other way round, a male teacher who freaks out because there’s a snail? I don’t think so.
It is unfortunate, and it adds a tiny sting to a wonderful book.
Moral of the story: Cool people get things wrong, too. Feminists get things wrong, too. That’s not the end of the world. Next time try better. (I think they did. Love them)
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:57 am
I hate having to post without reading everything. Yet, here I am, having read the full first thread but without having read the comments on this one.
I just want to say, to everyone who used trans* experience as a get-out-of-jail-free card from a discussion of sexism:
Fuck you and the ass your porcupine rode in on.
Yes: feminists often not only fail to address trans experience, but also sometimes have it in for trans people. Doesn’t change the fact that the feminine is devalued and the masculine is valued in our culture. Not. One. Bit.
Try posting about issues that affect trans people in threads that aren’t about sexism first – establish some street cred, why don’tcha? Then, when sexism comes up and you say, “But I can’t possibly know the genders of the characters involved!” a few of us might pause for a screen refresh or two before handing you your well-deserved porcupine.
Secondly, for happiestsadist: Using trans experience as a GOOJF card is, yes, all kinds of wrong. But you bringing up the fact that trans people who exist within the binary typically dress according to the binary is all kinds of wrong. There are thousands of us that enjoy wearing tuxes to the distress of our neighbors (or balkan peasant-skirts to the same). The fact that trans people who don’t violate stereotypes exist is no reason to assume that there is no reason to question people who justify assuming the genders of others based on a few random scraps of cloth. What was the point of raising that as an objection anyway?
Once again, I’m off to read this thread now that i’m done with the other, but if you’ve used trans experience on this thread to argue that sexist conditioning doesn’t work (or only works on the already sexist) I’ll be sending you your radioactive, heat-seeking, sexually-kinky but safeword-deaf, zombie porcupines via FedEx at convenient intervals.
That is all.
Bruce Gorton:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:58 am
A lot of the pro-feminist side here push the idea that the MRA’s are irrational, hysterical and basically nuts. Sound familiar?
/Troll
jrs:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:58 am
intent matters. apply it more.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:07 am
Bruce Gorton:
I don’t push the idea, I simply quote them. Speaks for itself. By the way, you’ll find that many (note I did not say all) feminists don’t use the word hysterical at all. There’s a reason for that.
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:09 am
I think Bruce was being snarky, Caine, considering he signed off as /Troll.
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:11 am
@raygarton of 431
…actually the conversation has not been ridiculous, only to its detractors it seems. In fact, the conversation was entirely civil from the original thread until some MRA troll of 11 decided to launch an ad hominem bomb at the first person to point out there maybe a gender sterotyp issue with this cartoon. And figuratively telling her to STFU. Anyone who is remotely intersted in women’s issue would likely not have taken that well. Hense the exploding flame war over what seem to some apparently, inane.
Remember, usually in many conflicts there is one aggressor. And in this case the mansplainers are have only themselves to blame for this “lol embarrassment” over bunnies, due to direct flaming on this war. So using your quaint anology of the sinking ship, it’s the male who is drowning becuase he spent far to too long explaining why women and children should learn their place instead of jumping into the lifeboat to save himself.
Furthermore, it’s now been discovered that there had been some validity to the gender stereotypes of this cartoon. Both Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom of 418 and PZ Myers of 430 have both confirmed that the gender assignments where intended by the artist and for dubious reasons. So this wasn’t so much “ado about nothing” after all that some have complained. And thus, this was likely a good time and place to stand up for it…even though it was over “lol bunnies”. Imagine that.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:15 am
Josh:
Yes, I know, however, after two threads worth of feminazis! fembots! lighten up! chill, girls!, cunt! and other such charming chat, my humour is a bit low and I don’t much see the point of posts like Bruce’s, which are taken all too seriously by certain people.
Tom McCann:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:17 am
hey golgafrinchams, stop debating and get moving, you’ll miss your spaceship!
Azkyroth:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:27 am
Given that “freaking out over ‘bugs’ [VERY broadly interpreted, no pun intended]” is a prominent part of female socialization in our culture, and often manifests in unhealthy and destructive ways, I wonder if they weren’t trying to make a point about it.
Crys T:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:39 am
Great Myers: nothing like having a man tell the wimminz what we should and shouldn’t comment on.
Like your buddy Dawkins, you’ve just colossally missed the point.
madtom1999:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:40 am
I thought the thread was quite rational and restrained – just imagine if one of the characters had been talking in comic sans!
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:42 am
Crys T:
In fairness, light did dawn, see #430.
Crys T:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:46 am
OK, I see it’s my turn to apologise. So I do apologise for jumping the gun without reading the whole thread.
Andy:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:46 am
Ok I’ve been watching these threads for hours now. I have not commented until now, but I think I have heard enough that my opinion on the matter is not likely to change at this point. If you’ve participated with the discussion on either side I honestly think you’ve helped score a victory for feminism in the atheist community.
With all the people that read this blog I have to think I’m not the only one who went from feeling mildly annoyed that a comment thread was derailed for a discussion of gender stereotypes, to feeling gratitude for the lesson on how pervasive and harmful those stereotypes could be after enough ideas and information was brought to the table.
Granted, there were plenty of pejoratives and porcupines I had to pick through to understand the lesson, but all an all it was reasoned logical argumentation that took me from where I was to where I am. That is how rational people are supposed to engage each other and I thank you all for showing me that side of my community.
To those of you who actually participated in this discussion one convert (though I sincerely doubt I’m alone) may not feel like much of an accomplishment for all your hard work, but I would not have made it this far without the back and forth that took place tonight.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:47 am
Azkyroth
I doubt it. I really love their work and they are making a lot of points about things (one of the reasons I enjoy their picture books myself so much, there’s often more to it than a cute story), but this one really looks like not thinking too much.
They needed a rhyme on “snail”, so the teacher turns “pale”.
It’s a very minor character (if you can speak of “characters in a book with about 1000 words total) and hardly noteworthy. And since the trope is so common, I doubt that most people would realize it at all.
Carlie:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:51 am
Oh, you think I was out for blood before…
Again, I don’t think the intent of the creator matters. And I certainly don’t want to write him/her off now because they specifically chose the girl as the irrational one. I just want them to think about how they are perpetuating that stereotype by using it, even in such a small way, and please don’t use it that way in particular again, because it’s hard enough to get taken seriously as a woman in the atheist/skeptical movement (as we’ve seen). (I already said many hundreds of comments ago that I don’t mind women being the stupid one in a portrayal, just not always in the stereotypical ways)
I have an anecdote also! This morning I was out doing the early morning shopping (don’t judge!), I went to ye olde big department store, and was driving around looking for a parking spot (of which there were few), and thought “Oh, I’ll go to the tool entrance. That crowd will be a lot calmer”. And then another part of my brain made a big record scratch sound and said “Oh, why is that, exactly???” And the first part went “Well, you know, it’s the tool section, and, um… ” and the other part went “Yes??” and the other part sighed and said “…because that’s where the guys will be. Yeah. Shit.”
That’s how pervasive this is, and how unconscious. I spent all of my holiday yesterday in this argument about how it’s bad to assume women are more irrational than men, and how it’s something we all have in our minds even when we don’t mean to, and then we perpetuate it without even noticing, and then not a few hours later I did the exact same thing. Ha ha! Silly women go out shopping early and get all store-crazy and stuff, men are more rational and will be calmer nicer shoppers! I mean, fuck. So no, I don’t assume that all sexism is malicious. It’s just unavoidable without great force of effort.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:54 am
Andy:
It feels like someone just handed me my weight in sniny, sniny silver. Thank you.
You’re the exact kind of person I was describing in #296, so an extra thank you from me, for showing that raising awareness is a worthwhile endeavor.
Jett Perrobone:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:56 am
I dream of a world where people could make “stupid girl bunny / smart boy bunny” and “stupid boy bunny / smart girl bunny” comics in equal measure, and no-one would give a rat’s arse.
Anyone with me?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:00 am
Carlie:
I caught myself in a similar moment yesterday, I was actually thinking about shopping on Black Friday (which I have never done) and Mister was surprised as hell and when he asked me about it, I said, well, it wouldn’t be so bad, given where I wanted to go, because I’d be after tech stuff and yes…tools. *sigh*
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:04 am
then, municipalis:
LOL – seriously, brains just seem to rot at the first mention of sexism.
Read the example again: “expose her to a wide variety of viewpoints” is exactly what ahs proposes to do: there are 10 identical effing books during the day, and so the parent cuts out the one more identical book at night! Following your advice!
Except that’s not your advice, because since sexism is what all eleven books have in common, it’s okay. We don’t need to have diversity of opinion on sex stereotyping for kids. As long as we have diversity of opinion on the colors of dress a girl can wear, we’re doing fine. Quit complaining! No feminist books for you, overreactor! /snark
sheesh.
BillyJoe:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:04 am
I can honestly say that I didn’t pay any attention to the sexes of these bunnies when I read the cartoon.
Bruce Gorton:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:08 am
Caine, Fleur du Mal
My intent was snarking – it was about the only troll cliché I didn’t see being used openly.
As to the comic:
Initially I didn’t take the whole thing terribly seriously, I figured the gendering was simply to have two identifiable characters, but I could see how it appeared to be unconsciously sexist.
With the added quote – it turns out it was quite consciously sexist.
Pointing out that sexism is valuable because it helps the rest of us confront the fact that we didn’t particularly notice it first off (privilege works like that) and means we can more easily avoid using those tropes in future.
setar, too lazy to log in on his blackberry:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:11 am
PZ, that post was fucking horrible. It read exactly like Dawkins’ Muslima comment for the single reason that, well, it was the same thing worded differently.
You’ve fallen into the trap of thinking that the debate was caused by the complainant. It, as you should already know from past experience, was not – it was as always started by concern trolls and ERVscum that come out of the woodwork every time the topic comes up. You should be looking at then as you always do and ask how so many people can be so goddamn entrenched that they have to vehemently defend the same bullshit until they die.
There didn’t need to be debate like that. But it was not us who brought it here, and indeed it never is.
I await your apology.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:19 am
Bruce:
I know, I’m sorry I jumped. These threads suck the humor straight out of me after a while, and it wasn’t pleasant, getting Dear Muslima’d from an unexpected source (PZ).
Elena:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:19 am
Jet @489: I dream of a world where people could make “stupid girl bunny / smart boy bunny” and “stupid boy bunny / smart girl bunny” comics in equal measure, and no-one would give a rat’s arse.
Anyone with me?
Unfortunately we’re stuck with the world where girls are routinely told that they belong with fairies (sky or not) and pink kitchens, and boys are told that they belong with astronauts and the cool non-pink microscopes that actually work. *sad face*
So what do you think would be more conductive to your utopia?
PZ, thanks for the turnaround @430.
fancyplants:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:20 am
Really? We’re reduced to such nitpicking?
The person who made the cartoon was trying to make a point about the barmyness of religion, nothing more.
Why was it one ‘female’ and one ‘male’ rabbit? Chances are they got the little figures from a ‘sylvanian families’ (or similar) playset, which probably had a just a male and female figure in the set.
The cartoonist just borrowed them from their daughters’ toy box, and used them to represent the roles in the cartoon. There was a 50% chance the girl bunny would get the religious part. As stated before, the conversation between them contains no gender-related wording so no gender bias was intended, or for all I can see, exhibited.
Honestly. GROW UP.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:22 am
Setar, PZ did change his mind, see #430.
Alex, Tyrant of Skepsis:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:24 am
When it comes to bunnies that indeed aren’t bunnies however, I wonder – what is the deal with women wearing Playboy-themed gear that I see ever so often?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:25 am
fancyplants:
You’d be wrong. The artist’s choice was explained, frequently, supra. There’s even a link to where the artist explains that choice. You’d know that if you bothered to read the thread.
setar, too lazy to log in on his blackberry:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:26 am
…
I hate my BlAckBerry. And myself. And…fuck. I never do Nything worthwhile, do I…
Mick:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:27 am
All seems a bit silly to me. No it’s not on par with the Muslima comment. Dawkins was deliberately belittling someone who had been harassed, PZ was just pointing out that arguing over this is a waste of time.
So the author might have unconsciously assigned the less rational rabbit a female gender, maybe that did happen because of uncritical acceptance of cultural stereotypes-it’s possible.
But that does not mean that the authors intent was to belittle women, unlike the guy in the R Watson situation who was told that Becs wasn’t interested and cornered her in an elevator anyway. It certainly doesn’t mean that PZ is belittling women’s experiences or struggles. To me it just seems that he’s saying that people are making a bit of a mountain out of this molehill, that’s it. Move on!
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:29 am
Setar:
Stop that, you’re fine. A lot of people posted before they saw that far.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:30 am
Mick:
Oh FFS. The author/artist made a deliberate, conscious choice. Read the damn thread.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:34 am
Jerfoo (the artist):
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/kvpbc/evidence_vs_belief_a_tale_of_two_bunnies/c2nlq3f
Cameron:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:35 am
Perhaps both the bunnys are male, one just likes to dress as a woman and it turns out we haven’t seen the ‘female’ version of this particular bunny and it looks nothing like this male version because of sexual dimorphism :O
I agree with PZ, but I also agree with dress + pink writing = girl, although pink and blue are nice, soft contrasting colours which are useful for coloured font. Blue also used to be the colour for girls and pink the colour for boys back in the day.
So yeah, there might be underlying sexism but is it saying that females are more likely to be religious or to be irrational and therefore religious?
I also agree that the argument only really started when people started saying there was no possibility of sexism but I also think, in my privileged way, that it was suicide to bring up a possible case of sexism, that could be easily disputed, on this forum.
So I lean towards PZ’s side but wouldn’t want to stop people from talking about possible cases of sexism but I would also want people to be able to reasonably dispute those claims without being called a misogynist.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:38 am
Cameron:
You had best read PZ’s post @ 430 then. I imagine you won’t be so agreeable.
Smoochie:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:38 am
This is weird.
Point the first
PZ does his level best to be The Perfect Liberal(TM), and pays excruciating attention to avoid bias based on gender, sexual orientation, race or religion (ok, the lack of bias on the last point extends to assuming they’re all idiots). I believe this is down to his sincere belief that, at heart, all humans have equal rights and an equal potential to be good, bad, clever, or stupid.
Point the second
We have a thread where a large number of people have him classed as an MRA wannabee.
Point the third
Does this mean that (a) PZ has lost his marbles, (b) PZ’s past behaviour has been a years-long set-up for an epic troll, or (c) Some commentators have lost a little perspective?
Am I an MRA wannabee too?
setar, too lazy to log in on his blackberry:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:43 am
Caine #403: It’s not just now. I’m always late, and if not that I just get ignored probably because I’m so calmand direct compared to most here which makes it stupidly unreasonable to complain about the tone of my posts.
I hatebit. Everyone else gets to be awesomely smart and I get to follow in their footsteps seemingly doing everything right and being told that I’m smart too.
-sigh-
Cameron:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:45 am
@Caine, Fleur du Mal (still don’t know how to quote yet, sorry)
Ah, just saw the updates in your post above me. Interesting. If I was that guy, I wouldn’t leave it down to the internets even if the “facts/stats” were right, it would have to be an subconscious choice on my part otherwise I’d probably de-sex both the rabbits.
Surprised the author didn’t go as far as assigning “girl” and “boy” in the speech bubbles.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:47 am
Setar:
Hey, I was late on this one and left the first thread early and if it makes you feel better, I’ve been pretty much ignored in this thread too. It happens, lots of people talking. It doesn’t mean you aren’t read or appreciated.
Don’t go clubbing yourself over the head.
Fleegman:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:54 am
I thought the whole point of all this was the unfortunate sexism on display in the cartoon, regardless of whether or not the author meant it. With that in mind, I’m not sure I understand why the intentions of the artist makes a difference, regarding your opinion in the OP, PZ.
So now we find out that the author decided on the genders based on which one is more likely to be religious. You call this a “smoking gun” and because of that, apparently all the rantings and ravings you were complaining about in the last thread is somehow ok, now, and totally justified.
Further, if the intentions of the author were relevent, here, those intentions sound anything but sexist. It sounds like they were “which gender is more likely to be religious?” as opposed to “I’ll make the girl the credulous one, because that’s my personal preference” (I’m not convinced 100% about this, since he said he suspected it would be the female)
If the author had simply flipped a coin, PZ, would your original comments about the last thread still stand?
It just seems like you’ve made a U-turn on the basis of something irrelevent in order to avoid being thrown under the same bus as Dawkins for making the same kind of comment he made.
Fleegman:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:55 am
Let’s just pretend I spelled it “(ir)relevant.”
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:59 am
Cameron @506:
Here’s your free, radioactive, heat-seeking, sexually-kinky but safeword-deaf, zombie porcupine.
see #472 for offer details.
pelamun:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:04 am
I’m really glad about PZ’s post #430.
However, it does suggest that he changed his mind after ascertaining the intent of the artist. But many have said, and I agree, that even if the artist hadn’t intended for the cartoon to be sexist, that would still not rule out ingrained, unintended sexism. Also, #430 didn’t really address the question about the shit storm that broke loose in reaction to a short observation regarding the inherent sexism.
David M: the first time I ever heard of the watermelon stereotype when this incident happened, involving a math professor working Condoleezza Rice and watermelons into an exam question:
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/09/14/suspend
setar, too lazy to log in on his blackberry:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:04 am
It’s a deeper issue than just Pharyngula, Caine. All my life I’ve been lauded as being smart but it seems like others are not only as smart, but they seem to get more opportunities and do more stuff and have a life while I’m stuck off in the corner supposedly smart but ridiculed for it and my other ‘weird’ behaviour far more often than I am praised, get manipulated or mostly ignored when I try to socialize and wonder why I don’t get these other opportunities if I’m so smart and thus distrust others when they say it because it must be some personal failing that keeps me off in this sort of limbo.
I think I have Asperger syndrome, but at current I have no avenue to get tested for it and when I last raised the possibility to my mother she, well…kind of dismissed it x.x
Sammywol:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:10 am
I came to this all backwards. I read this post of PZ’s first and then went to the thread with the actual ‘cartoon’. Over the last few years, since long before ElevatorGate I have been impressed by PZ’s efforts in championing feminist issues so I was all primed to agree with him about the bunnies. Except … wince! With the pink and blue speech bubbles the gender assignation couldn’t have been clearer and while I loved the analogy and laughed and all there was that very familiar sting of ‘oh, this again’ sexism. Not flaming MRA nuttery. Not frothing, raging misogyny. But definitely a ‘check your privilege’ moment. (Although my opinions did harden a good deal once I read the comments and found it wasn’t totally unconscious on the artist’s part but a deliberate choice of gendering.)
And no it doesn’t matter if this was the only piece the guy had ever done it is not a data point of one. It is pink microscope territory.
It is probably entirely my own problem though that throughout this thread and the last one my most consistent emotion has been a wounded howl from my onetime academic psyche of ‘It’s not a bloody ‘cartoon’!!!!’ Time to go put my tantrum-ing inner pedant on timeout I think.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:13 am
Crip Dyke:
Cameron was an asshole of note in the last feminism thread:
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:16 am
Cameron:
Dense as ever, I see. What did you think the pink and blue colours in the speech bubbles were doing, if not assigning gender? :eyeroll:
Do me a favour and don’t reply to me. Just try to think.
RahXephon231:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:17 am
LOL. Yeah, that’s why men have ignored feminists for so long: they weren’t sufficiently kiss-assy.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:19 am
Setar:
Shit. That’s not helpful. Can we talk about this on TET, so as not to derail here?
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:20 am
Caine @518:
I actually remembered that comment, tho’ I didn’t remember Cameron, (it was the part about getting rid of the ‘feminist’ stereotype part that I couldn’t forget).
Nonetheless, I’m starting a 2nd rampage here and don’t feel at all discomfited if he’s already had a porcupine-fitting previously.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:23 am
Crip Dyke:
No, of course not. Full speed ahead and cram the porcupines!
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:25 am
What difference does it make if the artist made a conscious decision to make the girl bunny the irrational one or not? The sexism is inherent in the cartoon regardless of a deliberate internet search for gender religiousity.
I didn’t initially see the sexism but when it was pointed out then there it was, plain enough for privileged me to see it. It was a case of just one more example of a stereotype being reinforced.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:30 am
‘Tis:
Apparently, in this case, intent is magic. Or evidence. Or something else.
By the way, sorry I missed the Caine Signal in the first thread, I was away from home.
Jett Perrobone:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:31 am
Elena @496:
You’re exactly right. Gender stereotypes are thrust upon us even at an early age. I’m not sure why; maybe it’s because parents don’t want their children to be bullied by classmates for being different. I wish it wasn’t that way.
Maybe, if ever we notice there are too many “stupid girl bunny / smart boy bunny” comics (or what have you) we could counter them by creating “stupid boy bunny / smart girl bunny” comics. This would weaken the stereotype that women are stupid and that men are smart, and should end up minimising examples of sexism.
I prefer this scenario to the one where neither comic is acceptable, where we live in a less interesting ultra-PC world.
=8)-DX:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:32 am
“The flame war started when some denied even the possibility that there may have been subconscious sexism.”
Thread. You. Were. Trolled.
You took PaulG seriously. He should have been left in the bucket of his own mental shit he created. Furthermore the zealots (yes zealots – you were behaving that way, thread, I was there) started including every comment that disagreed with them in any slightest way as “the sexist male enemy”.
Refraining from engaging with the reasonable people in a thread and engaging only with trolls or constantly beating an off-topic horse.. That is trolling in itself.
I’m sad that there were only a few people who actually responded to the issue at hand, because in the context of this cartoon it was much more interesting, stimulating and poignant than unintended sexism in bunny bubble-colour choice.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:35 am
After a night of…not much…sleep, I’m glad to come back to this and see that PZ has reconsidered this, especially in the light of the artist’s comments in the link I provided (and thanks to Caine for reposting it for the dense). I don’t think that the artist’s intent is a smoking gun, though, because the stereotype was mildly pointed out before the intent was known. It was already there.
I’m going to (full of hope) put the expression of the OP down to the strange USAnian ritual of Turkey Day, with all the busyness and family obligations that entail, and take it in that spirit; it would be too crushing after all the previous progress on this blog over the last few years (long time lurker) to find that dismissiveness is still the default position.
Thanks to Carlie, Caine, happiestsadist, ahs, Josh and everyone else I’ve missed for getting the (originally mild) point.
Richard Eis:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:36 am
Sigh, I was going to respond to the Spokesgay signal and Josh beat me to it (and probably handled it better anyway), though Caine had already covered everything beautifully. Now PZ has finally agreed with us, i feel slightly disappointed I don’t get to oppose our high chief any longer.
…and i’m out of popcorn.
…Next!
Mick:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:37 am
@ Caine, Fleur du Mal
I read the thread, and the source and some guy posted it on reddit.
I couldn’t see anything explaining the authors motivations.
Care to post a quote so the rest of us can see it?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:42 am
Mick:
It’s been posted, throughout the thread. There’s even a special edition for the dense – see #505.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:44 am
mick @530:
The link has actually been posted at least twice, that I saw. Look upthread.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:47 am
Richard:
I don’t think another perspective would be a bad thing, Richard. I think it would be helpful.
Except…I still have this uneasy feeling. Just won’t go away. I’m not sure why PZ was so upset with us in the first place, and not the idjits who started it up, a la “Fuck you. Paranoid killjoy.” along with the intent now being the all of it.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:50 am
Emrysmyrddin:
Word.
Mick:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:53 am
@ Caine, Fleur du Mal
Right, the author was being a sexist douche. OK.
That still doesn’t make the OP comparable to Dawkins Muslima comment in any way shape or form.
Thank for bringing this information to light, I didn’t know that-I don’t know if PZ knew that at the time this thread was posted. That makes us unaware of information to which you were privy, not dense.
Learn the difference!
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:53 am
Jett Perrobone
Partly it’s a simple feedback-loop. Partly it’s the roll-back we’ve been experiencing those last years.
To start out, parents aren’t the only people who buy stuff for kids. When our first daughter was born, we ended up with a surprising number of pink things even though we didn’t buy any of them and those close to us didn’t buy any of them either because they knew how much I hate stereotypes.
First of all, it wasn’t easy finding stuff that wasn’t pink/blue, especially for the nursery (or black. The rockstar-baby just came into fashion).
So, many people who surely don’t think that girls must wear pink all bought one pink article.
And since most parents aren’t that critical, most girls end up with even more pink than mine.
And kids are really quick at picking up rules, even though nobody ever tells them. If three kids are playing on a carpet who’ve taken their slippers off, the fourth one will do so, too.
So if the girl sees other girls wearing pink, but never blue, and never a boy wearing purple, she deducts that those are “the rules” and goes on demanding pink.
*sigh*
Elena:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:55 am
Jett @526: It’s not that we don’t have Hermiones or Lisa Simpsons. It’s that with a distressing frequency they’re are the only girls in the main cast, and they are always secondary characters. We have the hero (male), the best friend (male), the rival (male), the villain (male), the mentor (male) and… and… hey, the Girl! (female). We’re going to be progressive, guys, and we’re going to make her the smartest one. But she can’t be the *protagonist*, see, because who wants to watch a show with a *girl* as a leader?
Which is why people are recommendind MLP:FiM so much in this thread.
I’d add for contrast the anime Puella Magi Madoka Magica, which deconstructs the magical girl genre and has, like, one male character. Who is a love interest and has no role in the action whatsoever.
Mick:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:55 am
I sincerely apologize for my failure to trawl through each and every comment on this thread and wonder in awe at your attention to detail!
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:56 am
Caine,
It may be he wanted discussion to center on the allegory, not on what was an incidental, and was thus disappointed
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:00 am
Giliell:
You’re over-generalising. There are also people like me, too.
I am therefore I think:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:02 am
So the house is on fire and you all are trying to save the curtains?
Wow.
This was such a great comic until I scrolled down and read the comments of the good old irrational Pharyngula commenters. You guys always manage to light a village on fire.
This is why I mostly lurk and read from google reader, to much stress below the posts :)
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:06 am
@John – #539:
FU paranoid killjoy is substantially more derailing than :sigh:
The point is not, why was PZ upset. The point is why wasn’t he upset with the people who were actually doing something wrong, as opposed to doing something right that wasn’t what PZ wanted us to do?
We all understood your point quite a while ago. It’s been made upthread and even on the original thread. Your question adds nothing here.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:07 am
[meta]
Mick @535:
You haven’t seen #430?
(Your incompetence/laziness is noted)
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:10 am
Crip Dyke:
You did see what I quoted, and to which I responded? — to wit: “I’m not sure why PZ was so upset with us in the first place [...]”
To what question do you refer? I made none in the comment you quoted.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:11 am
Mick:
No. I don’t know that the author is a sexist douche and I did not once say that, nor did anyone else who mildly pointed out the problem with the ‘toon, which was simply that it was repeating a tired, sexist trope.
Oh?
It might not be reminiscent of Dear Muslima to you, however it is to me and quite a few others. It’s not just what PZ wrote, either, it’s what a lot of people wrote in both threads. In this thread, I got that shit from ‘Gentry’ who kept harping on “real” feminism, which apparently does not include raising awareness on the internet, because it’s a waste of time.
It was in the thread, quoted, repeatedly. You weren’t reading carefully, if you were actually reading at all. One of the ways you learn is to take the time to read.
It shouldn’t matter. The sexist trope was still in the toon, before the matter of how the author chose was discovered. I was not privy to that info any sooner than everyone else. I found out about it when Emrysmyrddin posted it. I didn’t require the author’s intent to see the trope.
I know the difference and if you don’t mind, I don’t much care for preaching from someone who can’t manage to read.
Kristin:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:13 am
If you’re interested in who actually made it, it was “jerfoo,” a self-described “anti-theist” who originally posted it to reddit a month ago (http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/kvpbc/evidence_vs_belief_a_tale_of_two_bunnies/). Here is the thread where he says he was the creator and links to where to find the bunny toys: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/mnz21/think_outside_the_box_the_cutest_response_to/c32l1xh?context=3
I think you should try and contact him about this. And in terms of the content this post, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. I’m sure sexism was not the intention, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not there and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t mention it or how the cartoon could be misused/misinterpreted. I feel its message would have been much more powerful had the bunnies been the same gender or gender neutral. I would hate to see something that’s clearly about religion being laughed at as, “Har har, girls are dumb!” (Of course, the original thread should not have been derailed, either, and it spiraled out of control.) Other than the gender implications, which I truly believe were unintentional, I think the cartoon is great, and I’d like to see more of the author’s work, if he has made others.
Fleegman:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:13 am
Well, I read comment #430, John, and as I and several other posters have said in response, I’m not sure what difference it makes, and why the intention of the author made PZ make such a drastic U-turn on his opinion on what went on in the first thread on this topic.
Kristin:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:16 am
Whoops, I see someone has already linked to one of his comments on reddit. It appears gender may have been a deliberate choice. Sorry. I’m usually one to read all the comments, but I started skimming and missed it.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:20 am
Fleegman, I referred to #430 in response to Mick’s claim (which I quoted) that he didn’t know whether PZ was informed about the basis for the gendering when writing the OP; when presented with the information, he wrote “Now THAT’s a smoking gun. OK, point accepted:”, the which clearly indicates he was not.
As for your characterisation of it as a U-turn, I call hyperbole; he had initially stated he had no basis for adjudication and that a sample of one was not indicative of a trend — points made moot when the allegory’s author’s basis was adduced.
(IOW, PZ was consistent)
Richard Eis:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:22 am
I suspect he is as sick to death of this as the rest of us, highly stressed at the moment and didn’t have time to read and process the millionty comments so went with the skeptical attitude of “not enough info”.
He did however open up a new thread with his own thoughts instead of just closing down discussion. Then later changed his mind which is why I come here…
…and he is right it WAS a little thing on the surface. So little that I didn’t notice either, until i looked under the water and realised the tiny iceberg was a tad bigger than I first thought.
pelamun:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:25 am
In that I agree with you, John. And that also means that PZ didn’t change his premises, which is what several posters have been talking about, pace #430.
Trance Gemini:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:27 am
They should have gone with a duck….
Overreaction much?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:30 am
John:
The reaction seems disproportionate, along with who he was reacting to. It was a mild enough observation, about the pink/blue, girls=fuzzy stupid trope, it would have passed and discussion gone on to the allegory if it hadn’t have been for reactions like “Fuck you. Paranoid Killjoy.” and others which followed. My first post about the cartoon was:
That doesn’t mean I didn’t notice the sexist trope, I did. I didn’t have anything to say about that until the over-reactions to Chrys T’s and Carlie’s posts came rolling in. Even then, my posts were mild, explanatory and calm. The point I kept trying to get across, in both threads, was that while the message and format of the cartoon were wonderful, it could be better and it wouldn’t have taken the author much thought to make it so it employed no sexist trope at all. It shouldn’t be such an awful thing, to bring that up, especially when we’re surrounded by such tropes all the time.
A lot of us got the feeling we should sit down and shut the fuck up and never, ever bring up something repeating a sexist trope because it wasn’t that kind of a post/thread. It felt like being slapped.
I’m sorry if PZ was disappointed, however, I’d say we got that disappointment back, in spades.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:34 am
Richard Eis:
No doubt. Okay, well, I’ll stop spitting porcupines now.
Fleegman:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:36 am
@John Morales
Part of PZ’s original complaint, as you point out, was that the posters in the original thread, as well as he, had no basis for adjudication, and admonished the behaviour therein.
The fact that we now know the basis of the author’s decision on the gender roles to adopt doesn’t make any difference as to the knowledge of the commenters in the original thread. And that was PZ’s original point: making a big fuss over nothing.
As I asked before, if the author had simply flipped a coin, would that mean that PZ would still be standing by his comments in the OP?
What difference does the intention of the author make?
Cesar Hechler:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:42 am
I just hope that the baby isn’t thrown out with the banthawater here. As Caine pointed out, it is a wonderful concept. Maybe by way of apology the cartoonist will give us nekkid bunnies with beige talk bubbles and we can get back to agreeing there is no duck. If duck existed there would have been better sexism detectors designed into all the bunnies.
pelamun:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:43 am
Yes, intent is not magic
(Correct me if this is an inappropriate use of this principle)
amc:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:44 am
If I was the cartoonist I would have switched the genders, as that would have boosted its overall message.
But its target audience won’t be able to appreciate the inherent sexism for another decade or so anyway; let alone its actual message. Which I guess Is PZ’s point.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:46 am
Caine, I dispute nothing in your #553.
(There’s plenty of disappointment to go around, alas)
–
Fleegman:
But, as it turns out, it wasn’t over nothing, was it? :)
(He was wrong)
Since he has been consistent, presumably yes.
In this case, it justifies those who noted the sexist stereotyping and caused PZ to acknowledge the point.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:50 am
[postscript to Caine]
When I first read the original post, I was reminded (not gonna search for a link atm, it’s past my bed-time) of an incident some years back when various people (SC first, IIRC) noted the ratio of men to women in a panel as indicative, because the same claims of a hyper-sensitive false positive were made to that claim.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:58 am
Cesar Hechler:
:snortle: Thanks for a sorely needed laugh.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:00 am
And who made you tone master fuckwitted idjit? Those who complain about tone are losers of the argument. If they were winning, tone wouldn’t matter.
KG:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:03 am
Total crap from you in the OP, PZ. Glad to see you can change your mind.
From the last thread
Oh and the c word isn’t a gendered slur in the UK. – PaulG
It doesn’t matter how often this lie is told, it doesn’t become true.
Fleegman:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:05 am
@John Morales
No, it wasn’t over nothing, and that’s the whole point isn’t it? It wasn’t over nothing from the very start and not “as it turns out.”
The fact that we now know the author’s thought processes doesn’t make the tiniest bit of difference. That doesn’t make it “over something” as opposed to “over nothing” does it?
It was over the reaction to comment #2, as far as I can see, and yet PZ lumped comment #2 in with the rest of them.
Look, maybe I’m just a big old thicko, and there’s some subtle or not-so-subtle thing I’m missing, here. I just don’t think the intentions of the author changes anything as far as PZ’s reaction to the first thread, because everything that happened in the first thread happened without that knowledge.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:06 am
Those who care about tone and civility have to things going against them. Who appointed you the arbiter of tone for this blog, since it is PZs, who wants us to be lewd, rewd, and crewd. You are uncivily are usurping his authority, and you know it. And a little language doesn’t bother me, as I can take it, not being a pearl-clutching wimp. If you want civility, go elsewhere.
Cassius Corodes:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:08 am
There is one point that I am still confused on – in the report that is linked to earlier in the threat its shown that women are more likely to identify as religious (in the US) – echoing the point made by the comic author. Doesn’t this bolster rather than weaken the case that the gender assignment was not made on sexist trope grounds?
I understand the point about the need for a comic equivalent of affirmative action – however this point is about the authors intent – which is my mind is redeemed by the facts involved. In particular I am confused about PZ’s last reply which seem to suggest the opposite.
Cassius Corodes:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:17 am
Nerd: “And who made you tone master fuckwitted idjit? Those who complain about tone are losers of the argument. If they were winning, tone wouldn’t matter.”
Your concern is noted.
Carlie:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:20 am
Thanks, Caine. Glad it’s not just me! Or wait, I’m sad it’s everybody… I’m especially annoyed with myself because I’m the tool person in the family, and yet I still go men=tools.* However, I will say that I then went to the hardware store at 5am and it was packed.
Probably. But there is a bit of a difference between being sick of hearing how someone is being stepped on, and being sick of being stepped on.**
But I assume PZ’s reaction had mostly to do with it being a holiday and him noticing there was some huge uptick in activity to deal with on a day off, damn it, and can’t we ever just give it a break and be light on commenting from time to time? Because he’s conscientious and responsible and will check on whatever looks like it might be a problem even if it ruins his day. So I would think that’s the source of it.***
*And I can’t count the number of times my own children have said something about scientists being boys while looking right at me, and then I say “What about me?” and then it’s “Oh yeah, and you”. I’m the only scientist they know on a personal and close basis, and yet I’m still somehow the exception rather than the rule.
**Yes, one even gets tired of being accidentally stepped on.
*** When the heck did I start using footnotes for my comments? Jeez, pretty soon I’ll have to attach appendices.
Felinaeus:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:39 am
*facepalm*
And the point of the whole thing is lost on some of the masses.
My friends wonder why I weep for the state of intelligence in our world, when it’s reduced to arguing over colours and clothing.
Happy American Turkey Day (belated).
pharylon:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:45 am
So, yeah, this is a response from waaaaaay up there, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned from the couple times I’ve delurked here, it’s if I try to follow a Pharyngula comment thread, I will be very sad.
Anyway, no, that’s not what I meant. I can understand why you think I meant that, though. My bad on post construction. No, I mean, the comments here are a cesspool of hate and vitriol, and that’s coming from everyone.
But here’s the thing: PZ is confrontational. I like that about him, and I think we need both people like him if we’re ever going to make serious inroads into enlightening the vast majority of this world.
Many people here have taken this to heart, and relentlessly attack, with hate and vitriol. And that’s all well and good on subjects we all agree on. Fucking Muslims, fucking Catholics, fucking Climate Deniers. They’re all idiots beneath contempt or whatever. It’s not so fun when that vitriol gets turned on each other. And confrontational doesn’t always mean rude. You attack someone, and they tend to dig in more, that’s human nature. PZ rarely drops the F bomb, he rarely infuses his posts with hate. Indeed, he usually keeps calm, just in a mocking and confrontational.
There are issues that I can see the argument for both sides. This is one of them. The girl bunny is the idiot, I can see why many people would see that as fitting into stereotypes. On the other hand, maybe the comic author just gave them pink and blue because they’re little kid’s toys, and those are kid’s colors, and that whole comic had a kiddy theme. I mean, one of them had to be the foil, right? Can’t the girl bunny ever be the religious one?
Well, yes. This is definitely an “issue” that can be seen two ways. Reasonable people – reasonable feminists – can have a different take on it, as we’ve seen in this thread.
But many in the commenting community take PRIDE in their attitude, in their language, and their angry, hateful tone. You can see multiple people above basically coping to being an asshole. “But it’s OK,” they say, “because I’m open about being an asshole.” Well, no it’s not. You’re still an asshole.
And when a community takes pride in being assholes disagree on something, they are naturally going to be assholes to each other, and hello flamewar!
So, in a roundabout way, what I’m saying is the problem isn’t this issue. The problem is with a culture that thrives on attack, tribalism, and insulting anyone who disagrees (on whatever point they hold) as ignorant at best and malicious at worst.
Both sides are to blame, both sides are doing this, because both sides are assholes and proud of it.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:45 am
Felinaeus:
You’d best weep for the state of your own intelligence, because there was no argument over colours and clothing. You could, of course, learn this by reading, however I suspect that’s something you won’t do.
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:46 am
Because how you come to your conclusion is important. If you’re going to judge sexism based on asymmetries in particular instances, you’re going to see a lot of false positives. If someone had gone digging and discovered that the artist had been conscious of potential sexism, and had flipped a coin to place his girl bunny in a role, or if he had a series of these in which he was careful to alternate the dumb bunnies sex…how many of you would change your mind and say that the original wasn’t sexist?
Or would you continue to insist that the appearance of sexism in the first cartoon was unacceptable, despite context and evidence? Because what I was seeing was a lot of people insisting that it had to be a sexist trope on the most superficial grounds, and further that any portrayal of any female character that fit a stereotype was unacceptable.
Intent and context matter, because a world in which guys are consistently and unfairly portrayed as dumb bunnies would be just as sexist as the one we’re in.
G.Shelley:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Yeah, I read those comments. The whining about how it’s sexist because one was wearing a dress and the other was wearing pants would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. Though the fantasies where they point out to the author the inherent sexism in the work and he responds with “well of course, in future I will be aware of that” rather than the far more likely “for fuck’s sake, get over yourself they are a pair of fucking bunnies you paranoid killjoy” was amusing
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:02 am
Pharylon:
This is not the case, which has been repeatedly posted about throughout this thread. If you bothered to read the damn thread, rather than spending time on a lengthy Tone & Concern Troll, you might have learned that. I’ll make it easy for you – it’s in convenient, can’t miss bold type in #505. You might want to read #430 too, ’cause it’s where PZ changed his mind.
Also, pink and blue aren’t “kid’s colors” for fuck’s sake. They have long been assigned as gender markers, pink for girls, blue for boys. You haven’t read one damn post, have you? Try reading Giliell’s for some education on “kid’s colors”.
People here handle things in their own individual ways. I’m often quite nice to people, shocking as that may be. I’m willing to go that extra mile to help educate if there’s an honest desire to learn. Many people here never type one impolite word, such Sastra and Desert Son.
Yes, there’s happiness in Pharyngula being a place where intelligent, sharp people can down to the business of meaty discussions without having to bother with flowery language more suited to strangling expression than anything else. There are many, many places on the net, most of them considerably more concerned with tone. If that’s what one prefers, that’s great, go there. Here, content rules, not tone.
And because you seem to be overly enamored of your tone trolling, from the Standards & Practices:
naturebox83:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Life must be depressing for those who go through life looking for discrimination where there is none. There are enough blatant instances without trying this hard to fabricate them.
Cesar Hechler:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Hopefully this hasn’t been turned into Something-gate. You never know if the rest of the weblogosphere is adept at following a thread or jumping to the wrong conclusions. PZ has generally had everyone’s back on the right side of issues since the first day of the web log and wouldn’t deserve a RD type keelhauling.
I’m wondering now if Walton will be disappointed he missed out on the fun. These 2 pages were right up his debate-team alley.
Tune in next week for Something-else-gate.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:19 am
Cesar:
I don’t think it has been. I’m sure the slimepit will have a field day with it though.
pharylon:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:19 am
Intent and context matter, because a world in which guys are consistently and unfairly portrayed as dumb bunnies would be just as sexist as the one we’re in.
I just want to stress something PZ said: Intent does matter. The original artist is someone that needs to be educated better, but clearly he’s on “our side.” His initial comment when asked about why the girl bunny was the religious one said:
“I know, I know. I deliberated on it for a while then I let the Internets decide. I did a few searches to confirm my suspicions: women are more likely to believe in god… so girl bunny lost this round.”
Ironically, he was trying NOT to be sexist. He decided on the pink/blue kiddie theme, worried about assigning which gender the “godbot” role, and in the end decided to be impartial and just go with Reality and look up which sex tended to be more religious.
Now, as we all know, reality can be a sexist. And I would argue that the gender roles that we are trying to fight probably push women into religion disproportionately. So in a very roundabout fashion, by trying to be impartially not sexist, he was. But only a bit, only a smidge, and only because he used a flawed way of avoiding sexism.
And that doesn’t make the comic itself sexist, because the message was the same no matter which sex was the godly one. The fact that he deliberated over gender choices, and tried to come up with the non-sexist solution, well, that’s great! He did it wrong, but still, it’s to be commended. And since if his Googling had turned up studies showing Men being religious he’d have done it the other way, that doesn’t make the comic itself sexist at all. The message is the same either way.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:25 am
And who appointed you the one to decide the tone for Pharyngula??? Last I knew, this was PZ’s blog, and he sets the standards, not you. Why do you even think you can tell other adults how they must behave, without being condescending and rude by doing so? Tone trolls like you are the biggest hypocrites around. Mature up, and listen to what is said rather than how it is said. You might actually learn something. But I doubt it.
Jas:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:25 am
The artist may have meant this to be sexist, in which case that’s terrible. Potentially they didn’t mean it to be sexist and the choice of bunnies was purely random. This could also be a replay of an actual conversation and the gender choice is based on that actual conversation. This could be part of a much wider cast of bunnies in a regular online comic strip which shows much diversity overall, and this one example is taken out of context. Without finding the source, we can’t know the intentions of the person who made it. Without intention or context, I don’t think that we can reach an ethical conclusion about the creation of this work. We could have suspicions, but none beyond reasonable doubt. There are perhaps people genuinely upset by this. That would suggest to some that there is a moral wrong here regardless of the intention and context. I’m not sure I would agree. As a sceptic I’m happily sitting on the fence.
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:27 am
And that, my friend, is the very definition of privilege. I missed it, too.
Please do not use mental retardation as a n insult. My sister-in-law has Down’s Syndrome.
Not probably. Read the fucking links provided to the Reddit discussion.
But every example is a particular instance. Whether an artist repeats those particular instances does not change the possibility of sexism within the one particular instance.
What makes you think this is my only interaction with the body politic?
So you are. So am I. However, I would not presume to tell a woman that behaviour she percieves as sexist is not. Just as I would not tell a gay or lesbian that behaviour xe sees as homophobic is not.
No, PZ, the artist did not flip a coin. The artist made a conscious decision to depict the theist as a female based on some internet research done by the artist pointing to women being more likely to believe in gods than men. It has been linked to a couple of times.
I’m in Pennsylvania. My relatives are in Maine and Florida. This place is also my family.
No, Pooh and Tigger. Weren’t you paying attention?
I know it would take some work, but could you be troubled to actually read the thread before tossing in your two noncents?
(If you are male) This is called unexamined privilege. I missed it myself and am glad that it was pointed out.
No, it was a conscious decision. Read the fucking comments.
No. Read the thread, asshole!
greensageb:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:28 am
People get worked up over the silliest things.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:28 am
How does the intent of the artist change the perceived message?
Intent isn’t magic, once again.
The conclusion most of us arrived at was that the artist used gendered stereotypes and before knowing of his intentions, most of us ascribed this choice to unconscious sexism, the kind all of us have and that some of us are watching in our own behaviour.
No. Big. Deal.
Really
Well, I never said anything about “unacceptable”. I think the strongest I used was “unfortunate”. A minor point of an overall great cartoon. A simple thing that could have been easily avoided.
To my knowledge, nobody else made the demand that no female character must ever be portrayed as a stereotype. What people said was that one should be aware of stereotypes and if using them, should do it right.*
Which was also not anthing anybody demanded. Sure, several people mentioned that, even though the reverse was also sexist, it would, because of stereotypes, be less harmful, but clearly not the best possible. The favourite version was ungendered bunnies, followed by same sex bunnies. Three ways to avoid all negative gendered stereotyping against men and women alike.
*Kids are allowed to watch Pipi Longstockings at the moment. The woman who wants to get her into the orphanage is a walking, talking stereotype, but so are the policemen and the thieves. Most adults in that series are stereotypes who constantly lose against the kids. No problem.
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Oh, for fuck’s sake. We do know the intent of the artist. It has been discussed repeatedly on this thread. Read pharylon’s comment just upthread a little bit. Or read the whole thread.
pharylon:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:33 am
I’m aware of that, but the argument had devolved into mudslinging long before someone found that comment from the artist, so the point stands. In fact, that wasn’t brought up in the original thread that got closed at all.
Bullshit. Blue/Pink are kid’s colors, at least in America. I haven’t worn blue in years (I’m an autumn, as my wife says), but my parents (and most parents) sure dressed me in it a lot as a kid. My wife, similarly, has one shirt with pink on it, but you can bet she had pink on her when she was in a stroller.
Blue and Pink follow both sexes into maturity to some extend (pink for girls, probably moreso) but to claim that it isn’t much more predominant at a very young age is just crazy. Especially the pastel pink and blue in the comic. Come on, be serious now.
I’m aware of the Standards and Practices. But PZ was disappointed with where the last thread went. My point is, basically, why should he be surprised? That kind of discourse is not only permitted, it’s encouraged. When being an asshole is a point of pride, people tend to be assholes a lot.
And I totally agree, content is far more important than tone. But I think there’s something to be said for tone. Picking the right tone for the right discussion is important. Sometimes, mocking condescension is the way to go and sometimes an all out assault of vulgarity is called for.
But when we’re talking to other open minded atheists who just need to be educated (like, for instance, the person that did the comic), a polite educating tone is better. But hey, that’s just me.
ChasCPeterson:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:38 am
wow
*agape*
Missed the whole thing.
Pretty much caught up now though.
We now know that the photocartoonist started with the gendered rabbits–no decision was made to feature a male and a female bunny; instead, this was a constraint. Therefore arguments like
are irrelevant once the decision to use the bunnies is stipulated. There are only two possibilities, and PZ’s original point–about judging from an N of 1–would, I think, apply.
However, we have a bit more information than that–the cartoonist’s stated gender-assignment process–which caused PZ to change his mind and display it in comic sans.
But according to my interpretation of cartoonist’s statement, the assignment of characters was based on data, not on “a sexist stereotype gleaned from the internet”. If so, then the intent of the cartoonist was, it seems to me, explicitly not the perpetuation of a sterotypical trope.
So if the author’s intent is important in deciding how to feel about the depiction of anthropomorphized-bunny genders in this cartoon, then the evidence suggests to me that 1) the cartoonist was constrained to the one-male one-female cast by the availability of the maximally cute juvenile bunnies, 2)
ChasCPeterson:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:40 am
god fucking damn it that wasn’t supposed to post yet. I might not have posted it at all.
Fuck it, there’s no reason anybody should care about my opinion on the subject anyway.
Richard Eis:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:41 am
I can’t help noticing a disproportionate amount of people on one side of this are constantly and clearly not reading past posts before voicing their opinion.
..and before they start, I should point out it’s their fault that there are so many posts. Self fulfilling stupidity perhaps.
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:42 am
The mudslinging began when certain commenters refused to entertain even the possibility of conscious or unconscious sexism.
Sounds like a good sociological experiment. Dress a baby in pink, walk through a mall, and log how many people ask what her name is. Come back the next day with the same baby dressed in blue and log how many people ask what his name is. Or age.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:43 am
municipalis
Crip Dyke’s response at #491 is more comprehensive than what I’d planned, so please read it.
I do believe your preference comes from a very respectable motivation, municipalis. I just think it’s rather simplistic. I haven’t suggested avoiding disturbing concepts. Indeed, I expect that by earliest adolescence (I’m not a parent, so I’m just guessing, but ages 8-10 seem plausible), it could even be useful to say “now we’re going to study some explicitly racist and sexist art, because you’re going to find a lot of this in the world.”
And if a parent wanted to use this cartoon to point out and study the representation of gender even in otherwise positive works, that could be very educational. If I’d thought out my example in more detail, I would have said I’m thinking of how giving this cartoon to a child without some kind of warning could be detrimental.
As to how it could be detrimental: stereotype threat. If one wants their daughter to be as economically successful as she can be when she grows up, this is an issue the parent may need to consciously navigate.
+++++
With that groundwork, a reply to PZ:
This is rather a straw man of my position, if we’re going to be uncharitable. Last thread I said “given binary options, there are four possible combinations, three of which would not have relied on stereotypes against femininity.” Two of those combinations do not involve making “the man the villain or dummy”.
And one of those combinations involves no woman to favor.
I try to avoid ideals, preferring to focus on predictable consequences, and I think I’ve maintained that approach here. We can reasonably expect that stereotype threat, and other reinforcements of bias, may occur from this particular combination of binary options. Of the four, this combination is the most likely to have that result.
If the little things matter, then it is more likely that equality is delayed ever so slightly every time the dumb bunny is the one in the dress.
If men are in fact currently being disadvantaged, relative to women, by artistic representations as a whole—a topic you might want to revisit, after your post on Zimbardo—then it’s sexist. I contend that we are not, so it isn’t.
Hello there, my point. What are you doing on PZ’s keyboard?
Jas:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:44 am
@Father Ogvorbis, OMoron
Thanks. I hadn’t read the 500+ posts before replying to the original blog post. I don’t have all the time in the world. If there is extra material information available, bloggers are not unknown to add an edit to their post so that commenters don’t have to read all 500+ comments. I’m not sure that deserves a “for fuck’s sake”. I withdraw my previous post based on this new data which you have (un)kindly helped me out with.
Improbable Joe:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Sort of a semi-meta question here, that these two comment threads made me consider:
Are accusations of privilege and/or sexism falsifiable? Mostly privilege, though, since one of the established aspects of privilege is that it is often invisible to the beneficiary. It seems like when someone calls “privilege” and they automatically “win” because there’s absolutely no response that cannot also be attributed to privilege. Sort of like the old joke accusation that someone is an alcoholic. When they say “no I’m not!” the response is “AHA!! Denial is a sign of alcoholism!”
Is it possible to tell the difference between someone who has a different view on a specific instance because of privilege, and someone who has a reasonable difference of opinion? Because I’m looking at these threads, and I see a little bit of completely unfair assholery, a fair amount of rudeness and name-calling, and a whole bunch of people on all sides who seem to have reasonable-but-conflicting views.
3zebras:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:55 am
@575
Are you kidding? Life isn’t depressing for these people. They are outrage junkies. They feed off being offended. It makes them feel alive inside, and this applies to the ones outraged by the cartoon and ones outraged by the outrage. They are no better than the fundamentalist shrilly denouncing the President for not mentioning God in his thanksgiving speech.
And the lot of them give me the absolute shits.
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Jas:
Take the “for fuck’s sake” with a grain of salt. The shear number of commenters who have been (and will most likely continue) to show up and repeat just what you wrote has frustrated me and others.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:58 am
Yep, the person who talks about tone tends to be supercilious snobs. Like you. I met a few like you back in my academic days. Assistant and associate professors in humanities usually, who thought they know more and were smarter than everybody else in the room. So NOT. Try listening, not pontificating/preaching.
Improbable Joe:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:00 am
… shit. Fuck. Damn.
I meant to add that the falsifiable problem works both ways. Someone can be privileged/sexist, and simply say “you feminists are always making kneejerk accusations, so I’m going to ignore you.”
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Lots.
And some become angry when you point out that the kid in blue is indeed a girl.
But she’s dressed in blue!, as if that were a crime.
You can add another data point: How many people will touch the “girl” vs the “boy”.
Oh, and a bit of research as to how those stereotypes, whether intended or not, are in fact being harmful
pelamun:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Giliell,
regarding Pipi Longstockings, there is also the problem with the racist stereotypes and the use of racist terms such as “negro princess” and “negro king” (or rather negerprinsessa and negerkung). In Germany, due to the wishes of Lindgren’s estate to “honour” the original text, this has been kept so far as “Negerprinzessin” and “Negerkönig”.
Here’s an article on the debate in Sweden
http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/pippis-pappa-inte-langre-negerkung
(or rather it is about the fact that the Norwegian translation now no longer refers to her father as a “negro king” but as a “king of a south sea island”, the Swedish solution has been so far to keep the text untouched, but to have a foreword written by Lindgren’s daughter explaining that the language use reflects a different time)
Here’s a blog entry from a German linguistics professor regarding the terminology in the translated books (he faced the problem when he wanted to read the books to his daughter). It’s one of many, apparently many people felt his concerns were “overblown” too.
http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/blog/sprachlog/sprachwandel/2011-08-08/pippi-langstrumpf-negerprinzessin-und-uebersetzungsproblem
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Still thinking about Moff’s law.
How many times a week on The Endless Thread do people talk about how they liked or disliked this or that sci-fi piece partly because of how the female characters were written? I don’t even participate in those discussions; just not my thing; but they’re sometimes illuminating.
Are folks here suddenly supposed to approach this particular cartoon without analyzing gender in it? I see plenty of nuance being applied even to this short piece; lots of people have said something similar to Dhorvath’s comment:
“I am concerned. This doesn’t seem complicated, the comic was good, but it could have been better, voicing concerns over how it could have been better shouldn’t produce a shitstorm. That it has is the push, and resisting that is important even if the specific issue was slight. I can’t see this post as doing anything save discouraging people from resisting that push.”
Bob Loblaw:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:09 am
“reality can be a sexist”
Dianne:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:09 am
Are accusations of privilege and/or sexism falsifiable?
Completely falsifiable, no. Something that can be defended against, yes. The key is not to just jump up and down and yell, “I’m not sexist! I love women! The women around me love me! I’m NOT sexist, I’M NOT!!!” but rather to calm down and respond sensibly to accusations. I’m by no means the definitive expert on sexism or feminism and I certainly have privilege in a lot of areas, but I have some suggestions as to how to deal with accusations of sexism or privilege:
1. Think about what was being said. Maybe this is an area where you have some bias. This does not mean that you’re an evil sexist person, just that you have some blind spots.
2. Maybe after thinking about it, you’ll conclude that the accusation was wrong. That happens. Some women are oversensitive in some circumstances. I thought PZ’s argument that this cartoon in isolation and without the author’s statement that s/he chose the female bunny to be the religious one intentionally is not necessarily sexist was a reasonable one.
If so, make your case calmly and using facts and logic. “I don’t think this is sexist because in other cartoons the author shows the female bunny being smart and sensible and the male bunny acting illogically*” is a reasonable argument. “I don’t think it’s sexist and my girlfriend agrees” is not.
3. If one person tells you you’re still wrong, especially if they do so offensively, shrug it off. If the majority of responders, especially responders if the less privileged group, tell you you’re wrong, go back to step 1 and repeat.
No one’s perfect. We’ve all had our racist, sexist, homophobic, culturally insensitive moments. If someone calls you on one, think about it. You don’t have to agree, just think it through.
Oh, and I’m not an alcoholic. The evidence is not my denial, but the fact that I hate alcohol and avoid it if I possibly can, have never sought it out for pleasure or to remove pain, and drink alcohol about once a decade when refusing to do so would cause social awkwardness. Isn’t that statement more believable than “NO I’M NOT!”?
*Wrong, it turns out, in this case, but reasonable.
pelamun:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:12 am
Two more notes regarding Pipi Longstockings:
1. apparently in the 2009 edition, the German version was modified and now reads as “south sea princess”. The problem about the racial stereotypes persist, that can’t be changed just by modifying words.
2. if anyone growing up with the English versions is wondering about this, the American translators never used “negro princess/king” as that would have been inappropriate to an English speaking audience already in the 1940s, so they went with “cannibal princess/king” instead.
Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM,:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Amazing! Or perhaps pathetic is the more appropriate term. Chys T and Carlie were shown to be correct in how they saw the intent of the comic. Some hit and run troll still insist on how one can tell the intent of the creator and the rest goes off on how trivial the argument is and how hateful the regulars are.
Even when feminists are right, they are still vindictive assholes.
*spits*
scriabin:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:23 am
…way late to the party.
But if PZ is going to (rightfully) work up the anti-gelato guy brigade like he did earlier, then I think it’s problematic to disapprove of other offences potentially taken or felt by people based on societal biases.
There is no de minimis threshold for observations of systemic (or personal) discrimination.
And to be fair, I think most of the self-described feminists on this site *did* “note it and move on”. But they were provoked/triggered by other commenters. And in the post-Elevatorgate context, who can blame them for engaging?
JDG:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Reading through, I’ll have to disagree with Myers’ original statement. Small battles can add up to big things if enough of them are won.
Interesting alcohol analogy. Except, where I’m from, if you’re the guy at the party not drinking? Everyone assumes you’re an alcoholic.
I have my sexist/homophobic/whatever moments. We all do. I try to own up when I put my foot firmly in my mouth.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Chas: the (very little) research I recall has women more likely to claim a relgious affiliation than men, by a 88-81% margin. This is not belief per se. I’ll have a look for research on belief later today.
rachelswirsky:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Intent matters if we are criticizing the artist. (The artist is sexist.) Intent is not particularly important if we are criticizing the art. (The art is sexist.)
Although, again, if we’re using more accurate language, I’d rather say “reflects some unfortunate sexist tropes” instead of “is sexist.”
I’m not interested in the artist–I haven’t read anything else by him or her, although I’d be happy to because this was cute and funny.
I am interested in the art.
I am *certainly* not interested in a world wherein all cartoons portray males as the dumb bunnies.
I strongly suspect there’s somewhere in this discussion that communication *isn’t* happening… and I think it’s when PZ imagines himself as the creator of the cartoon. (I’m really sorry if this is wrong; it’s just my best guess.) There are two characters; there’s not room for a wide range of representation. Likewise there are two positions, the correct and the incorrect, so you’re stuck in a binary. Someone’s going to be the character who can’t see winnie the pooh for the duck.
So if you’re imaginging wanting to have a girl character and a boy character for general “it’s nice to have one of each” purposes, and you know that one must be deluded and the other perceptive, then there aren’t a lot of options. Boy will be dumb or girl will be dumb, and in an ideal world, we’d be seeing 50/50. And certainly, changing the messaging from “girls are ditzy” to “boys are lazy” is unhelpful.
But I think this framing is part of the issue. When you’re beginning a piece of artwork, you don’t have to start with this set of assumptions–that the characters must have a gender. That’s kind of a weird thing for most people to grok, actually, on a basic level, I think–we *want* to gender things; it’s one of the first things we think about when we look at people (and the bunnies here represent people); things that are gender ambiguous make most people (or at least most Americans) profoundly uncomfortable. (Which is one reason for gender defaulting; if you can’t see a signal, and it’s uncomfortable to see something as ambiguous, then you default without thinking about it.)
Two bunnies hanging out being pastel green and pastel yellow are going to be much more gender neutral representations *even if one of them is in a dress* because they won’t be signaling masculine and feminine presentations as strongly.( Although really, are dresses the visual equivalent of exaggerated eyelashes–a signifier detached from the signal it indicates? How many little girls spend most of their time wearing them?)
There’s a stacking of the deck here, a layering of symbols to make sure we get the point. This bunny is THE GIRL BUNNY. It’s the bunny in the dress. It’s the bunny speaking pink. It’s got all these signifiers pointing in one direction. All we know about this bunny is PINK + DRESS = GIRL, and UNWILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO EVIDENCE. She’s not wearing a dora the explorer t-shirt which might give us a hint of some other kind of personality; she’s standing in as Iconic Girl.
Given the condensed nature of the cartoon (which is necessary for it to make its point), there’s no space to give her an inner life. But that doesn’t mean that when you have two bunnies, one has to be Stereotypical Girl and one Stereotypical Boy. *Even if there is a girl bunny and a boy bunny,* the bunnies don’t have to play into stereotypes of what boys and girls are. A girl bunny can speak in yellow or whatever; at least then you’re not saying “everything about the representation of this bunny in this comic is about reinforcing the idea that it is a girl, oh, and also that it’s deluded.”
When reading stories that people submit to the magazines I’ve helped edit, we see this stuff all the time–the victim of the monster is a Little Girl with Big Blue Eyes who plays Tea with Her Dolls. Then it’s very ugh–little girls are so innocent and feminine and they’re always the ones being murdered by monsters so their daddies can have motivations to go off and experience badly written adventures. But if the little girl isn’t a cliche–if she’s a little girl with a miscroscope that fucking isn’t pink who has been curing her dolls of ebola, or is a wannabe singer who has Distinct Opinions on rock stars from the 90s that her contemporaries haven’t ever heard of, or whatever–then she’s not Little Girl Who Dies anymore, or at least not *only* that. She’s Jessica. Or Leah. And when her father mourns her, he’s not just mourning an idea of a child.
This is THE GIRL BUNNY. The Girl Bunny speaks in PINK. She wears a DRESS. She is a UNIVERSAL. So when The Girl Bunny says “why look at evidence when we could accept authority because girls are religious!” she’s speaking For Girls.
The girl bunny in yellow with a Dora the Explorer t-shirt is speaking for a bunny that’s not just an Abstraction of Girl.
Anyway, this is all relatively insider baseball for content creators, but the point is that the basic formation of the comic shows some assumptions about gender when taken in context with the rest of contemporary American culture. The creator’s intentions are not deeply relevant since he could easily have gone “you know who’s more religious? I read it’s women” unconsciously as well as consciously; we’re not interacting with her, we’re interacting with her work. (Sorry for gender flipping; I’m writing w/o the ability to edit easily so I decided gender flipping would be easier than editing for his/her.) This writer had some received ideas about gender that he/she recapitulated, and they intersected with his/her message in an unfortunate way.
Basically, oh well, the cartoon is still cute.
But for those of us who are content creators, it’s instructive to see how that happens so you can not do it.
And for people who are reading, well, observing the unfortunate way that received gender roles and the message interacted here is a reasonable thing to do.
It doesn’t ruin the cartoon any more than bad acting ruins a good play. It’s just one bit of the whole.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:35 am
pelamun
I know, I always cringe when she sings her little monkey “Schlaf mein kleines Negerkind”.
The day the kids will ask what that actually means I’ll explain them that it was something people used in the past, why it is bad and why the wonderful Astrid Lindgren probably wasn’t aware of this.
The same one’d have to do for Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.
See, nobody called for the books to be burned ;). I still hold authors/artists in 2011 to a higher standard than in the 1940s.
Thanx for the links.
I love Lindgren, I named the little one Madita ;)
Oh the irony….
pharylon:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Well, babies do pretty much look the same. The blue/pink thing can be a good shorthand for what sex the baby is. It’s not the colors themselves that are sexist, because as someone else pointed out, the colors used to be more or less reversed with pink being a shade of manly red and blue being a feminine color.
There are a lot of issues with sexism being thrust on children at a young age, but I don’t think gender-color is one of them. The color is a useful shorthand and if someone ever got upset at me for assuming their baby in pink was a girl, or vice-versa, I’d just roll my eyes.
I’m sorry, I can’t look at an infant and tell the gender, so I rely on social context. Don’t get me wrong, I told my wife I don’t want to do the pink/blue thing. We’re working on getting pregnant now, and I’m lobbying hard for yellows and greens in the nursery to avoid sexual stereotypes as much as possible. But at the same time, it’s polite to give some social cues to others as to your baby’s gender. So while a daughter of mine won’t be wearing a bunch of frilly pink, a little pink here and there will probably show up.
And if I dress her one day with no pink and a lot of blue, well, I couldn’t blame anyone for assuming she’s a boy.
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:39 am
@ rachelswirsky
Very well said.
Yeah, if a bit of sexism or sexist tropes in something led to me having to scream “ROONT! IT’S ROONT FOREVA!”, I’d *never* be able to enjoy anything I read/watch/play. (Okay, well almost never, since we’re being snitty on the absolutes today, though I honestly cannot think of any book I read or show I watched that didn’t have that little moment of stab…)
Dealing with that little stab that says “Oh crap that’s unfortunate. Again.” and pushing through nonetheless, trying to still see the rest of the picture and not be put off (in this case, still enjoying the bunny cartoon and chuckling at it) – this is just part and parcel of the Female Experience Tee Em.
pelamun:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Giliell,
I’ve posted my reply on TET in order not to derail it any further…
Emrysmyrddin:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:48 am
RachelSwirsky: I agree completely. I’m going to re-post one of my comments from the previous thread, as I really can’t think of a better way to illustrate my reaction to it:
We ‘noted and moved on’. It wasn’t even a big deal – just a few remarks. I notice this sort of thing because it’s happened on many occasions throughout my entire (female) life. It’s not a ‘big deal’ in terms of OMG World Ending!1!!, just another data point in a lifetime of being forced to choose from the pink aisle. And pointing out a possibly interesting aspect of a piece of art shouldn’t lead to mass flaming for daring to talk about it.
Improbable Joe:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:50 am
Dianne,
Thanks for the response. I’m lucky in that I’m married to a smart woman who isn’t shy about kicking me in the ass when I need it, so I try to run my more incendiary comments past her before hitting the “submit” button. :) Someone mentioned earlier how these smaller instances are the tough ones to talk about, because the big ones are so obvious that the correct response is equally obvious. One of the contradictions I see is that if it is acknowledged to be a small problem or “microaggression”, it seems out of proportion to attack people who don’t consider it sexism at all. It would seem to me that the difference between “insignificant” and “almost insignificant” wouldn’t generate much heat.
Of course, context and intent. I get that some feminists are quick on the draw and for very good reasons, which complicates things for me even further. If someone has been mauled by a pit bull, you don’t call them “silly” and “too sensitive” if they are panicked by any dog they see. And even if someone is overreacting, they can still be more or less correct.
So I see almost every perspective as having at least some validity in this instance, but some of the attacks on people for being sexist or privileged or “mansplaining” seemed at least a little misplaced. Just my perspective…
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Have you ever wondered why it is so important for you to be able to label infants according to a restrictive gender binary?
Kimz:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:54 am
@607 That was really well said.
pharylon:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Anyone else ever notice that the people most obsessed with tone are the assholes who claim that it doesn’t matter? I’m getting tired of seeing this:
Person A posts something polite.
Person B disagrees with a few facts sandwiched in string of insults.
Person A says, hey you bring up some interesting points. Let’s discuss this, maybe without the baseless insults.
Person B calls in the WHAAAAAmbulance. Person B is insulted! How dare Person A!
To all the Person Bs out there: if you don’t care about tone, as you say, then shut the fuck up about it already.
Dianne:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:57 am
I’m sorry, I can’t look at an infant and tell the gender, so I rely on social context.
Unless you’re changing its diapers, why do you need to know a baby’s gender? To know what pronoun to use, I suppose…I tend to talk around the issue, i.e. “Oh, what a cutie! What’s your name?” rather than “What a cute girl/boy! What’s his/her name?” but really I’d be happier if we had a really good, universally accepted gender neutral pronoun that doesn’t imply non-sentience (the way using “it” would) so people wouldn’t have to worry so much about the gender of the infant they’re playing with while waiting for the elevator or whatever.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:00 am
I tend to use ‘they’. I know that it could possibly indicate a plural, but it’s the only mainstream neutral word that English can cope with at present.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:00 am
pharylon
I’m sad to tell you, the pink/blue thing will do you.
I just had to bake pink cookies. :(
Think about it like that: Why do you need to know the sex of a strange child at the mall anyway?
pharylon:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:07 am
I can’t argue with that – especially the need for a gender neutral pronoun – but I suppose the main reason is to avoid the wrong assumption being made. I dunno.
I guess what I’m thinking is, and this is obviously way out on a tangent, that we tend to assign symbols to stuff. That’s just human nature. If it wasn’t blue or pink, it’d be some other color to be gender shorthand. Or if not a color, some other form symbology. So it’s pointless to be annoyed at the color pink for girls, because what we’re all really annoyed at is the overly-girly stuff that pink can represent (especially the stereotypical frilly pink dress). But if pink were eradicated as shorthand for “girly” something else would fill that gap. Humans love symbols and social cues, after all.
What needs to be done is change what pink represents. I mentioned earlier my wife has one pink shirt. This is it:
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1280&bih=872&tbm=isch&tbnid=iGW2fe3iOvnoAM:&imgrefurl=http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/06/16&docid=8hEheSXE9iIBjM&imgurl=http://www.penny-arcade.com/pa_annarchy.jpg&w=400&h=520&ei=rrzPTrL5EKHw0gGXh9H4Dw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=316&sig=108928550091004094582&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=116&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0&tx=51&ty=122
What we need to change is the things that people associate with “being a girl,” or “being a boy,” and then the things that pink/blue (or whatever gender-color/symbol shorthand is in fashion at the time) will naturally follow.
Dianne:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:10 am
It would seem to me that the difference between “insignificant” and “almost insignificant” wouldn’t generate much heat.
I blame the internet. It’s hard to back down gracefully and subtle points get lost easily.
Actually, no, there are probably other things to blame as well. Like history: historically, these little almost insignificant acts of prejudice have added up to major highly significant pieces of prejudice. There are daily battles in the US over whether and to what extent women have the right to control their sexuality and reproduction. We really are fighting for our lives. This makes it hard to leave any potentially winnable battle unfought. No, that’s not your fault. But it is the world you’re living in and the one you have to deal with when deciding how to answer an accusation of sexism.
I meant to add that the falsifiable problem works both ways. Someone can be privileged/sexist, and simply say “you feminists are always making kneejerk accusations, so I’m going to ignore you.”
I hadn’t seen this when I originally posted, but just to address it a little…There are some circumstances where you can’t win. There are a few “radical feminists” out there who insist that men are simply not worth talking to and never will be. That’s not rational and there’s no real way to respond to it. The same with the “you feminists” quote: it’s categorically denying the possibility that the other person may be right and really there’s not much to do about it. OTOH, I would consider a statement like, “I think you’re seeing sexism where there is none in this instance.” to be a reasonable statement that one can discuss.
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Perhaps I misunderstood your original post then. You had said:
I read it as “Because my daughter is exposed to N stereotypes per day outside of my control, I would not provider her with a piece material which is otherwise solid, but may fall into some cultural traps.” I still don’t see that reading of your text as incorrect. I advocated discussion rather than complete censorship, and since you seem to be advocating that in your latest post as well, I think we’re in agreement.
1) Fuck you too.
2) Why are you assuming that the books (or media, as ahs ॐ did not actually specify books) are “identical”?
3) Perhaps you should read my clarification at #253.
I have no clue how you got that from my comments. Please re-read them, and maybe do a search for my name so you can see my follow-ups. It might help.
And now you’ve gone into the crazyland of interpretation. Where the hell did you get the notion that I would oppose feminist books?
Jadehawk:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:27 am
how strange; from where I’m sitting, it looks as if Person A is the one who didn’t manage to shut up about tone, not Person B. Are you sure you know what you’re doing, pharylon?
Milos:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:28 am
You know, it doesn’t really matter what erv or hoggel say. Nothing can really prepare you for actually coming here and reading the baboonery first hand. I really thought they were exaggerating about what happens here. Understating more like it. You people are another species altogether. Unbelievable.
Kaylakaze:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Maybe if you don’t want people saying you’re shrill and over-reacting, maybe you shouldn’t respond by over-reacting shrilly. This whole conversation is a pathetic joke. It’s people like you all who give feminism and liberalism in general a bad name. None of you would have said a damn thing if the roles were reversed. You’re hypocrites. Do you want to now start a conversation about how the background on this page is white so it’s an example of white privilege? Maybe you want to bitch about how since PZ uses his initials, it’s an insult to all the female scientists and authors throughout history that had to use initials for their names in papers to be taken seriously?
And guess what? Last time I checked, it was statistically more likely that the woman WOULD be the promoter of religion or woo. Sad, but true.
If every single time you see a bush move you start screaming wolf, not only will people not listen when there’s a real wolf, but they’ll think you’re an annoying attention whore.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Pharylon the clueless:
Here’s the thing cupcake. It is clueless idjits like yourself who keep bringing up civility, and won’t drop it. We will respond each and every time you bring tone up, including every time you try to get in the last word on tone. Why can’t you just drop talking about tone? Why must you try to get the last word in? Ego maybe? It amounts to trolling about tone.
Jadehawk:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:33 am
incidentally, I did recently try, just for shits and giggles, to follow the advice of “tone trolls” and not use any “bad” words in my responses to assorted people I was arguing with. the result was either that my posts were summarily ignored, or that I was accused of flinging shit anyway.
*shrug*
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Pharylon: Flagging small children and infants by gender at all, by color or any other means, is problematic because it enables adults to treat them stereotypically; and children DO internalize those stereotypes at a very young age*. Plenty of studies, as well as commentors’ anecdotes above, demonstrate how prevalent this behavior is and how hard it is to stop oneself doing it. It’s unfair to the children to feed them false assumptions about what gender identity requires or disallows, assumptions that may take many years of effort to un-learn, and which cause measurable damage in the meantime – not just to girls via stereotype threat**, but to boys via toxic masculinity, to kids who will become gay or bi (because of the coupling of homophobia with strict binary gender roles), and to nonbinary kids.
—
* New UW study finds that children as young as second grade associate boys with math, girls with reading
** B&W – How to make your brains leak out
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Interestingly enough, Estonian has no he/she or his/hers only the gender-neutral “ta” and “tema”.
In English it is considered acceptable to use “they” and “their” in the singular, but it’s not common practice and sometimes sounds a bit awkward.
Gunboat Diplomat:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:38 am
@Gileill #583
Holy crap some of you guys are complete philistines. Intent and context are central to art and you don’t have to have your mind addled by postmodernist nonsense to understand this. For example a few years ago there was an exhibition in Dublin which contained a number of exhibits some people found offensive including a clapping model caricature of a black performer entitled “The Laughing Nigger.”
Objections were made by a number of people until it was pointed out to them that the exhibit was created by a former member of the Wailers (as in Bob Marley and) and was meant to be a satire on how black performers have been portrayed in popular culture.
Intent and context transformed a piece from deeply racist and offensive to anti-racist and satirical. The actual exhibit didn’t change at all.
So how is my example relevant to this discussion? Its relevant because its an example of how you clearly haven’t got a clue about how art intersects society and there you go preaching on about how this art is “wrong.” Just another thoughtcrime, eh?
——–
There is some uneducated bias among some posters here against people who studied humanities as if art and literature have no value and have nothing to teach us about politics and society. I despair when I see that – its nearly as bad as the humanities educated science journalists who blindly regurgitate press releases or jump on crackpots bandwagons.
Improbable Joe:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Actually, no, there are probably other things to blame as well. Like history: historically, these little almost insignificant acts of prejudice have added up to major highly significant pieces of prejudice. There are daily battles in the US over whether and to what extent women have the right to control their sexuality and reproduction. We really are fighting for our lives. This makes it hard to leave any potentially winnable battle unfought. No, that’s not your fault. But it is the world you’re living in and the one you have to deal with when deciding how to answer an accusation of sexism.
Fair enough, which is why there’s a difference between good faith and bad faith claims. I think it is fair to say that you don’t see sexism, and maybe even of being a killjoy(because someone can be a killjoy and still be correct), but to act as though feminists are just making shit up because they are sensitive or have an agenda is actually sexist.
As far as the word “fault”… that’s a tough one, because of privilege. I’ve had that conversation most often from the perspective of race-based civil rights issues, and the conclusion I’ve come to is that we need to separate “fault/blame” from “responsibility.” I’m not to blame for sexism, but I have a responsibility to be aware of it and not take part in it or create a space where it can thrive. Some random white person on the street isn’t to blame for the racism I’ve faced, but they have a responsibility to not perpetuate racism. It is important to not unfairly assign blame, but it is more important to accept your responsibility to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
OTOH, I would consider a statement like, “I think you’re seeing sexism where there is none in this instance.” to be a reasonable statement that one can discuss.I think there were people who were saying the exact opposite at one point, that it is sexist and dismissive to tell a woman that she sees sexism that isn’t there. I agree that it is something that sexist people will say, but it shouldn’t be assumed to be an automatic sign of sexism. Like you said, it depends on what points you make and how you make them. Some people were being sexist, and I think some people may not have been.
I think that might be what was frustrating PZ so much in the other comments, that there wasn’t more discussion and less poo-flinging… which makes me wonder if it is possible to “tone troll” your own blog?
Gunboat Diplomat:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:41 am
@Richard Eis #588
I can’t help noticing a disproportionate number of people on one side of this seem to have nothing to do all day except read and write internet posts.
If only the rest of us were so lucky…
Improbable Joe:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:44 am
… and no sooner do I post, but lo and behold the trolls show up. Wonderful.
Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM,:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:47 am
And the cavalcade of fools continue to rush in in order to inform us about how terrible we are.
Gunboat Idiot, perhaps your example would be relevant in the creator of the bunny cartoon was a woman.
Gunboat Diplomat:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:51 am
@Janine
Perhaps if people say obviously stupid and ignorant things like “How does the intent of the artist change the perceived message?” YOU should call them out on it instead of leaving it to trollish ol’ moi.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:57 am
PZ
You are now being hypocritical, by acknowledging that this is a problem, while not acknowledging that comment #2 said no more than this.
Remember, this is what you identified as embarrassing you:
“Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself. Because that would truly suck.”
but this comment amounts to saying only that it’s unfortunate that someone has added another datum. That’s it. That’s all it says. It doesn’t say “this is evidence of the artist’s implicit sexism” or anything else that you later took issue with.
+++++
PZ, your disagreement now with my act-consequentialist statements about how “equality is delayed ever so slightly” remains a separate matter from what you initially identified as the problem. You blamed comment #2.
Now it looks to me like you’ve agreed with the substance of #2, without rescinding your complaint against it.
Richard Eis:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Kaylakaze –
It could be worse, we could be accusing peoople of hypocrisy with no evidence and then making ridiculous strawmen before shrilly declaring everyone as being …well…shrill.
Hypocrisy doesn’t appear to mean what you think it means.
Carlie:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:01 am
rachelswirsky, thank you for that analysis and explanation. That was fantastic.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:03 am
bah – missed the second half of my point to Pharylon:
Blue and pink are kids’ colors in the service of gender stereotyping. They’re ways of assigning obvious gender flags because very young children aren’t distinguishable otherwise (and aren’t in a position to do anything about it.) It’s more accurate to separate the gender cues from little-kid cues (as much as possible) and say that pastels are kids’ colors.
happiestsadist:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Crip Dyke, I think you may have misread me. My objection was based on dude saying essentially that chosen visual presentation is irrelevant when it comes to gender as a means of avoiding acknowledging that the bunny was likely female, and identified as a girl bunny and I can’t believe I just write that phrase. it was stated as a means of discounting presenation in favour of what they “really” are, or possibly just really confusedly conflating trans with being a crossdresser. Hard to say. There’s not a thing particularly wrong with saying that especially binary people should be generally identified as the gender they present (barring times where they unwillingly must closet, obviously.) So take three of those porcupines yourself, I thought you were smarter than that.
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:04 am
I think the problem is a lot of commentators have started using “tone troll” as a shield for anything they say. As I understand it, the term originated to be derisive of people who would counter atheist arguments with “Be nice! It’s disrespectful to say that god doesn’t exist!”.
Too often in the comments here I see it used to defend the equivalent of an atheist yelling “I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD YOU STUPID FUCKWIT” to someone who said “God Bless You” after a sneeze.
I’m all for being direct and not mincing words in an argument, but I think being direct doesn’t mean you can’t also show some basic civility, provided your opponent does the same.
jose:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Careful about those broad statements about “human nature”. More often than not, what people think is “human nature” is actually “some regional human culture that has been around for about 50-100 years”.
Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM,:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Bad analogy, spleen weasel. The god botherers who are showing up here are not saying “bless you” after a sneeze.
Richard Eis:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:11 am
It’s a slow Friday, so sue me :)
Actually if you can catch up with the deluge, the occasional flick back to see what’s new is fairly easy, and we are regular hands at speed reading posts for the juicy tidbits.
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:14 am
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:15 am
PZ,
But if it is in fact a problem when someone “puts another datum on the internets to further bias the case” then this problem exists regardless of anyone’s intent.
The datum doesn’t care about anyone’s intent; it just exists.
Your position so far seems to be confused. If further biasing the case—for someone else’s future understanding, presumably—is objectionable, this future biasing is objectionable separately from whether someone concludes anything about the artist’s implicit sexism now.
I would be saying the same thing I’ve been saying the whole time, because I haven’t been talking about the artist’s intent, only consequences. You will not find any claim I made about the artist’s intent. Sexism is disparities in the world, and it often happens even with the best intentions. In those cases we have to find careful ways of talking to the person so that they understand they’re not being judged as malicious, but we don’t have the luxury of just looking the other way.
Keep flipping that coin to eternity and there will be periods of thousands of years when every coin flip turns up “make the feminine character be stupid”. None of us want to live in those aeons. It doesn’t matter if it’s malicious or random; it’s a problem either way.
And you’ll have a sorites paradox if you try to say that just one coin flip is inherently unobjectionable.
Improbable Joe:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:16 am
“Janine, the term ‘spleen weasel’ is not only nonsensical(weasel made of spleen? or very small weasels that live in your spleen?) but awfully shrill. I’m sure you are capable of making a good point, but I can’t see past your name-calling…”
Now THAT’S tone trolling, right?
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:19 am
A slightly more careful reading of my post would have clued you into the caveat I added, “provided your opponent does the same.”
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:19 am
municipalis, you are only pretending not to get it. The objection in #2 is not against how someone decides to do X. The objection is only with the presence of X.
What assertion?
Here is the entire comment:
“Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself. Because that would truly suck.”
It contains no assertions except “that would truly suck”, which is a statement of preference. You are now saying people aren’t allowed to have preferences?
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:21 am
As far as I can tell, that question was originally posed in a speculative tone, asking for more input.
The real issue here is whether or not it’s possible to pose such a speculative request for further input without being accused of being a “paranoid killjoy” and being told to STFU.
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:22 am
My disagreement with you still stands. It was a ridiculous blanket statement.
Because I still have a complaint with it. As I clearly said, how we know something is critical. Counting boys and girls or complaining about their roles in a single instance is not sufficient, since there can be perfectly innocuous alternative explanations.
These two threads would have gone in entirely different directions (this one wouldn’t exist) if instead, #2 had said, “I found a description on reddit of how the artist assigned gender roles, and it was sexist”. A vague accusation provoked a massive derailment. My complaint will not be rescinded.
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:25 am
I think that’s disingenuous. It’s like when Fox news posts a story like “IS OBAMA BRAINWASHING CHILDREN?”, sure, they are ‘only asking a question’, but the question is leading to a foregone conclusion. By comment #6 in that thread the “question” had shifted to a positive answer.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:27 am
You might note that #2 MADE A PREDICTION:
Made a prediction. Namely, that in a depiction of intelligent skeptic versus brainless fundie, brainless character would turn out to be girl, and intelligent character would be boy. And that prediction was proven correct. The same prediction I made, with sinking heart, on the very first glimpse of pink-versus-blue word balloons. The same that many of us made.
Why was that prediction accurate? Because that pairing of brainless/religious/wrongness with femaleness happens over and over and OVER again. There’s evidence for it. It’s a trope. It’s predictable.
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:27 am
That is an awesomely stupid statement.
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:28 am
And boy, am I failing at HTML today.
Candra Rain:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:28 am
The cartoon was just a paper cut.
Who complains about a paper cut?
Perhaps the person who already has ten, or a hundred, or a thousand.
And who says, “Oh, it’s just a paper cut! Stop making such a fuss!”
Perhaps the person who never or only rarely ever gets one.
Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM,:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Dammit, PZ! You know better then that. If Chys T had opened with that, we still would have the mansplainers hand waving the gender coding away. You have seen this happen too many times just on your own blog.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:34 am
So, because the reaction from anti-feminists is so vastly out of proportion to any actual complaint presented, the burden is hereby placed entirely on the shoulders of feminists to ensure that every observation or complaint is backed up 100% by peer-reviewed data.
It’s a nice ideal, but why is it our responsibility to avoid derailment? The derailing came AFTER the complaint; the complaint itself was not derailing, but the response to it was.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:35 am
@Municipalis, #
It wasn’t incorrect, as I read it. But it is also incomplete: ahs suggests providing material n+1 that is otherwise solid and does *not* fall into the same cultural traps. This failure to appreciate the implications of this suggestion made it possible for you, in your original post, to say the following:
1st off: failing to buy and read book X is not the same as censoring. There are literally millions of books that I have never bought or read. In fact, I have never once bought or red any books in Hindi, Chinese, or Polish.
And yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, engaging in censorship of books of any language. This may seem a, “duh,” comment, but that reflects on your original comment, not mine.
2nd off:
which was a major point of mine: ahs suggested that multiple perspectives would be a good reason to decline to buy a book with the OPs comic. You suggested multiple perspectives. Sounds like a good brain going to rot to me that you couldn’t figure out you were in agreement the first time around. Which I then proceeded to say.
3rd off:
Only one aspect of the materials was being discussed. That was the stereotypes employed. They were asserted to be the same in that way. Thus they were identical on the point under discussion. I could have clarified that the 11 books were “identical in the quality we are discussing, but, obviously, not identical in ever respect because otherwise we would just say 1 book read 11 times” but I thought that was obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension. Or at least the average pharyngulite. I can break things down for you more explicitly in the future if you like.
…as for #3 – I read your clarification under #253. It didn’t change the fact that your comment, in its most reasonable interpretation, seemed to be disagreeing with ahs, as in the part where you say, “I would rather … expose her to a wide variety of viewpoints rather than censor otherwise good material on the shallow basis that it is not explicitly opposing gender-stereotyping”. In fact, it merely seemed to belabor that point. You had already said, ” Not being explicitly sexist, racists, etc. is enough for me,” which one could easily take to mean that being explicitly oppressive would not meet your standards. Sure enough, that’s all you really added in #253.
Then, I pointed out (with snark included at no extra charge) that your argument amounts to saying that you would not join ahs in countering implicit sexism with an explicitly anti-sexist book, “rather than censor[ing] otherwise good material.”
You even called repeated exposure to implicit sexism a “shallow basis” for **not spending one’s own money** on a book.
It seemed very weird that you wanted a “diversity” of views, but when 10 books present the same implicit sexism, an 11th that monotonously repeates that sexist refrain should be added as bedtime reading. Yet, that’s what you wanted. That’s what you argued.
So I took note of the fact that you thought the 11th book should be bought while striking a pose that advocated “diversity” in this quote:
and how did you respond?
By saying that I was in “crazyland” for thinking that you had advocated purchasing an 11th book with implicit sexism over providing an anti-sexist book as a counterweight to the first 10 books, all, according to the hypothetical, repeating the same, mindless, implicit sexism.
Here’s a clue: when you say that you wouldn’t purchase an anti-sexist counterweight to implicitly sexist books, and that you would actually spend money to buy yet another book repeating sexist tropes despite your child having been force fed implicit sexism all day long, other people will read that as you opposing diversity of opinion around sexism for your child.
I didn’t say you would oppose all feminist books. What I said reasonably responded to your assertion that buying an 11th book with implicit sexism was somehow “pro-diversity” and “anti-censorship” because we should certainly not, as parents, oppose books on the “shallow basis” that they merely portray sexism in a matter-of-fact way without saying, “act like this character or no one will love you” or some such in the front of the book.
Now that you have some clue how I got what I did from your comments, would you like to explicitly retract any of your statements? Or would you simply like to call me crazy some more?
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:36 am
If she had opened with that, and the mansplainers had started complaining, we’d have had evidence to smack them with. It wouldn’t shut them up, but there wouldn’t have been the prolonged spectacle of baseless floundering to encourage them.
That was my disagreement — not that sexism wasn’t possible here, but damn, that was some horribly bad argument over a petty phenomenon.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:36 am
It could have been so easy: “Oh yes Chrys T, it is possible that there’s some sexism there; hard to say (personally I don’t see it), but you’re right, it would be disappointing if it were. Anyway, about the content of the cartoon… it is truly cute and funny, isn’t it?”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Nope, it came about because some people came here with the idea that the most polite person won the debate, instead of the one presenting the best evidence/argument. Occasionally they were preaching, but not always. That is where “tone troll” came from.
It does appear a lot of pious types don’t like our normal language though. So we keep a large stock of clutching pearls and readily available fainting couches for those types.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:40 am
It wasn’t the BEST argument, even though it turned out to be correct, despite being vague and poorly phrased at the beginning…
That doesn’t excuse what happened afterward, and it really seems unfair to hold Chrys T at fault for the entire derailment.
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Yes. Because we’re better than they are.
And no, not quite right. Subjective experience is real, and anecdotes can be a legitimate part of the story. But this didn’t even qualify as an anecdote — it was an observation looking for an explanation, and a hypothesis was flung around as if it were data, and all people had to do was infer it frequently enough to turn it into something solid.
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:42 am
I’m sorry, I don’t see how that’s a prediction so much as a leading question. See #652 as well.
Maybe I misunderstand you here, but it’s not really a ‘prediction’ if you know the answer already…
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Why would I do that? These things are properties of group dynamics — it takes two to make an argument. And if it were as trivial as two people bickering, which we’ve seen happen before, it would be obvious. This took a whole mob to turn into such a mess.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:44 am
PZ
I know.
But wait. What is the “something” that we know from #2? This is why I’m trying to get you to quote the quote and dissect it, because you keep firing these near misses that do not actually apply to what was said:
“Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself. Because that would truly suck.”
What we know from #2 is that it would truly suck if the artist had put another datum on the internets. That is all.
Nothing was said about the artist’s intentions; the commenter at #2 only takes the position that this piece of art could have been better if it been done differently.
Is that it, then? Are we no longer supposed to express preferences about any given artistic representation?
Another near miss. Not sufficient for what? Apparently you want this comment to be something more than it was, so that your generalization of many comments will apply to it as well.
Comment #2 did not attempt to explain anything. It was a statement of preference.
Hah. You’ve seen what happens even when the case is open and shut.
Near miss. What was the accusation?
+++++
To put it in your own terms, you can’t take other commenters’ words as evidence that this one comment was an accusation of sexism. N=1, you know.
crissakentavr:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:49 am
One thing which was pointed out fairly early – like thirty comments in – about minimizing irrelevant differences between characters pointing out an argument. So yes, it would have been avoided had the characters not had gendered speech bubbles and clothes.
But the problem isn’t this one instance – it is that this instance is in a culture where the majority of examples have a male voice as the rational one. So change that culture and this would not be an example of it anymore, would it?
That time is neither now, and it’s unlikely to be true any time within our lifetimes.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:52 am
I see in your coin flip scenario an implication that humans, living in middle world, who have for millions of years fought against the destructive effects of randomness, ought not to take issue with any given random act. I find that awesomely stupid enough to deserve an appropriate reductio.
Then have you also silently been taking issue with every discussion of preference for gender representation in sci-fi that takes place on TET? Are you really that guy?
FTFY.
Heehaw:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:55 am
I’ve got a question, what if each bunny represented someone in his life. The blue bunny was him, and then the pink bunny was an ex-girlfriend or something.
In this case the comic would have been deliberately silly girl vs rational boy, but based on true events.
Do the pharyngulites believe that that would still be sexist, if it were based on real people, one who happened to be a rationalist male and another who happened to be a a less than rational girl?
trianglethief:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:56 am
“If she had opened with that, and the mansplainers had started complaining, we’d have had evidence to smack them with…. That was my disagreement.”
That doesn’t appear to be your disagreement at all. You plainly state in your post up top that your disagreement was with pointing out the possibility of sexism in this instance in the first place – whether or not the first mention of it measures up to some arbitrary standard of evidence-based argument. ‘Wrong battle’ etc. Am I misreading horribly? I am finding this all very strange and upsetting having finally made it to the end of both threads, so..
Not to mention that it was merely a tired observation, not the opening gambit in a vigorous dissection of the super-importance of never, ever using crap stereotypes in comics lest we undermine all the goals of feminism forever and ever. Man, if I had to hunt down irrefutable evidence of sexist intent every time I made a sadface at someone for doing something unintentionally sexist.. well, it would be impossible, because that is the entire point of ‘unintentional’ and I’m really not seeing an admission of deliberate sexism from the original poster of the comic ANYWAY so, as far as I can tell, intent STILL doesn’t fucking matter.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:56 am
It’s really too bad that the testerical reaction of the anti-feminists prevented the commentariat from having that discussion as well.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Yeah, you misunderstand. I glanced at the very first frame of the cartoon, saw pink and blue speech balloons, and thought “That looks gendered. Might be a bad thing.” Reading the actual dialogue and looking at the rest of the cartoon provided all the cues necessary to confirm that it really was pairing “stupid” with “girl”. (And no cues to counter that inference, not even neutral cues.) I presume that #2 and others went through a similar process, based on their comments.
That’s one reason I object to the sexism, or Unfortunate Implication if you prefer, because coloring the speech balloons pink and blue is the first impression, while the comic’s actual metaphor doesn’t become clear until reading a ways into it. I think the overt gender coding distracts from the message, and the comic would work better without it. Which has only been my point all along.
Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM,:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
PZ, please refer back to the cartoon by Gabby. This would not have happened if the hogglers had to shout about a (What turned out to be an accurate) statement. What was a minor point was made into the only topic of discussion. And, quite fucking frankly, all of the people arguing against the hand wavers were in the right.
And, as I stated before, the bunny cartoon could have made the same point without the gender tropes.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
@Happiest Sadist – #640:
And I called him out on it.
“trans people exist, therefore when I see no gender in obvious gender signals, I’m right, and if you use obvious gender signals to attempt to ID sexism, you’re wrong,” is fucked up & was used many times on these 2 threads. It’s wrong and was the focus of my post.
But it’s not wrong because some people who are trans are part of the binary. It’s wrong because it’s
a) cultural appropriation, assuming the person isn’t trans
and
b) an accountability avoidance mechanism, whether the person is trans or not.
It’s wrong because it’s a derail. It’s not wrong because person X wore pants on tuesday. If you start saying that it’s wrong because some trans folk exist in the binary, the other person can simply come back with, “well some trans people don’t,” and now where are we?
Plus, your statement was tautologous: “those trans people that don’t violate gender norms don’t violate gender norms.” How does that really advance the conversation?
Finally, even tho’ many trans people violate the expectation of having a certain sex while having hum-drum gender expression for their gender ID, many don’t. Then there are all kinds of people who aren’t trans, but who nonetheless violate gender mores in some way or another. Because of that, it’s actually a good thing if people make fewer gendered assumptions, including assumptions about another person’s gender ID, based on limited information – especially limited information that mainly relates to stereotypes.
In short, it’s actually not bad advice to get people to stop assuming that a short hair = ID’ing as a man OR pink clothes = ID’ing as a woman. What is fucked up is how so many people use the existence of trans folk for their own benefit when they want to weasel out of accountability for understanding harmful gender dynamics in the first place by saying, “oh, but gender is complicated and never automatically means that anyway!”
As a post-script, if you re-read what I said @ 472, absolutely NONE of those porcupines were directed at you. I’m with you on everything but tactics, because I don’t believe that your tactics actually addressed what was fundamentally wrong with what PaulG and others said.
I think if you re-read it carefully, you’ll see what I said to you was not at all hostile, and was, in fact, a friendly disagreement about how to handle a problem we were both interested in tackling. Certainly I offered you no porcupines, so I don’t see how you had 3 to offer me “back.”
I, therefore, sit in comfort and hope that you will soon realize that we have no major disagreement and that, to the extent that we do have a disagreement, it is one that calls for no porcupinage whatsoever, radioactive, zombie, or otherwise.
Of course, if you continue to feel I deserve porcupines, feel free to tell me why. Also, you can answer my original question if you wish, the one wondering why you used the strategy you did (about binary-comfortable trans folk) instead of directly calling them out on cultural appropriation and derailing to avoid accountability. There may be a reason I haven’t considered. But until you bring up a specific reason, I’m going to consider my tactics more direct and therefore more effective.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Tone trolling is when somebody whines “you guys are using naughty language, if only you were nice then I’d be so much happier.” It’s often used when the tone troll is losing an argument and complains about how something is said rather than what is said.
“You’re wrong because of fact A” means exactly the same as “you’re wrong because of fact A, you idiot.” The tone troll will whine about “you idiot” instead of trying to refute or reinterpret fact A.
You’re close. An atheist yelling “I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD YOU STUPID FUCKWIT” is usually in response to fuckwittery like “everyone believes in god, you’re just angry at him” or “if you don’t believe in god then you’ll burn in Hell” or even “I’ll pray for you.” In other words, a goddist is insulting the atheist in some fashion (“I’ll pray for you” is goddese for “fuck you, atheists”) and the atheist insults back.
Your concern is noted.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
PZ @ 298;
I think that this is the wrong question. As I pointed out at 218;
It is not a question of whether or not the cartoon actively or intentionally promotes the idea that women are less rational – posters like myself are merely pointing out that it is yet another example of an oft repeated meme in our society that has to be viewed in context.
I do not recall suggesting that this was my definition of equality. The problem is not an isolated example of the depiction of a female character as irrational, it is the fact that the meme has become ubiquitous in our society, and that this is just one more expression of that trope among a great many. Afterall, why bother placing gender indicators in relation to the characters at all? In what way would the message by diluted by simply having ungenderd bunnies using gender neutral colours for their speech bubbles? Or by having two bunnies of the same gender?
As you yourself point out, equality in depiction;
But in our society, the female character is depicted disproportionally often as, if not the ‘dumb’ one, then as the one less given to rationality, and more given to emotion. As the one less scientific, and more ‘intuitive’. As the gender that is better at humanities than sciences, and better at languages than mathematics – the construction of gender roles is everywhere, and even an on-the-face-of-it minor example such as this can still contribute to the broader trend.
As Father Ogvorbis, OMoron points out @ 581, isn’t every example a single instance if viewed in isolation? Sometimes, the significance of a particular attribute of a singular instance can only be appreciated when many such instances are viewed in aggregate as part of a broader social context. This cartoon doesn’t exist in a cultural vacuum.
@ 430;
and @ 572;
I am glad that you changed your mind on this – the susceptibility to evidence is the best thing about being rational – but part of the point here is that even without clear evidence of intent this cartoon would still replicate a sexist trope in society. As I noted in my post, subconscious sexism is extremely hard to tackle but can easily be every bit as toxic as intended sexism. If evidence of intent is required before we can point out that something replicates sexist tropes, then how is it possible to address the unconscious replication of sexist memes that can still have a chilling effect on the aspirations of women? Is not the purpose of consciousness raising to expose people to the idea that their unexamined privilege could lead to the unintentional propagation of sexism?
@ 572;
I have read through both threads, and I don’t remember anyone actually suggesting this.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Backlash? Harming the cause? Where? Posted on: July 17, 2010 5:40 PM, by PZ Myers
+++++
When there are assertions that gnus’ behavior will lead to a backlash that will hurt the cause, we demand evidence.
I want evidence that feminists saying this cartoon would “would truly suck” does in fact hurt the cause.
Or in lieu, how about “both approaches”?
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
PZ says: “Counting boys and girls or complaining about their roles in a single instance is not sufficient, since there can be perfectly innocuous alternative explanations.”
But doesn’t assessing the assignment of roles to gender in general require noting the assignment in each particular case. And while it is the trends that are important, trends are after all composed of individual cases.
I think that perhaps the disappointment here can in part be attributed to the cleverness of the cartoon. It is tremendously disappointing to see something clever and then have to wonder whether there is not also a message directed at oneself as a minority member of the community.
If the smart bunny had been white and the dumb bunny black, it would have raised similar questions.
The issue is that since the cartoon can be interpreted as playing to stereotypes of the minority community portrayed, members of that community, who have often experienced just such pigeonholing, have to wonder whether the assignment was by intent. We in the majority community need to be aware enough to avoid such misimpressions.
Patrick:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
@430
“What was the guy thinking? He let the internets decide? Stupid. And then he puts another datum on the internets to further bias the case.”
I don’t think that’s quite what he’s saying. My guess is that he Googled something like “religiosity and gender,” as I just did.
“Among social scientists who pay attention to religion, it is commonly accepted that women are more religious than men. Numerous surveys going back at least a century have found this to be the case.’.Consequently Walter and Davie’s observation (1998, p. 640) that ‘women are more religious than men on every measure of religosity’(which is the opening statement, not the conclusion, of their survey of research on women’s religiosity) [b]comes as close to accepted truth as may be possible in the social sciences[/b].” (Sullins, 2006). Emphasis mine, and note that this particular paper was actually about the exceptions to this “rule,” and that this and other authors categorically reject explanation of this trend as due to some innate biological tendency. Nonetheless, it seems more than fair to accept this as an observation.
Reading the author’s explanation, it seems that he just went with whatever slight majority exists in US culture, rather than flip a coin or advance a social agenda. It’s probably not what I would have done, but…shrug?
charles:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
?!?!? Well then PZ, I guess you haven’t been paying attention to Pharyngula for the last six months…
Dianne:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
That was my disagreement — not that sexism wasn’t possible here, but damn, that was some horribly bad argument over a petty phenomenon.
If people are disagreeing violently over what appears to be a petty phenomenon, perhaps it’s a sign that there’s something nasty connected to the apparently petty phenomenon that needs to be explored further. I’d suggest that it would be worth considering whether people are getting upset over the bunnies because of deeper problems of which the bunnies are an example or because of underlying problems that the bunnies are an excuse to bring up. In either case, further exploration of the underlying problems might be worthwhile. OTOH, maybe it’s just a bunch of people with too much time on their hands spoiling for a flame war. That’s perfectly plausible too.
Lexic:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Can’t it just be an observation? We know the stereo type exists so acknowledging it isn’t really that surprising. It seems to me there was more effort made in suppressing the possibility of sexism in the cartoon then there was in making it the main discussion. Let women roll their eyes note that once again women are not representing logic and science, agree, and then move on to the conversation about religion. Because even though one example is not enough to prove sexism, the existence of those stereo types is enough to make it possible. Can’t a woman notice the inequalities (intentional or not) without a man trying to shut her up?
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Fair enough, but – being a tad pragmatic – the amount of cultural material out there which does not fall into any such traps is rather limited.
Books are not equally interchangable. There is only one Farewell to Arms. It doesn’t mean you have to read it, but the nature of its content also doesn’t mean it’s not worth reading. If you refuse to read Hemmingway or anything else that offends your sensibilites, it is self-censorship. If you refuse to expose your kids to it rather than having a critical discussion afterwards you are censoring them.
I’m sorry, I didn’t see ahs saying that. She said it after, but there was no sign of such nuance in the first statement.
I don’t see how you can strip away everything except the stereotypes being employed. Context matters. Is this comic really “identical” to Barbie’s Pink Dreamhouse and High-Heel Shopping Bonanza or can we show a bit of nuance?
I am still failing to see where the existence of an “explicitly ant-sexist book” has come from; that was never offered as an alternative here. If such an alternative existed, sure, let’s go with that. But in many cases such alternatives don’t exist – and I wouldn’t shelter my hypothetical children from good books or other media on the basis that it doesn’t conform to modern standards of political correctness. That’s all I’m saying.
Again, I have never claimed I wouldn’t purchase an “anti-sexist counterweight”; I have only said that the quality of being “anti-sexist” is not a determining factor in my purchase of books. The rest of your paragraph is purely conjecture.
Except you just did, in the paragraph above: “when you say that you wouldn’t purchase an anti-sexist counterweight to implicitly sexist books”. Clearly we both share this inference from your previous statements.
Fair enough, but – being a tad pragmatic – the amount of cultural material out there which does not fall into any such traps is rather limited.
Books are not equally interchangable. There is only one Farewell to Arms. It doesn’t mean you have to read it, but the nature of its content also doesn’t mean it’s not worth reading. If you refuse to read Hemmingway or anything else that offends your sensibilites, it is self-censorship. If you refuse to expose your kids to it rather than having a critical discussion afterwards you are censoring them.
I’m sorry, I didn’t see ahs saying that. She said it after, but there was no sign of such nuance in the first statement.
I don’t see how you can strip away everything except the stereotypes being employed. Context matters. Is this comic really “identical” to Barbie’s Pink Dreamhouse and High-Heel Shopping Bonanza or can we show a bit of nuance?
I am still failing to see where the existence of an “explicitly ant-sexist book” has come from; that was never offered as an alternative here. If such an alternative existed, sure, let’s go with that. But in many cases such alternatives don’t exist – and I wouldn’t shelter my hypothetical children from good books or other media on the basis that it doesn’t conform to modern standards of political correctness. That’s all I’m saying.
Again, where have I said I wouldn’t purchase an “anti-sexist counterweight”? I have only said that the quality of being “anti-sexist” is not a determining factor in my purchase of books. B does not imply A, in this case. The rest of your paragraph is purely conjecture.
Except you just did, in the paragraph above: “when you say that you wouldn’t purchase an anti-sexist counterweight to implicitly sexist books”. Clearly we both share this inference from your previous statements.
The only “clue” I have as to how you interpreted your comments is that you misread them to be saying something that was never even close to being implied.
anthonyallen:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
I don’t generally read the comment thread (I get the blog in my RSS reader) but the only thing I thought about that cartoon was that it was really cute.
I didn’t even notice that one was male and one was female… they were bunnies.
Some of you really need to stop overanalyzing.
/re-lurk
Agent Smith:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
What I’ve found most disappointing is how the cartoon’s author did what the internet told him to do. No one can behave like that and remain inspirational.
The glow on this one had a short half-life.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Edited for accuracy. Otherwise, great comment. That’s really the only thing that’s at issue here.
StarStuff! Because f**k you, that's why:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@ anthonyallen
You need to lurk some more and fucking actually read what’s been said here.
Morpheus91:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
First, to the watchdogs of bunny sexism, why would it be ok if the male bunny were the irrational one? It’s ok to show men in an unflattering light, but not women? The argument generally goes “oh but our culture shows women in an unflattering light all the time, so we have to reverse this!” Ok, but when is it sufficiently reversed we can actually have, y’know, equality? Does every piece of modern literature/art/whatever have to show men as stupid and women as smart, or men as weak and women as strong, to make up for displays of patriarchal sexism? I’m not denying sexism against women is sadly strong today, but that doesn’t mean every display of an irrational, weak, or stupid woman is hate against women.
Second, why are we assuming the pants-wearing bunny is a guy? Don’t girls wear pants too? Heck, when it comes down to it, the dress wearer could be a transvestite, or a Scotsman. :D
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
If I get the discussion here are right, all the following examples are sexist (arguments inspired from those of Pteryx):
1. http://xkcd.com/327/ (Being a mother is feminine-associated, being prone to give diminutive names to children is feminine-associated. Ergo, “sexism”).
2. All of Jesus and Mo is sexist (Being a barmaid is feminine associated. Not shrieking back is feminine-associated. Ergo, “sexism”. Or, being Jesus and/or Mo is masculine associated. Being religiously dogmatic and shrieking abut it is masculine-associated. Ergo, “sexism”.)
3. All portrayals of Marie Antoinette, ever. (Behaving in a queenly vain manner is feminine-associated. Behaving in a possibly fatally ignorant blissful way is feminine-associated. Ergo, “sexism”)
4. All of James Bond, and not so for the usually given reason. The real reason is that being a daredevil is masculine associated. Being a playboy of sorts is also masculine-associated. Ergo, “sexism”.
For reference, Pteryx’s original argument was:
“Pink is feminine-associated. Not being worth listened to is feminine-associated.” Ergo, “sexism”.
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
But this goes back to what I had originally said – the claim of sexism because the girl bunny happened to be the fool – even in light of gendered speech – was jumping to a conclusion too far from the evidence. Crys T’s original comment likewise made a premature jump to such a conclusion, and thus the shitstorm.
Agreed. I think these two threads are certainly evidence of that!
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
It occurs to me, there are lots of comments like this one (just the most recent):
The statement “I didn’t even notice…” can only mean the commentor didn’t consciously notice. It’s possible that a subconscious, implicit association may still be formed or reinforced. That’s basically how bias works (as opposed to bigotry): in implicit bias, someone unknowingly makes inferences based on stereotypes instead of facts, while in stereotype threat, someone unknowingly conforms to a stereotype when cued.
As noted by tool-department anecdotes above, even dedicated feminists find themselves making these gaffes. Also, when presented with a stereotype cue, many people will feel vaguely uncomfortable or unwelcome without being able to consciously articulate or identify the reason why.
But the only tools we have to combat implicit bias are conscious recognition of the problems, and presenting environments as free of stereotype cues as possible.
Which makes comments like:
completely wrong.
Candra Rain:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I just re-read PZ’s OP on this thread and the second time had one sentence really sticking out for me. (I also read every comment up to this point here and on the other thread.)
But show prolonged outrage at one twee cartoon that just happens to have a bunny in a dress playing the role of Simplicio, and you’ve lost me.
I literally saw no outrage at the cartoon, let alone prolonged outrage.
I saw tiredness. No, one cartoon, regardless of the intent of the author is nothing but a small blip. Nobody who voiced an opinion over the sexist trope said “oooh, bad author”, but rather “we wish it had been two male/female bunnies” so no implied sexism was there. Not for the male to be made the buffoon, but to just not repeat the meme of “women are the dumb ones”.
The tiredness comes, I think, from people thinking it’s ok to say “that’s not a problem, not worth your time – here’s the problem!” When in fact it’s the accumulated weight of the “that’s not a problem” things.
For some, it’s a pebble to be kicked aside and for others it’s another stone to add to the backpack.
Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM,:
November 25th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
And if fucking took the time to read instead of lecturing at us, you would know that the creator of the comic was making the point that women are more prone to be religious.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
SallyStrange:
Do you really want to say that criticizing a feminist is tantamount to “trying to shut her up” and being a “male supremacist”?
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
I don’t think its fair to say that the argument “generally” goes that way, as several others have noted above. I don’t think feminism should be seen as a tit-for-tat reaction.
Few feminists would make that claim either.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Nope, justified based on the evidence. Your opinion is worthless, as you are simply “poo-pooing” her feelings.
It is, if those doing the criticizing do it until they do intimidate her. Respect is a two way street, and the MRA brigade doesn’t do two way streets.
Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM,:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
The shitstorm is not because Crys T jumped to a conclusion and people were pointing out her mistake. It is because they were telling her that she was wrong to bring it up.
There is a huge fucking difference.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Circe, since you don’t seem to have read any of my comments for comprehension, I suggest you go watch the episode of My Little Pony: FiM that I linked and recommended earlier as a counterexample.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
OH FFS *fluffyrage*
Shak:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Hey, irregular poster here.
I got to about post 567 before skipping ahead to post so I apologize if I’m missing anything that came after.
Firstly, I think this is a perfect example of why these threads are important. I, like PZ, thought having a 300+ post war over feminism on a cute comic about bunnies was stupid. But then I took the time to think about it and realized how Caine and other champions of feminism were right about most of what they said. That’s the thing, these huge threads about feminism do serve a purpose. This one changed my mind, I was under the impression that some people reacted hysterically to perceived sexism. I WAS WRONG. THAT is the value of having these discussions. THAT is why showing prolonged outrage on a thread is important even though there are more serious feminist causes. Thank you all, except for the trolls and the MRAssoholes.
Secondly, I didn’t notice any sexism in the bunny comic until it was pointed out. I don’t think it’s that big a deal that the author used genders in the way he did; I assumed it was just an attempt to make the comic more cute with the use of pink and baby blue and rabbits dressed like people. I think even though it turned out that the author was perpetrating a sexist stereotype, having an irrational female character compared to a rational male does not constitute sexism. That’s not what the problem is though. Some people pointed out that there are good reasons to think it could be considered sexist, and were immediately called paranoid killjoys. That is bad, that is sexist, that is why there was a flame war.
Lastly, although I think PZ’s criticisms were a little Dawkinsian. Let’s not accuse him of being Dawkins. It was an honest mistake nowhere near as malicious as hating on Rebecca Watson for being scared of rape. PZ didn’t pull out the “How dare you be offended, worse things happen elsewhere” meme. He thought this was simply a misfiring of good feminist intention.
those are my two cents, hopefully i didn’t bore y’all
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
A blatantly false statement does not constitute a reductio.
Cameron:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
@Caine, Fleur du Mal (519)
Holy crap, I was actually agreeing with you and you still managed to argue with me.
I said that I was surprised the artist didn’t add ‘girl/boy’ in the speech bubbles because he had such CLEAR INTENTIONS to put the point across that he wanted GIRLS as the dumb religious ones. I probably should have said “Im surprised the artist didn’t go as far as adding “girl” or “boy” to the speech bubbles”.
That would imply that I’m surprised by a lack of action that I would have expected from someone like him.
Look at my first post in this thread, I already agreed dress + pink = girl in my mind.
I guess this is proof that you fail to have the ability to rationalise clearly. Seriously, I was agreeing with everything you said in this thread to me.
Surely others can read my post (510 or something like that) and clearly see I’m agreeing with you guys and the intent of what I said was supportive of your view points.
Do me a favour and read next time, Caine.
@’Tis Himself, OM (524)
@Caine, Fleur du Mal (525)
Not sure if this was a reply to me saying that I would never put a girl as the religious one in this comic unless it was a subconscious decision. What I meant by that was I could never knowingly choose a girl as the character in this comic, only unknowingly in my privileged way could I pick a girl as an underlying sign of sexism that I may or may not possess.
This thread just further reinforces my suspicion that you guys and girls here are just witch hunters, you don’t give a crap about what someone says, you just misinterpret it and hunt them for no reason.
PLEASE READ MY POSTS CAREFULLY.
A. R:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
I was just reading the cartoon author’s comments again, and they seemed most unusual and rather thin. Perhaps he really did not actively select the female character for the position of the irrational bunny intentionally, but used that to cover his privilege blindness when the issue was brought up to him?
coldflesh:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
How do you know that? The author made the choice of roles in the cartoon based on information he found on the internet pointing towards women being statistically more prone to be religious. Nothing in the comic or in the thread where he explained his choice supports your claim about his point with the cartoon.
Candra Rain:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Move on to change it where it matters. You want to say society diminishes women’s roles? I’ll agree with you. You want to complain about the unjustified authority given to men? I’ll back you 100%. You found some weasel who wants to deny that women are treated like second-rate citizens? I’ll join in the stomping. But show prolonged outrage at one twee cartoon that just happens to have a bunny in a dress playing the role of Simplicio, and you’ve lost me.
If it feels like a slap to the person who was slapped, it’s probably a slap – no matter the intent.
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Yes, there is a huge difference, but PZ’s post here was pretty clearly aimed at the fact that Crys T brought it up without evidence. I didn’t participate in the last thread, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt there. As I’ve said above, I’m all for raising the point and having the discussion, but just don’t jump to conclusions.
happiestsadist:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Oh shit, Crip Dyke. Upon re-reading, I have no earthly idea how I manage to misinterpret what you said as badly as I did. I mean wow. I am sincerely sorry, and kind of amazed at my own epic (somewhat wet) brainfart there.
I think we do mostly agree. I suppose my main quibble, such as it is, lies with the problem of an incredibly gendered society and while I’d really, really like to not have people wanting to code others upon seeing them (I want it more than I want a black forest cake and Rainbow Dash hair, and I want those a lot. It’d be the only way people wouldn’t misgender me.), as it stands, there is some degree of coding going on. So the least awful way to go about it would be to trust people’s presentation. (And maybe not just have two options.) Which I think is what I tried to say way upthread. I think I just got really revolted by whats’shisface’s insistence that trans is a gender itself.
Instead, I offer only living, adorable baby porcupines who have yet to have their quills harden, and are being adorable as they usually are. (Am I the only one who thinks they’re adorable?)
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Pteryx at #699:
I said your argument was “Pink is feminine-associated. Not being worth listened to is feminine-associated.” and you promptly decided I had never read any of your comments. To remind you of some of them, here is a quote from your comment number 258:
and then you make the point that any criticism of your argument is not valid if the above associations is true.
I’ll suggest you reread your own comments.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Nerd of Redhead, #697:
Yes, respect is a two-street, and it seems to me that it is the critics who are trying to be be intimidated into shutting up their criticisms of the “feminists”. I used quotes because I am pretty sure not all feminists adhere to those views.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Criticism?
What criticism? From where I’m standing, it looks like all the attempts to critique Crys T’s initial impression came from people who were also feminists. Some feminists agreed it might be sexist, others disagreed. Many did so while also praising the cartoon and its contents.
The anti-feminists took it as an opportunity to express knee-jerk anger and hostility at a woman for having the audacity to notice sexism. No actual criticism from them.
So, no, I’m not saying that all criticism of feminists is “trying to shut [them] up,” nor that all people who criticize feminists are male supremacists. What I am saying is that male supremacists try to shut feminists up and rarely offer actual criticism. THEY are the ones responsible for derailing the thread. Crys T, and those who agreed with her, are not responsible, no matter how poorly their argument was worded.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
The grammar is my last comment became somewhat mangled. Apologies.
Nerd of Redhead, #697:
Yes, respect is a two-street, and it seems to me that it is the critics who are being intimidated into shutting up any of their criticisms of the “feminists”. I used quotes because I am pretty sure not all feminists adhere to the hyper-analytic tendencies of the self-styled “feminists” here. I, for one, consider myself a feminist and I don’t agree with most of the nitpicking about blue and pink being done here.
Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM,:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
So, it is wrong to question what is happening when the cartoon was full of gender tropes?
*eyeroll*
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
I’m even a bit fond of the adult ones.
nmmng:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
LOL! PZ thought that making himself a neutered lap-dog of the all-men-are-rapists brigade would keep him safe. He should have known it was only a matter of time before they turned on him.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Do you react with anger and hostility when someone picks a nit about pink and blue? Then you’re not the problem.
Personally, I thought the cartoon might be deliberately trying to reflect the fact that women are more likely to be religious than men. As it turns out, my supposition was correct. In that case, my only real criticism of the author would be that he was insufficiently critical of the sexist status quo. I would have chosen to reverse the genders, or avoid gender signifiers (which would have been easy), in an effort to push back that status quo. It’s really not a big deal though.
The people who took it as a big deal, who fired off angry posts accusing feminists of being hypersensitive, of deliberately looking for things to get upset about, of making things up, etc.–those are the people who fucked up. Those are the male supremacists I’m talking about who are incapable, because of their emotional, bigoted reaction to the subject of sexism, of offering truly useful criticism of an ill-formed feminist argument.
municipalis:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
More disingenuity. Saying “It annoyed me that the speech bubbles were gender-coloured. Could this be a sign of something?” is not the same as implying “the little girl rabbit [is] brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself”
To spell it out: The former asks a question which leaves the door open for more evidence or interpretation. The latter presents a loaded hypothesis without substantial evidence.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Is this the kind of nuanced criticism you had in mind, Circe? Am I wrong for characterizing this poster as a male supremacist more interested in shutting feminists up than he is in offering useful criticisms to poorly thought-out feminist arguments?
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Sally: you put up three examples and concluded “no criticism” (even giving in to your claim that sarcasm does not constitute criticism). What about these: $670 and #705, the first paragraph of #689 features no sarcasm and makes a valid point (the second paragraph has some sarcasm, so you would probably not count it), #685 made an innocuous criticism that he didn’t even notice the genders of the bunnies and was promptly shot down in several following expletive-adorned comments, implying he had no right to voice his opinion till he had read the whole thread. This last one is especially the kind of thing I am trying to point out.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
So it does. And the proper response is, “You need to reformulate your argument or question so that it doesn’t present a loaded hypothesis,” not, “YU ARE SO CRAZY YOU DUMB FEMINISTS ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO GET MAD ABOUT SOMETHING!!”
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
But hey, PZ, just use whatever diversion you need to avoid confronting the fact that you have totally mischaracterized the #2 comment.
+++++
But wait. What is the “something” that we know from #2? This is why I’m trying to get you to quote the quote and dissect it, because you keep firing these near misses that do not actually apply to what was said:
“Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself. Because that would truly suck.”
What we know from #2 is that it would truly suck if the artist had put another datum on the internets. That is all.
Nothing was said about the artist’s intentions; the commenter at #2 only takes the position that this piece of art could have been better if it been done differently.
Is that it, then? Are we no longer supposed to express preferences about any given artistic representation?
Another near miss. Not sufficient for what? Apparently you want this comment to be something more than it was, so that your generalization of many comments will apply to it as well.
Comment #2 did not attempt to explain anything. It was a statement of preference.
Hah. You’ve seen what happens even when the case is open and shut.
Near miss. What was the accusation?
+++++
To put it in your own terms, you can’t take other commenters’ words as evidence that this one comment was an accusation of sexism. N=1, you know.
+++++
You are just making #2 into whatever you need it to be. Talk about blatantly false statements. Everything you’ve said about #2 was flat out wrong. It doesn’t say what you want it to say, and you, for some reason, can’t bear to backtrack and actually deal with what it did say.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
If you have the time to look them up, surely you have the time to quote them.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Sally at #718, #720: I agree mostly with your charectrization of the comments you quoted in #718. What I don’t get is why people like the ones I listed in #719 also get the same “*** ****, you are a male supremacist” treatment?
Dr. Who?:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Just a side note – the one thing that really cracks me up is that this entire debate stemmed from an idea that, because one of the rabbits was wearing trousers, that rabbit automatically must be male. What, women can’t wear trousers?
I’ve no desire to get dragged into the rest of the debate. Just noting that one little piece of irony in seemingly nearly everyone’s thinking. Clearly, both the rabbits were female.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
The real Dr. Who would have read the thread and seen that that “criticism” had been brought up, and addressed, multiple times. Because the real Doctor is smart like that.
Father Ogvorbis, OMoron:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
And I still disagree with you. The ‘splosion was not over the notice taken of a petty phenomenon. The flame war came about because some commenters denied that there was even the possibility of sexism — latent or other — within that one cartoon. But, y’know what? Screw it. I’m fucking sick and tired of being reasonable. Or trying to be reasonable. Why bother?
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@Happiestsadist – #708:
Ooooooh! cute baby porcupines!!!! Why, thank you, happiestsadist!
Epic fail forgiven. I spent enough time praising Tpyos earlier today that I actually typed in “red” instead of “read” at one point, which annoyed the pee out of me.
I get what you’re saying about gender presentation. I think (tell me if I’m wrong) that it comes from wanting to have some effing control over how you are seen by others. That desire to have some freakin control is **way** understandable to me.
I think that it is ultimately not as useful in the long run b/c “trust the presentation” and “believe the stereotypes” can look very much the same, while, “doubt yourself *every time,* don’t doubt *other people* only when they look trans,” has more liberatory potential, but can be scary because it is inviting more scrutiny when scrutiny is so often fraught with danger.
But that is about whether harm reduction or eradication is a better tactic, and the HR v. E tactical question gives different answers in different contexts, so reasonable disagreement is to be expected.
In any case, glad we worked that out – and look! I get free porcupines!
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
O – and happiestsadist, are you in the USA? And if so, in the PNW? Just curious.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
No, the critics are being refuted. The critics don’t present real evidence, merely obfuscation under the guise of discussing the issue, in hopes of sweeping it under the rug.
Fine, you have expressed your opinion. I don’t agree, and spotted the problem in my first reading. Now, what will it take for you to change your mind? A discussion can’t happen if you aren’t open to changing your mind. Show me evidence, not opinions, and that could change my mind. For example, blue and pink are not gender based means of readily identifying male and female babies/toddlers. Oops, it is.
physioprof:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
PZ, you are totally on the wrong side of this. As has been pointed out, the “tempest” was started by d00ds flat-out denying that the cartoon could be propagating misogynist tropes, flat-out asserting that all that matters is the intent of the author, and flat-out asserting that even if the cartoon might be propagating misogynist tropes, it isn’t important and bitchez should STFU.
As a skeptic, you ought to scrutinize your own reaction to the “tempest”, unpack the influence of patriarchy and misogyny on that reaction, and apologize for getting this so wrong.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Dr. Who:
It was possible (before we knew the artist’s intentions, which we now do) that both bunnies were intended to be female.
Please see my first comment in the previous thread:
“Regardless of each bunny’s gender identity, it is a problem that the one who presents as stereotypically feminine has been portrayed as an airhead.”
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
1. Is that really the case? Since you haven’t bothered to quote the things you count as “legitimate criticism,” I’m not clear on exactly what constitutes the criticism, nor am I about to scroll the thread looking for replies to those comments. If you have evidence that those posters got treated as male supremacists trying to shut down the conversation rather than enrich it, please present it.
2. Were they repeating an argument that had already been rehashed several times over? In that case, people may be annoyed at having to repeat themselves for the benefit of people who are too lazy to read the entire thing before injecting their underinformed opinions.
3. Until the anti-feminists stop ruining things for everybody, the more reasonable voices will continue to be lost in the fray. So please, in the interests of making this a better place for discussions for everybody (except misogynists, of course) join us in requesting that Pharyngula be an okay place to observe and remark upon the existence of feminism.
4. I hope we can both agree that “Fuck you. Paranoid killjoy,” and remarks along the lines of “You are too sensitive,” “You are making things up,” and other silencing tactics add nothing to the discussion and reveal only that the poster has a knee-jerk reaction of hostility and anger towards feminism.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Correction:
Brain fart. Sorry.
Dez Crawford:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
I admit to a fleeting moment of mild annoyance that the “dumb bunny” was dressed as a female human.
It puzzled me more that the bunnies had to be genderized, and clothed. Indeed, why couldn’t they just be bunnies?
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Perfect example right there. You’ve just inflated what I said into “bitchez should STFU”, but oh, no, it’s the other side of the argument that is entirely responsible for the tempest.
Care to mischaracterize me further? That’s sure to persuade me that I was totally in error.
Caru:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
:/ When I first saw the comic, I actually thought it was gonna be one of PZ’s feminist pieces. It looks like something I would get in an english exam.
“What stereotype is portrayed in the comic? (1 mark)”
“How might the artist rectify this without altering the message? (3 marks)”
I’m going to look this up in my english textbook now to see if it’s on the list of stereotypes to watch out for. Wtf you guys, I thought this was normal.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
( where the trolls come from: rationalskepticism.org/general-chat/trolls-on-pz-s-blog-t27310.html )
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Nope. You’ve mischaracterized physioprof now.
physioprof drew a distinction: in the first paragraph the tempest, and in the second paragraph, your reaction to the tempest:
physioprof:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Dude, try to read more carefully. That is not at all what I claimed about what you said. It was the d00ds in the original comment thread whom I asserted were all “bitchez should STFU”.
The fact that your hackles are all raised about this should be a sign to you that you ought to question the origins of your gut reaction to the whole thing, and your conclusion that “sometimes a bunny is just a bunny”. In a misogynist patriarchal society such as we live in, nothing is *ever* just nothing.
happiestsadist:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
CripDyke: I am as far south and West as I have ever been in my life. That is to say, I’m in Toronto.:) I’m from Fredericton, New Brunswick originally, and we had plenty of porcupines roaming free. I think they’re pretty cute, but then I neither drive nor have owned pets that go outdoors and thus don’t have much cause for grudge.
Much of my ire about gender presentation comes from the fact that currently, the best I can really hope for is that eventually, if htings go really well, long after I’m gone, non-binary folks might get recognized as such.
I don’t think we actually even disagree, as it wounds like we’re both irked and puzzled at how do handle the problem as it is.
lipwig:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
I noticed the pink and blue talk bubbles before I had finished reading PZ’s post about it. And I had a moment of “why pink and blue?”
And it did influence my reaction to the comic because I was unable to concile why the pink-bubble-bunny was the dumb one.
I do “get” the comic – it’s about dumb religious attitudes. But I didn’t get that that pink-bubbled-bunny had to be the irrational one.
And then the thread exploded….
Candra Rain:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
It’s one thing if (generic) you don’t see it.
It’s another thing to say there’s nothing to see.
A Fellow Eukaryote:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Perfect example right there. You’ve just inflated what I said into “bitchez should STFU”, but oh, no, it’s the other side of the argument that is entirely responsible for the tempest.
Care to mischaracterize me further? That’s sure to persuade me that I was totally in error.
No one’s mischaracterizing you, PZ. We did NOT claim that you said “bitchez should STFU”. Did you read what physioprof even said? He was talking about the MRAs. You’re the one acting as though any such criticism is an attack on you. Physioprof was only saying that you are on the wrong side of this argument–as in, we don’t give a FLYING FUCK whether the cartoon was actually intended to be sexist? Do you understand what that comment #2 was about?
“Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself. Because that would truly suck.”
Just noted that it would be unfortunate if it was intended that way, and that the cartoon could potentially have unfortunate implications. THAT’S IT. A simple observation. DONE.
Then the MRAs came whining and spewing. That’s ALL that caused the flamewar. You continue to act so damn offended that a flamewar started at all on your blog that wasn’t on your own terms. Any criticism of your position is immediately conflated with us associating you with MRAs. Well guess what? That right there IS an MRA tactic–whenever we criticize them, they conflate it with something more extreme, like comparing them to rapists.
And you gotta admit, all this is sounding more and more Muslima by the second. Just because you’ve been so strong on our side in the past, don’t think this allows you to claim “feminist cred”. That’s not how feminism, or any other anti-bigotry, works. It’s a process–you’re not always going to get it perfect (I sure a hell don’t) but the whole point is that you step back and reexamine your assumptions, and how your actions and words come across (wow, I’m telling feminists how to be feminists, telling them it’s the wrong battle, acting as though more than one battle can’t be fought at a time, blaming them for MRAs flocking in and derailing). Feminism is not this ultimate Nirvana state where you get to say, “I’m an official Feminist (TM), so I get to decide what counts as feminist, and you can’t say I’m wrong because I’m a Feminist (TM)”.
You yourself have recognized this difference in the past. Please stop digging. Just a plain “look guys, I recognize that the MRAs derailed the thread, and I was pissed of because I wasn’t expecting sexism of all things to appear in a discussion about atheism, religion, and bunnies. Lost my temper, guys, won’t be so quick to judge again”, would really help.
Horace:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
PZ,
would you be willing to consider that there is a place for tone trolling on your blog ? Once people start casually throwing insults around you can end up with ridiculous and lengthy arguments about minor issue ?
A word of advice from the netnanny.
Oren:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
(1) Two characters are created with identical looking toys for the sake of adding some humour to a message. Since they look the same, but each character needs to be identifiable continuously with its position from frame to frame. The clothes that came with the toys are the simplest solution.
(2) For the sake of argument, let’s say you randomly assigned gender roles and which one is the fool by coin flip. If you did this, 50% of all the iterations would be a Male/Female pairing. 25% Of all the iterations would feature the female character as the buffoon.
Therefore, 25% of the iterations are sexist. It might not be conscious sexism, though.
(3) One commenter saw sexism in the cartoon and had a tilt at the windmill. The first person to point out this sloppy thinking was an MRA twit; even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Boom. Perfect storm.
happiestsadist:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Horace, you perhaps are not the one to decide what constitutes minor. Cram your smug tone-trolling with walnuts.
happiestsadist:
November 25th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Oren: Read the fucking comments. It was not unintentional gender stereotyping. And if it were? It wouldn’t fucking matter, because intent is worth about as much as a cat fart.
pelamun:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Intent matters, but context does too. Whether the artist did it intentionally or not, influences my reception of the cartoon. I mean the original complaint was that it was gender stereotyping, which might have been unintentional.*) Which was enough to bring forth the shit storm we all saw unfold..
*)But even if unintentional, without further context I’d agree with the assessment that the cartoon would have imparted an ingrained kind of sexism.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Sally: I put up the numbers of the comments, and it is easy enough to find them given those (I put up only 4, for brevity). I don’t see any point in increasing the page load size by pointless duplication.
Nerd of Redhead:
My point is not that those associations don’t exist (and as an aside, they are not absolute the colors for toddlers used to be the other way round for quite some time). The point is whether whenever such associations exist, is it the correct diagnosis to cry “sexism”? Would you for example say that any particular depiction of a particular female psychotic killer in a horror story is sexist if she is often described as wearing pink dresses, while the police officers trying to catch are (whether men or women) are described as wearing trousers?
I hate to bring things to this level of hypothetical imagery, but it seems all the argument is taking place at similarly rarefied heights.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Horace #744
Oh look, Horace the Tone Trolling Asshole is trying to justify his assholish tone trolling. Isn’t it cute? Good boy, Horace. Who’s a tone trolling asshole? Have a nice cupcake to go with the decaying porcupine. You can shove both of then up your tone trolling rectum.
Have a nice day, Horace. :-þ
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
happiestsadist –
I didn’t want to presume that we agreed, but no, I didn’t see a disagreement except that I didn’t think your original objection to PaulG provided enough info to really tell him why & how what he was doing was so effed up… and I thought that amounted to the Harm Reduction v. Eradication thing. Looks like I was right. I won’t pull the thread off topic any farther, since we’re in the same place metaphorically (even if nowhere near each other geographically –tho’ I have a couple friends in Vancouver BC that I visit from time to time).
Anyway, to return to the major topic @ hand, while in the original thread & the first 100-200 posts of this one I found lots of posts that dropped the word transgender as way to discredit anyone who was doing any analysis of the original comic, it’s moved on in a weird way to either using ‘lesbians’ or just stating, “what, can’t women wear pants?”
While this doesn’t push the specific button that made me start handing out radioactive, zombie porcupines that tend to ignore sexual boundaries, it’s the kind of accountability-dodging claptrap that deserves at least a zombie porcupine in its own right. Especially since it was made clear on the original thread that associating certain tropes with femininity is contributing to sexism even if it’s not connected to a specific woman or specific woman character. (“Hair ribbons are for idiots who can’t add 2+2. If you wear hair ribbons you probably shouldn’t bother showing up to school.” is problematic as a sentiment even though the hair ribbons aren’t stated to be attached to a girl or woman. Saying that it merely critiques hair ribbon wearers of any gender doesn’t cut it.)
Thus, I’ll start handing out zombie porcupines for that as well: fair warning to cupcakes.
I’ll be nice, tho’ and as long as you aren’t trying to go the extra mile & say trans people disprove analysis of sexism, I won’t pass you the radioactive, boundary-ignoring ones.
rachelswirsky:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
PZ *is* a feminist as long as he identifies as one. He *does* have feminist cred.
No, that doesn’t stop him from having (in my opinion) hold of the wrong end of the stick here.
But he *is* an ally; I *do* admire the work he does; and I hope that just as no one would claim that doing good feminist work prevents one from being sometimes wrong, one would also not claim that being sometimes wrong negates one’s good feminist work.
I’m sure no one has intentionally been making that argument, and that no one (or effectively no one) believes it, but I want to repeat my objection to it. Because as Dianne says, the internet makes backing down gracefully so difficult, and can lend itself to absolutism, and I think it’s good to be explicit sometimes about this sort of thing.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Why isn’t it? You haven’t explained that with evidence, merely derided the facts, which you acknowledge, by obvious by obfuscation. That is my point too. People can and did correctly read potential sexism into the cartoon. They pointed it out. Why must they and their feeling be shouted down by the like of you and your inane apologetics? That is what I’m seeing. Shout down the feminists to shut them up. Why don’t you take the high road and allow them their feelings? No, you have to belittle their feelings for your own purposes, not rationality.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Circe #749 –
Putting up the #s of the comments doesn’t give us what we’re looking for and what Sally specifically asked for:
Where are the **responses** to the comments that you listed? Specifically, which comments treat reasonable criticism the same way that trolls and cupcakes are treated?
You’ve said we’re overreacting & giving a hard time to folks who don’t deserve such. We’re wondering where the evidence for that is.
You’ve given us #s of comments that you believe include useful criticism. Can you connect specific useful criticisms to specific overreactions, however? The mere fact that useful/non-sexist arguments or critiques exist does not prove your argument.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Oh, and Circe, you failed to answer my question of what it would take to change your mind. I will presume your mind in closed and you are preaching until that question is answered…
rachelswirsky:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
(To be clear, I was responding to something in particular at 752, but I don’t think it accomplishes anything to call it out specifically, except inasmuch as I think it’s helpful sometimes to be on record with an objection to implications.
Also, I generally apologize for my commenting style being not-so-appropriate to a blog that piles comments as fast as this one does. I guess I’ve gotten used to quieter corners of the internet.)
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
And there we go again, stuffing words into my mouth.
Let’s not pretend that I haven’t been lumped in with the MRAs here, OK? No, I have never pretended to be Mr Do-No-Wrong on anything, so if you want to piss me off, go ahead, claim I have.
Man, my mouth is really getting full here.
You want to know how I feel about it all? You’ve got it completely wrong. If you want to compare it to anything, look back at how I feel about all the MRAs who were invading every thread that involved women with tales of their poor affronted circumcised penises. I can sympathize, but I also resent every thread getting turned into their personal crusade, especially ones that discuss other real problems. So there’s that…I do not want the diversity of the arguments turned into a monotone. Try to look into that mirror for a moment, OK?
There is no shortage of threads here that are about feminism. There are open threads where you can talk about anything. You think I’m upset at a flamewar? I incite flamewars all the time, and yes, I encourage vigorous argument for feminism now and then, too. Fairly often, actually.
I know what it’s about. Let’s also not pretend that you can blame this entirely on the MRAs: the feminists here do not lie back passively, all aghast at how cruelly those guys stomp all over them. They fight back. They’re willing to shoot first, too. So it is utterly infuriating when you now try to play this stupid game of “it was all their fault”. I can believe it when you say “they were all wrong”, or “they were stupidly obtuse,” but not this faux-innocent shit that the flamewar is all one sided.
Also, step back. Look at what you’re fighting for. Every feminist here would almost certainly agree, I hope, that girl bunnies vs. boy bunnies is trivial — it’s one tiny drop in the chinese water torture of sexism. The recognition of this fact is everywhere in these threads: you compare it to one paper cut among many, to another tiny insult in a lifetime of them. And I do not disagree with that, especially since the revelation that the gender roles in the cartoon were consciously a product of sexist bias.
But I am being honest when I say I found it embarrassing to discover that this is the one drop of the torture that turns into an affronted battle (again, don’t even try to pretend that no one on the feminist side didn’t joyously leap into the fray, either). From the outside, it looks entirely ridiculous — everyone is fighting ferociously over toy bunny rabbits? You’ve succeeded in making it easy to trivialize a serious problem of pervasive bigotry.
That bigotry is worth fighting. The bunny rabbit cartoon was a symptom, not a cause, and worse, it was a distorting lens that made a joke of a serious issue. That’s what I mean when I say pick your battles. Not that this issue isn’t a war worth fighting, but that you did a lousy job of picking the battleground.
And there’s another personal source of my ire. I want this to be a strong safe place for women to express themselves, and it should also be a place with some credibility for taking feminist issues seriously. It’s taken a hit because people have been baited into a flamewar over goddamned stuffed bunnies. Sure, you see it as an aspect of anti-woman bias, but try, just try, to see it how the rest of the world sees it.
So yes, I’m angry about some things, but now I’m also getting pissed off at these misguided psychoanalyses that completely miss the mark. It’s also probably entirely futile to explain what has annoyed me, since I expect any explanation will get ignored to try and wedge me into the MRA box again.
Richard Eis:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
PZ
You obviously feel that you have. How about we don’t pretend that anyone did that, without you at least citing evidence for that claim. You got physioprof wrong. Anybody else?
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
PZ
So you’ve asserted that this is what occurred with comment #2 in the last thread.
You’ve been leaning on this assertion the whole time, without backing up your claim.
How about you actually dissect that comment and show it? Here you go:
“Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself. Because that would truly suck.”
You assert that this comment made an accusation.
What accusation did it make?
Richard Eis:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Considering comment 715, I don’t think you’re allowed in their club house any more.
KG:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Then why wasn’t it ridiculous to use toy bunny rabbits to point up the foolishness of religion?
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
ahs, are you always going to be this hypocritical?
When women feel that they’ve been insulted by a bunny rabbit in a dress, we should take it seriously and not deny their feelings. Those are genuine feelings, and they’re a product of a long history of bias.
When I tell you that I feel these threads have been mischaracterizing me, and take the time to explain exactly what has annoyed me, ahs is there to say I’m wrong.
If physioprof wasn’t trying to place me in the same category with the MRA doodz, then the bunny rabbit cartoon wasn’t stereotyping women.
KG:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
And in the thread about the bunny cartoon, people were talking about the bunny cartoon. Where’s the problem? That they saw something in it that you missed? (I might well have missed it myself – I only read the thread after 300+ comments had been made – but it was entirely legitimate to point out that aspect of it.)
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
@A Fellow Eukaryote – #743
I actually believe that feminist cred matters exactly to the extent that intent matters. There are some contexts where intent matters – it’s never magic, but it can matter.
For instance, “Dyke”. I use it for myself, and within my community, we use it frequently. Dyke is also used as an insult (by people who are decidedly NOT part of my community). While there is nothing inherently insulting about the word or its meaning, when intended to be an insult, heterosexism is being acted out and it is reasonable to take offense. The reason for care that so many take around this word is that if I don’t know you, and you refer to me as a dyke, I have no idea if intent to insult exists or not.
However, if you have a long history of fighting heterosexism, then it would be quite bizarre to believe that you think being a dyke (i.e. being a woman who falls in love and/or has sex with women and makes no apologies for it) is a bad thing. Thus enough trust (or “cred”) exists for you to use that word without causing harm or offense.
Likewise, some arguments could be made to derail discussion of sexism that look very much like the arguments a feminist on a bad day might make. Or, at other times, one feminist might make a claim about sexism that was truly wrong, and hearing, “You’re wrong: there’s no sexism in this poem,” gets heard differently when you trust the other person is a feminist simply because you can start with the assumption that there’s no effort at minimization or derailing going on.
I do not believe that PZ is minimizing or derailing. Yet he’s repeating some things that are being said by people who, I believe, would not seriously entertain a discussion about sexism.
This is also why people who are unknown & package, “You’re wrong,” with, “Why are you always whining,” get a much more hostile reception than folks who say, “I think you might be wrong, because X, Y, & Z.” It might be a small thing, but saying, ‘I think,’ makes it more likely that the person is being open to being proved wrong, which means that the person is more likely inviting a true dialog.
And yet, people with feminist cred, who have been willing to have hard conversations before, and who maybe have admitted to error before, have proven through past action that they are willing to have the conversation and thus they need not frame their sentences quite as carefully.
It is in this way that feminist cred matters. Ultimately we’re still judging by the same criteria, but “cred” is, essentially, an extra body evidence that may be used during that judging.
This is how cred should always operate – never giving anyone a free pass, never causing anyone to be judged by a different standard, just being willing to acknowledge that the context of a comment or argument includes relevant history as well.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
How many times a week on The Endless Thread do people talk about how they liked or disliked this or that sci-fi piece partly because of how the female characters were written?
Are folks here suddenly supposed to approach this particular cartoon without analyzing gender in it?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/backlash_harming_the_cause_whe.php
When there are assertions that gnus’ behavior will lead to a backlash that will hurt the cause, we demand evidence.
I want evidence that feminists saying this cartoon would “would truly suck” does in fact hurt the cause.
Or in lieu of that, how about “both approaches”?
+++++
All I really see here is that you don’t think it’s worth mentioning:
and therefore no one else should think so either.
KG:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
*Bookmarks the thread as another good one to link to the next time some moron says Pharyngula is full of PZ’s sycophants*
Richard Eis:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
When there are two clear sides over an argument and you end up arguing with one side, it is natural to assume that you have been placed on the opposing team by said people. The more they argue, the more you get pushed away. There will be no document detailing your position though.
Chasing PZ through myriad, long since forgotten quotes and statements really isn’t going to win you anything. Feel free to continue your dogged pursuit of “truth”, but i advise against it.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
They are genuine feelings in both cases.
And because they are genuine feelings, I said: You obviously feel that you have.
I think that’s unfortunate, PZ. I saw it coming yesterday, remember? And I did what I could to emphasize that it wasn’t about you being a bad guy.
If, however, you want to say “I have been lumped in with the MRAs”, then that is a claim which requires evidence. If you mean only that you feel that you have, then the claim stands prima facie; of course your feelings are legitimate.
In the latter case, it would be a good idea for anyone who’s said anything that they worry might be construed as saying you’re being an MRA to make clear what their thoughts on the matter are. physioprof did that at #739.
I’m worried now that you think I think similarly. I’ll emphasize: I do not believe you’re an MRA. I regard you as a fellow feminist ally. I want clarity, I want claims to be backed up with evidence, but I do not want you to feel besieged by me. So I will slow down now.
SallyStrange:
November 25th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Clubhouse? How silly. Look, I still think of PZ as a feminist and an ally; I just think he’s wrong on this one. This is still one of the best blogs ever, I’m not planning on excluding myself or anyone else because of this.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Sally, I think Richard Eis meant the MRAs, such as nmmng, wouldn’t let him into their clubhouse anyway. I’m sure that’s probably true, at least, not without years of hazing.
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Dear god, ahs, fuck off, you dishonest hypocrite and slinger of innuendo.
This is the last time I will address any of your crap.
The accusation in comment #2 is clear: that the comic was intentionally stereotyping women. Evidence was later found that it was, but to pretend that it was not bringing up an accusation is palpably dishonest.
I have no idea why you bring up the discussion of portrayals of women in scifi — it’s abysmal, I know. It’s a legitimate topic of discussion, as is the biased portrayal of women in all media. So?
I do not consider a discussion of bias in that comic to have been off limits; I do not condemn comment #2. You have a very black&white, absolutist perspective on this; I am not singling out any one comment as the instant descent into raging horror. This was a joint effort by many people over many comments building up into a noisy wrangle.
I have not anywhere made this sweeping claim that something will “hurt the cause”. You have. Repeatedly. Four times in this thread. I have said that the battle over the bunnies looks entirely ridiculous from the outside, and it does — and I take it personally that it makes the seriousness of the discussion on this blog look ridiculous.
Now we’re done. I don’t even know why I bothered, since I am entirely confident that you will completely ignore my explanations to continue to strain to shoehorn me into your predetermined box.
physioprof:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
One of the most important jobs of an ally is to not get all butthurt when those who are being allied with point out that the ally’s behavior in a particular instance is harmful, and to not focus the discussion onto the ally’s hurt fee-fees and how those hurt fee-fees are going to make the ally not want to be an ally anymore.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
For the record PZ, and because I asserted above that you have used an argument that MRAs have used, let me be absolutely clear:
MRAs also use the word, “Hello.” I am NOT saying that by using a word or argument that has also been used by an MRA that you are also an MRA.
I do NOT believe that you are an MRA. I do NOT believe that you have attempted to derail a discussion of sexism. I do NOT believe that you are not on my side.
However, I do think that physioprof was describing what MRAs do and you mistakenly thought he was describing what you do. I do think that you have both gotten the point and not gotten it: I absolutely LOVE the “water torture” metaphor.
I can think of this comic, “ARRRRRGHH. Here I am, strapped down. Having suffered 50k drips of water and it’s driving me crazy. Hey, look at that – is that a crystal on that mobile swinging into the light? yes! And it’s making a rainbow! How pretty! “Plop”. Awww, FFS, did the pretty crystal have to drip on me, too?”
That’s fantastic. I love it. The water torture, with the crazy-making that it does, does a wonderful job of communicating how trivial (one drop of water?) and how deadly serious this is.
That’s part of how you’ve gotten it. Part of how you haven’t seemed to have gotten it is this:
Imagine that the mobile is in the dungeon because the torturer likes it.It’s pretty. No other reason. Imagine that the ceiling on the other side of the dungeon drips condensation onto the crystal, which causes it to spin into the light – giving me my first opportunity to see it even though I’ve been down here for days. And now the drop of condensation falls on me, during my water torture session but totally unintentionally.
This is how intent does not matter.
Now it does matter if I want to accuse the palace plumber of participating in my torture, but if all I’m saying is, “that drop sucked,” the truth of that statement changes not at all with the intent of the torturer, the plumber, or anyone else.
MRAs love to focus on intent because it is notoriously difficult to prove – and because if you do sexism all the time, it can be such a habit that you don’t even think about it, which means that if intent is the necessary & sufficient condition for being identified as acting sexist, you can get off scott free without changing habits at all. I tend not to worry about intent as much. It means, metaphorically, that you can never put anyone away for the full term of murder, but nobody who commits manslaughter walks away without accountability.
So I count myself sad that you want to focus on the intent. But I don’t place you with the MRAs – not at all.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
PZ:
What’s the solution then, PZ? Are we supposed to not mention anything to do with a possible sexist trope on non-feminism threads? Are we supposed to stay silent when the MRAs invade?
I have a clearer idea of your position and frustration, but right now this isn’t feeling like a strong safe place.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
SallyStrange:
Seconding.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Obviously you were writing this while I was writing #769.
I hope it’s as clear to you, as it is to me, that there is some misunderstanding between us.
I don’t have any box for you. You’ve always been decent to me, and I appreciate this.
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Let’s all just get a lot more deranged, OK? Where has there even been the slightest hint that I plan to take my ball home if you don’t agree with me on everything?
Nothing changes. If you think I write what I write because I want to inspire a cozy friendly home and pander to a bunch of people so they’ll be nice to me, boy have you been reading this blog wrong. I say what I want because it’s what I want to say, not because someone else wants me to say. I thrive and profit off antagonism and good argumentative conflicts. In case you hadn’t noticed, this isn’t the happy-touchy-feely blog on FtB.
But I said good argument. This hasn’t been. For reasons I’ve explained multiple times now. You can get much more vicious here if you’d like, and it won’t change my opinion on women’s issues in the slightest. Just like you can get much more personally vicious against me and it won’t change my opinion on evolution. Some things just are true.
But you will insult me and get me very, very angry if you even try to imply that my positions are a product of pandering to a clique.
sandiseattle:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
OT:
y am i envisioning a “all the crazy people are in the PNW” trope flag to be raised here soon?
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
#754: The comment
at #689 got the following responses, for example.
and further here is a response to my own comments:
I’d leave you to judge you is shouting down whom.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Nerd of Redhead: I don’t know what “changing of mind” you are talking about. I said I think the stuff about bunny is nitpicking, and just asked a couple of questions (that probably has been asked too many time now): would you consider any fiction which portrays women as weak “sexist”? Would you do the same if “women” in the last sentence was replaced by “men”? This was never answered, and I have only been variously accused of “shouting down” others, “preaching”, having a “closed mind” etc etc. I even gave examples of works of fictions which I thought would be considered “sexist” if the yardstick being applied here is applied to them, and nobody told me if I was right or wrong about applying those. Here are the examples again:
The only reply I got was Pteryx’s comment that
even though what I was doing was quoting his/her argument.
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
No. As I said up there, I have no problem with discussions of these issues, and that I expect the feminists here to fight back. I don’t pin blame on any one individual in the chaos.
Maybe we just have to blame it on group dynamics gone mad, and there’s absolutely nothing we can do, and I just have to resign myself to these eruptions.
With hindsight (easy now, but I’ve been buried in end-of-semester work, so I’ve been catching everything belatedly), if I’d been able to pay closer attention, here’s what I would have done. I’d have stopped it cold in the first thread, created a new thread on greater global issues of bias against women in the media, and let everyone go to town on that one, and try to get the argument going on a bigger picture of the problem, untainted by the public pettiness of toy rabbits.
But in the real world where I’m dealing with a stack of deadlines, that wasn’t going to happen.
Mick:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
@ John Morales
I was responding to the new post, when I received information that said I was wrong I conceded.
You are still a fucking dick and a raging wanker! Fuck you with a rusty chainsaw dipped in lime you self-satisfied turd.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Sandiseattle –
That was a friendly connection-seeking thing between me & happiestsadist. I don’t see any reason why it would lead to the trope you’re suggesting. Tho’ I’m perfectly willing to admit to having had depression.
physioprof:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Then why did you choose this particular instance to poo-poo one side of an argumentative conflict as being much-ado-about-nothing?
PZ Myers:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Did you miss the part where I emphasized good argument?
A Fellow Eukaryote:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
No, PZ, I know your heart is in the right place. That’s why I’ve been a loyal lurker for years (I’d've been a regular commenter too, if everyone else hadn’t been so good at saying everything I wanted to say but fifty times better). If I was not so obviously clear, dammit, no I don’t fucking think you’re an MRA–that would kinda require amnesia and raving stupidity on my part, no? But, while I realize you never said any of that cred-claiming stuff (I literally said that you HAVE recognized the difference between claiming cred and actual feminism, throughout Pharyngula history), I put all of that there to make a point, which is that no one is exempt from examining themselves.
And speaking of reexamining–pay attention to what you’re ignoring. Yeah, of course we feminists here passionately throw ourselves into the fray. You even admit we have plenty of reason to be on hair triggers (red pill, anyone?). But what did we start up in response to? Are you seriously suggesting comment #2, which I quoted, was the actual start of the flamewar? A mild, truly mild little offhand comment about unfortunate implications? Should we have ignored the MRAs who oozed in afterward? Should ignoring misogynist trolls instead of stomping them become a policy feminists must adopt?
^And note: I’m NOT putting words in your mouth here. Yes, PZ, you didn’t say any of that either. But that’s how it comes off to some of us. Yeah, we were provoked. Yeah, we’d much rather enjoy a fucking cartoon with fucking bunnies about fucking religion vs. science. I liked it when I first read it, myself. But I hope you don’t think we’d have gone all flamey if misogynists didn’t come whining. You appear to be doing a whole lot of mouth-stuffing yourself, as some of us feel like we’re being mischaracterized, like we saw a religious bunny in a dress and then immediately started foaming at the mouth, ready to explode into tirades against this newest assault on women as fiercely as if it were a law legalizing rape. Because that’s not how it happened.
A. R:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I have to say, this is the first thread that has pushed me to killfile a regular commenter, and an OM nonetheless.
SallyStrange:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Circe, you’re seriously proposing that we should take “I didn’t see this, therefore you are all over-analyzing, and you should stop” as a nuanced, helpful critique?
I’m sorry, but if that’s your standard then I’m going to have a hard time taking YOU seriously.
physioprof:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
It’s not a good argument that coding foolish religious gibberish as feminine and rational atheist reality as masculine is misogynist?
A Fellow Eukaryote:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Posted before I could read PZ’s later response emphasizing that he doesn’t want to pin the flamewar down on any one comment. Ok, I’m happy for that, because it seemed like that’s what you were doing.
I think Crip Dyke in #774 said it best.
SallyStrange:
I still think of PZ as a feminist and an ally; I just think he’s wrong on this one. This is still one of the best blogs ever, I’m not planning on excluding myself or anyone else because of this.
Thirding.
Alethea H. Claw:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Nitpicking. Yes, exactly, what an excellent analogy that is! Nits are larval lice, and have to be picked, lest you end up with a nasty infestation. And then we’d be lousy, and our community would be lousy. It really doesn’t help to vociferously object that you’re perfectly clean and don’t have nits at all and besides its not a nit it’s a bit of lint and nits are all in your mind anyway.
This should be required reading:
The truth is, if I actually spent my days actively paying attention to every example of misogyny around me, I would be a profoundly unhappy woman. Not bitchy or grumpy or short-tempered, but paralyzingly depressed. Women have to train themselves to avoid consciously reacting to every bit of misogynistic detritus permeating the culture through which we all move, lest they go quite insane.
PZ @782 – thank you, that does help.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I think I’ve discovered something that PZ appears confused about. In #772 he wrote:
My reading of #2 was the comic was unintentionally stereotyping women. Certainly until further evidence was revealed, the general perception was the stereotyping was unintentional.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
PZ:
Hindsight’s a wonderful thing. This would have been a great way to handle it, because there is a lot to discuss when it comes to media.
I would have seriously enjoyed a good, in-depth discussion of the cartoon as well, because I did think it was good and I liked the novel approach.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Sally: I find that view at least as nuanced and constructive as the view that anybody saying that is a “male supremacist”.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
A.R.:
No one fucking cares. If you have nothing pertinent to say, don’t say anything.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Circe:
Male supremacist is used by some here instead of MRA, because the type of MRAs we get here are not actual Men’s Rights Advocates. You might be able to understand what people are attempting to tell you if you get over this particular bit.
A. R:
November 25th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Caine @ 796: I think it is quite pertinent, considering it as a comment on the rapid degradation of the level of conversation here.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
A. R.
Your concern is noted.
KingUber:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Girls and bunnies and none of this? http://images.kaneva.com/filestore8/4476927/5520704/animeUbunnyUgirl.jpg
SallyStrange:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Well, nobody called that guy a male supremacist, so what’s your fucking problem, eh Circe? Why should we take shit arguments like that seriously? And please note that the essence of the message was “SHUT UP,” which, when applied to feminist discourse, is a male supremacist position to take. And you are defending it. What the fuck is up with that?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Alethea:
I’ll second this, too. It helped me a lot, thank you.
pharylon:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Dear Fuckwit (aka Nerd of Redhead),
If you demonstrated basic literacy skills by reading my posts, you might have noticed that I am not a “Cupcake.” I am fully in favor of cursing, mocking, and derisive tone when it is appropriate.
But, and I know this might be difficult for either of your two functioning brain cells to understand, it’s not always appropriate. In any discussion, tone is an important aspect. And being rude, calling names, and relentlessly mocking someone has it’s place- and that place is when the person you’re mocking isn’t the target. When we make fun of Catholics, Climate Deniers, or whatever, we’re not trying to convince them we’re right. We’re not trying to change their mind; we know they’re a lost cause. We’re trying to show others how dumb they are, how clearly wrong they are.
When you’re talking to a fellow open-minded skeptic, attacking them isn’t the way to get them to change their mind. People who get attacked tend to dig in. That’s just human nature. I know someone of your limited intellect might have trouble understanding this, but sometimes engaging someone in a civil argument is the way to win.
There are multiple ways to do this! If you REALLY care about educating fellow skeptics who have an honest difference of opinion about why you’re right and they’re wrong, and not just being a living example of John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, then maybe you can learn that different tones are like different weapons on the battlefield of ideas, and you’re someone who only knows how to use a shotgun.
But probably not, since you’re clearly incapable of understanding how human interaction works.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
SallyStrange:
Circe seems to have a real problem with all the “no, you’re wrong. Read the fucking thread.” responses to all the umptieth crap posts saying “oh, well, what if the author… and what if the boy rabbit is a girl wearing pants” and other assorted shit.
It’s annoying as all fuck to have to constantly state the same information over and over and over and over and over because hundreds of assholes can’t be bothered to read the thread.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
@Circe #780 –
Thanks for being specific about your complaints. Now I can judge for myself.
I’ve definitely noticed a tendency towards harsh treatment of people who bring up arguments that have already been dealt with earlier in a long thread. The first example you cite fits in with that. It’s definitely something that I don’t tend to do, but it’s also got a long tradition here. I haven’t ever made an effort to address it. In general, tone trolling doesn’t go over well here & I’m not one to tell someone how to express an argument in this space (even if I might have opinions in other spaces) specifically because this has been created as an environment where people are free to stomp on stupidity.
The first half of the second comment was also clearly a call to read the thread before inserting redundant comments. Again, rude, but failing to read the thread is counted as a form of stupidity and stupidity is stomped hard here.
This doesn’t come across as harshing on insufficiently feminist statements. It feels like the pharyngula tradition of drop-kicking people unwilling to read before posting. I didn’t see any comment like, “*** ****, you are a male supremacist”.
It seems you were making two arguments, one was:
What I don’t get is why people like the ones I listed in #719 also get the same “*** ****, you are a male supremacist” treatment?
and the other was:
“[there were some comments] implying he had no right to voice his opinion till he had read the whole thread. This last one is especially the kind of thing I am trying to point out.”
I would say your second case is proven, but the first isn’t. I am sympathetic to what you are arguing in case 2, but I won’t go as far as to ask people to change the character of pharyngula. This is a place where stomping hard is allowed and, over time, one of the misdeeds for which stomping has been deemed appropriate is posting on a thread without reading it and having your post’s content be substantially the same argument as has been made multiple times before.
It also seems like earlier you were more concerned about case 1, but later you changed your mind & were more worried about case 2. Now that you’ve proven case 2, do you want to still look for examples of case 1, or did you get confirmation of what was most important to you?
Just so you know, if there were examples of case 1, I would want to know & would find that useful.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
FYI – If you got here & are wondering why I have referred to a post in the 700s when my post is #5, threading is set to 800 comments max before it partitions it out & starts counting over.
To get to the previous posts, just above “Leave A Reply” after all the comments in the current series is a small blue link, “Older Comments”. Hit that & you’ll get the first 800 comments on this thread.
That is all.
A Fellow Eukaryote:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Caine,
Hindsight’s a wonderful thing. This would have been a great way to handle it, because there is a lot to discuss when it comes to media.
I would have seriously enjoyed a good, in-depth discussion of the cartoon as well, because I did think it was good and I liked the novel approach
I agree. I’m also glad PZ’s coming round, and there’s a better sense of where we all actually stand. And I’m happy he’s been repeatedly emphasizing that he still takes these issues seriously, because I too want this to be a safe space.
gddiver:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
OK, we now have a tea party of the rational left. Let’s throw a fellow rationalist under the bus because he (a sexist assumption on my part?) may (emphasize may) have had a made subconscious sexist assumption. Even if the cartoonist harbors a latent sexist attitude, and I do not believe for a minute that this cartoon proves that it does, appreciate the point he is making. This cartoonist is on our side Crys T. Put your sense of righteous anger to use where it is really needed our you will eventually find yourself alone in your own little universe with no allies, raging against the picayune.
Tristan:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
PZ’s rght, y knw. Ths thrd s crrntly n pr wth Gltgt, nd s rpdly pprchng lvtrgt lvls f rdclsnss.
[Another wallower in the misogyny cesspit who has no place commenting here. Go away. --pzm]
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Well, it’s nice to see that gddiver has caught up to comments #2 on the original thread. Just 1150 comments to go before you have some idea what you’re talking about!
physioprof:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
The only thing that could make this discussion ridiculous is the assumption that atheism is serious shitte and feminism is a niche special interest.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Changing from this being a non-case to a case. What else could I mean. If you are a regular, you would know I often challenge folks on what they are arguing, namely what evidence is required to change your mind on your point? That is when real discussion can occur. At the moment, in my experienced opinion, you are preaching and not listening.
Improbable Joe:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
You know, as a rational atheist skeptic I don’t believe in fate, and certainly not in tempting fate. Nevertheless, in the lizard bit of my brain I feel a tingling sensation that I’m going to jinx this whole business by telling Tristan that this hasn’t approached the same continent as Elevatorgate.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
gddiver:
Jesus fucking Christ. Is it really too much to ask that you read the goddamn thread before you spout off? We know how and why the author/artist chose the representations.
Try going back and reading #505, it’s the special edition for those who can’t manage to read, and then going and reading PZ’s post @ #430.
Improbable Joe:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
… and that tingling sensation was actually PZ dropping the banhammer. Disregard my last.
gddiver:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Hey Crip Dyke, I don’t need to read 810 post like yours to understand what is going on. PZ summarized it nicely and my point still stands. Getting upset over a dress on a cartoon character and ignoring the real issue is why we laugh at the fundamentalist. Just keep attacking your allies for no reason because a circular firing squad is the quickest way to end an argument.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
@ Caine #14 –
I was going to direct him to #11 of the original thread. His comment seemed to have a lot in common with it & he really ought to know his concerns have been previously noted.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Improbable Joe, Tristan has unleashed a wealth of bullshit on many a subject here before. He’s a known idiot and most people just ignore him/her.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
gddiver:
All this ^ does is to paint you as an idiot in bright, neon colours. The author/artist’s choice and methodology is known and PZ changed his stance.
So, it’s rather obvious you do need to read the thread, at least if you have any desire to avoid being an idiot. It seems to be a role you’re comfortable with though, so carry on being stupid.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Crip Dyke:
Point away! I doubt it will do much good in this case though, as this isn’t the first time gddiver has been an asshole in a thread and simply digs their heels in when it’s pointed out.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
@gddiver #16 –
That was an attack? Really?
Look, I’ve handed out a porcupine or two in my time, but really, I’m not one of the ones you need to worry about. If you had read pretty much **any** of the thread, you would have known that your comment has been made many, many times. So why make it again?
Plus, as far as attacking goes, I said you didn’t know what was going on in the thread because you hadn’t read it. And I was right. Stating facts is an attack?
But you, no you say:
Which is the attack? My correct statement that you’d read so little of what was going on that you didn’t even realize that your comment added nothing new? Or your, ‘clean up your act or die whining and alone’ bit?
yeah, that’s what I thought.
Richard Eis:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
I see nothing wrong with having a “media portrayal” post still. It’s not too late… But all should be welcome, there are plenty of male stereotypes i want to vent over.
Taylor R.:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
If you ask me, it’s sexist to assume that the one wearing pants is a boy and the one wearing a dress is a girl. Whom is not to say they are both women… or men? This is the classic categorization of how masculine/feminine men and women have to be to be identified as one sex or the other. That’s sexism, not this crap being heatedly debated about in this thread.
Improbable Joe:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
gddiver:
There’s a difference between telling people that you disagree with them on an issue, and telling people that they are doing their particular ‘-ism’ incorrectly. The first at least has a somewhat decent chance of being backed up by some sort of logic or evidence. The second is almost always doomed to failure, because it is almost always wrong.
Maybe if you don’t barge in and treat people like they are arguing in bad faith, they won’t treat you like you are doing the same. And if they do anyway then you actually might have the moral high ground.
shawnthesheep:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Josh,
In response to your @454 (sorry, I have severe blockquote fail issues with this blog)
1. People were questioning that I was a progressive guy who fights against sexism. One poster equated my position with “some of my best friends are black.” This implies that I not only don’t fight against sexism but that I’m a bigot.
2. I acknowledged in several of my posts that I have blind spots. As I stated previously, there are plenty of feminist women whose opinions I seek out on gender bias/sexism, because I want to try and minimize my blind spots. In these matters, I almost always respect their opinions above my own. I’ve even consulted a couple of feminist friends on the bunny issue, and they agreed with me. I’m not just dismissing the opinions of women regarding this issue. What I found so troublesome about the initial cry of sexism is that it was done without the person who objected having any context about the piece. What if this had been one of a series of cartoons in which the genders were alternated or in which the male bunny was in the negative role the majority of the time? Poster #2 in the original bunny thread jumped to a conclusion of sexism with few facts to support it.
3. I do have blind spots. Absolutely. But members of oppressed groups have blind spots, too. And sometimes they (myself included) are responsible for the same sorts of stereotyping/generalizing that they fight against. Sometimes, you fight so long and so hard against an entrenched enemy that you see that enemy everywhere, even in bunnies.
4. I was getting indignant and defensive because my character was being questioned, and I was told that, due to my sex, my opinion was meaningless. I take issue with that. If you dismiss the opinions of everyone who is not a member of an oppressed group, then you dismiss the opinions of a lot of allies who can help you achieve equality. No oppressed group can achieve equality without the help of allies who are members of the privileged group.
5. I still find this whole thing ridiculous. I don’t find concerns of gender-bias ridiculous. I don’t find arguments about the pervasiveness of gender inequality in our society to be ridiculous. Whenever the discussion turns to sexism, I’m on the side of the feminists 99.99999999999999999% of the time. This just happens to be one of those times where I disagree with some feminists. I can do that without being unconsciously sexist or insensitive. I understand completely why a woman would filter everything through a gender inequality cheesecloth. But just because something is pervasive doesn’t mean it’s everywhere. It is possible for the member of an oppressed group to see bias where it does not exist.
6. I never claimed I have a get out of jail free card. I was just trying to explain that I was not the enemy. Sure, I have been guilty of sexist actions in my life. I have said and done things that were misogynistic. I’m not sure anyone who is raised in a society as gender-biased as ours could ever be completely gender neutral. But I’m a progressive activist, and I learned my progressivism and activism at the feet of some hardcore, old-school feminists. So for someone to completely dismiss my opinion with a wave of their hand because of the genitalia I possess is offensive to me. I have marched and been arrested for gender equality. I’ve risked my own personal safety to assist battered women. I’ve had fundamentalist pelt me with tomatoes, survived bomb scares and death threats. This is not simply a philosophical/intellectual exercise for me. So if you want to dismiss my support for gender equality with something like, “and I’m sure some of your best friends are black,” because I disagree with you over a bunny cartoon, then I will righteously and indignantly say, “FUCK YOU.”
As for your concluding statement, my gut reaction was that the bunny cartoon controversy was silly. But I did re-examine that reaction. I sought the opinion of a couple of feminist women I know and respect, and asked, “Is this a blind spot?” Their response was a very definitive NO. Anyway, arguing over this is counter-productive. I’m off to have lunch with a dear friend, a retired ob/gyn and fellow feminist the local fundamentalist doctors have labeled the poofter abortionist. Some of my best friends are poofter abortionists, too.
Alethea H. Claw:
November 25th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
gddiver: just *sigh* WHY must you and so many others leap from “huh good one, but it’s a pity that the sexist trope detracts from the message” to “throwing him under the bus”? The magnitude of the leap astonishes me every time. It’s like you’ve said “Hey, psst, mate, your fly’s undone” and they’ve replied “Y U WANT CASTRATE ME?!!”
When (not if, when) people of good will accidentally use sexist tropes, metaphors, language etc, we expect them to say “oops, my bad, I’ll try not to do that again.” That’s a response from an ally. The other one … isn’t.
And because this got lost in the page turn and I’m kind of proud of it:
Nitpicking. Yes, exactly, what an excellent analogy that is! Nits are larval lice, and have to be picked, lest you end up with a nasty infestation. And then we’d be lousy, and our community would be lousy. It really doesn’t help to vociferously object that you’re perfectly clean and don’t have nits at all and besides its not a nit it’s a bit of lint and nits are all in your mind anyway and nits are just trivial distracting from the real issue.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Crip Dyke: Thanks for the reasoned comments. I don’t think however that I was tone trolling: as far as I am concerned the tone-trolling was being done by a “regular” who armed with his or her “experienced opinion” declared that I, and presumably others raising points similar to mine, were “shouting people down”, without bothering to answer why the same yardstick could not be applied to conclude whether 1)
All fiction portraying women unfavorably should be considered “sexist” 2) All fiction portraying mean unfavourably should be considered “sexist”?
With that out of the way, thanks again for clarifying what you referred to as case 2. As for case 1, here is an example (not the exact statement I quoted, for which I apologize, but close enough)
Because even though one example is not enough to prove sexism, the existence of those stereo types is enough to make it possible. Can’t a woman feminist notice the inequalities (intentional or not) without a man male supremacist trying to shut her up?
Edited for accuracy. Otherwise, great comment. That’s really the only thing that’s at issue here.
Admittedly, when I pointed this out I did get a response from the commenter clarifying that they were not trying to paint all critics with the same brush. However, that did not prevent some people with presumably “experienced opinion” going after me without even addressing the questions I raised (why shouldn’t the same yardsticks be used for all fiction? Why isn’t for example, all of Jmes Bond “sexist” in its treatment of men, giving the impression that all men are careless playboy daredevils? Is every fictional treatment of Marie Antoinette “sexist” since it has to show Marie Antoinette wearing dresses?)
Nevertheless, thanks for pointing out that some people here so love stomping on others. It seem, however, that some of them, unlike you, can’t stand any criticism without leveling accusations of “shouting down” and “preaching”.
Nerdhead: In my not-so-experienced-on-Pharyngula-but-with-some-experience-in-the-real-world opinion, it is you who are not framing your case properly. I specifically referred to what my questions were in my post, and you just seem to have ignored them, taking the high road of declaring that I was “preaching”, and implying that you should be right just because you are a regular. For your easy reference, some of those question appear in this post too. Please answer at leisure. Or maybe, just call me a tone-troll while accusing me of “preaching” and “shouting down”.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Taylor R #23
Nobody was asking you.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Oh, is this the same Shawn who said he “reveres” women?
I’m so glad you came back, so I could tell you what utter fucking bullshit that is.
Anyone who claims to revere me, simply on the basis of my genitalia or gender identity is either stupid or lying.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Richard:
There was one not long ago.
Male stereotypes in media are egregious and infuriating. Same goes for GLBT stereotypes and female stereotypes.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
SallyStrange:
Yes.
I made that point, strongly. I doubt it will be addressed.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
shawnthesheep:
For someone who maundered on and on and on about how much he “loves and respects” women, you spent a good deal of your time telling women what life as woman is really like and then telling them they were full of shit and to fuck off.
You have issues, which I addressed, specifically to you in #388. I did have the thought you would cope better if my points came from Josh, but I see it didn’t help any. For someone who claims to have considered their viewpoint, you’re still being the same ass, so I have to wonder just how much considering you did.
Are you aware that PZ changed his mind about the bunnies? That’s an example of someone who reconsidered the issue and when presented with evidence, changed their stance. You could take a lesson. You could also really work on that whole listening to women too.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Leave it to KingUber to up the level of discourse.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Nobody asked you, you came here on your own, and gave nothing but inane opinion. Why should we believe you are anything other than a MRA troll???
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
shawnthesheep
Nope. This is still an unevidenced claim, no matter who makes it.
Tethys:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Althea H. Claw
Isn’t it a bizarre over-reaction? I shake my head over the pointing out small possible sexism = exile and death hyperbole.
Very few comments were about the author of the strip except to gather more data. I didn’t see any comments suggesting he should shut-up and die.
——
There are several other interesting issues to discuss.
Why are humans so compelled to classify according to gender? Why are those toys manufactured as male/female pairs?
Are female bunnies more prone to religion?
What would account for the gender discrepancy?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
sheesh, wrong thread
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
shawnthesheep:
Your insistence on this is pure assholism. Crys T’s post was an observation and a request for other opinions.
It was Otranreg’s post @ #11:
Which sent out the idiot signal.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
@shawnthesheep – #25
No. This does NOT imply that you’re a bigot, nor does it imply that you don’t fight against sexism.
however, having friends that are women or friends that are feminist doesn’t say anything about the argument at hand – and, worse, it is often used as a tactic to avoid accountability on a given issue. This is typically a matter of defensiveness, not oppression per se, but if one cannot be accountable, oppression cannot be fought.
So when you said, and Dianne replied:
You were saying something defensive that didn’t address the argument at hand – your argument stands or falls regardless of how many friends you have of what kind.
Dianne was merely pointing out that, “I revere women,” and, “Some of my best friends are…,” are functionally equivalent statements.
It is you that has said that the manner in which they are functionally equivalent is in calling you a bigot.
I say this to tell you: Take a breath!
Also, this: if you feel you’ve done nothing wrong, and you go away and think about things & still think you’ve done nothing wrong, then you had a good exercise in thinking that won’t do you any harm AND no one on these boards is coming after you IRL. It sounds like you’ve done exactly that.
People will respond to your posts, often with harsh language, but no one is forcing you to read anything. If this thread isn’t working for you, skip it & go to the next one. You are even using a ‘nym that is not at all the same as an IRL name, so it’s not like you even have to be afraid of someone getting the wrong idea about you as a person b/c of something someone said about your ‘nym. Either they know you well & won’t be swayed by something someone they don’t know said in a thread on Pharyngula, or they don’t know you well & won’t put your ‘nym together with you the person.
In short, no one that I’ve noticed has called you a bigot and nothing on this thread is of any permanent injury to you.
If you feel you’ve been treated badly, you’re perfectly welcome to think less of anyone that you believe has done that. You can care about that as much as you want or as little as you want. And you get to move on whenever you want.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Tethys:
Not only that, but I had to correct a bunch of people when they called the author a sexist douche, misogynist or other assorted nonsense. Pteryxx was doing damn near constant correction on that score.
You can’t even get across that it was simple weariness at seeing an old sexist trope being employed again. Instead, there’s this assumption that feminazis are screaming “misogynist douchecake! off with hir head!”
opposablethumbs, que le pouce enragé mette les pouces:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
I would just like to say thank you to Carlie for eloquence and clarity (and to a lot of other people too) for endless patience – and to youse lot who have given us some great metaphors; the single fibre in a hawser, the ten-thousandth papercut, the need to pick nits if you want to avoid succumbing to an infestation of lice.
Like a lot of people have said, better than I can: nice cartoon – like it a lot – pity about the tired old trope (i.e., pity about the author’s choice to add an irrelevant detail which doesn’t help the message but distracts by echoing the prevailing gender stereotypes that it would have been so incredibly easy to avoid. And no, that does not mean they have to be reproduced in reverse, ffs). So far, no problem.
And that’s the start of the problem right there.
Carlie:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Just got caught up, and thirded. Thank you.
After approximately 1200 comments, roughly 500 of which directly addressed both why it’s clear which genders were specified and how and that the author clearly stated which ones were which:
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Carlie:
In spades.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
I looked at Taylor R.’s website and I think the evidence indicates Taylor is not an MRA troll.
+++++
Taylor R.,
We’ve been over this a few times now. I’ll repeat what I said earlier:
“Regardless of each bunny’s gender identity, it is a problem that the one who presents as stereotypically feminine has been portrayed as an airhead.”
For the record, we do now know that the artist intended them as boy and girl, because the artist said so.
But if, perhaps, someone were to look at the picture and take it to be two female bunnies, then there’s still the problem of associating stereotypically feminine dress with irrationality.
chigau (本当):
November 25th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Rev
You’re on the right Thread.
This is page 2.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
[meta + OT]
A Fellow Eukaryote, previous page @787:
I’m a regular, and I tell you I think you’re wrong; on the evidence, you’re no worse and perhaps better than some of us at saying stuff.
(Yes, I am encouraging you to be more than a lurker)
Tethys:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
A few threads ago someone posted a link to an online implicit association test site. It’s an interesting exercise to take a few of their tests to gauge unconscious bias.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
@ Taylor R. – #23:
Have a free, zombie porcupine and a smile!
For full offer details, see #751
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
ahhh
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Tethys, I took several of those early in the year. Passed them all with flying colours, which was not only nice, it was a relief.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
It’s impossible to fail when you take these tests.
The willingness to take the test means you pass.
I have a slight preference for white faces. I’m not surprised.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
ahs ॐ:
:)
It was scary, sitting down to do those tests, I kept thinking “oh gods, what if I’m a total asshole?”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
And where is the answer to the question, “what will change your mind”. I didn’t see that…Evidently, you can’t change your mind…
And what is wrong with my framing? You are wrong until you prove yourself right with evidence, not opinion. Welcome to science.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
There exists on the net the perfect place for you, they *love* framing.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
I have an implicit bias for thin people over fat.
eigenperson:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
I’m not convinced that the results of the IAT can be properly interpreted for individuals (as opposed to groups). When I took it a couple years ago, it showed that I had a moderate preference for black faces, which I doubt, because (1) I think the opposite is probably true and (2) I took another one which showed I had a slight preference for light skin. I suspect my particular results have more to do with the order in which the tasks were presented. The aggregate results, of course, compensate for this by randomizing the order.
On the other hand, I did do the “Presidents” one, which informed me that I have a strong preference for Abraham Lincoln as compared to George W. Bush. Well, they got that one right, for sure.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
SallyStrange:
I showed a slight preference for GLBT people over hetero people.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Me:
Which is true.
Dhorvath, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
I have an implicit bias for tests that run on my computer. Sad, I love these sorts of things.
Grace:
November 25th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Crys T says:
“Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself.”
“Because that would truly suck.”
Seriously? That’s all that was said? This caused you all go apeshit over the silly overreacting wimmin who can’t pick their fucking battles?
Poor PZ, I feel your despair over this irrational poster and the depths of triviality this comment conveys. You should have censored Crys T immediately for this outrage. Thank you, thank you for telling us lamebrains when to pick our ‘battles.’ Only the comment didnt’ sound like a battle cry, just a minor observation. But you needed to make a big deal out of this, of course, to prove women see sexism EVERYWHERE.
Don’t ever make a casual comment on the possible stereotyping of girls as dumb. You are guarunteed to get an 800 comment smackdown and have the blog owner mansplain’ that you need to shut the hell up because you are making him sad :( and you can’t prove girls are constantly portrayed as dumb and unscientific (well, actually you can).
So, what, another “Elevatorgate” here? “That would truly suck” is the new “don’t do that guys”?
chigau (本当):
November 25th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Grace
Did you miss reading a few of the comments?
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Nerd of Redhead:
Thank you for welcoming me to science. Thank you also for for bestowing upon me the hidden knowledge that when one asks questions (as opposed to “makes assertions”) one has to provide “evidence” and “prove” one’s questions, but that no such thing is needed when one is just making assertions about other people’s beliefs.
Also, since you think you love the scientific procedure so well, let me try once again: I was not making any assertions except that I thought the reaction to the bunnygate issue rather over the top. To understand the reaction better I posed a series of questions to know what definition of sexism you (and Pteryx) were using. I have repeated those questions four times on this thread now, and having done some science before, I think that would be considered an adequate enough explanation of my position.
Perhaps there is some other kind of science I missed learning about, where you just assume the other party has some beliefs, don’t say what they are, and go on claiming that they are not prepared to change their beliefs, while simultaneously refusing to listen to the other party when they try to point out that they have already made their position clear and are expecting an answer to a small set of well defined questions. At least in the kind of science I do to earn my living, that is considered a very unprofessional thing to do.
Grace:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
PZ’s little intro was quite enough for me.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Grace, please, read the damn thread before you do anymore yelling. It’s very tiring seeing people continuing to do this. If you did bother to read before screaming, you would have found that PZ changed his mind.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Grace:
I’m glad you’re so comfortable in your stupidity.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Circe, you have your own perspective and opinions. It came through loud and clear. To pretend that all you were doing was gathering data on other people’s viewpoints would be disingenuous.
Tethys:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
The age association test presents the findings as a positive negative scale with age groups placed accordingly.
I am biased towards children being good, young adults and elderly as neutral and middle aged slightly towards the negative end of neutral.
I’m not quite sure what to make of that.
Grace:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Was I yelling? You can hear me over the internet? PZ’s blog post was obnoxious and stupid. I see this shit and don’t feel like wading through a thousand comments. Maybe he should have added that he changed his mind ot the original thread. But really I don’t care anymore. This is just fucking stupid to have to deal with all the fucking time. In his Clockwork Orange post, now it’s been ‘pointed out’ that four men in the photo and no women is totally ‘sexist.’ Y’know. I’m stupid.
Grace:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Caine, Fleur du Mal
Go fuck yourself.
Dhorvath, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
I don’t know, PZ has a post that expresses a specific point of view, is it really fair to expect people to spend two hours catching up? I think a new post to clarify would be a nice touch.
chigau (本当):
November 25th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Grace
Between the first bunny post and this one there are over 1100 comments, some of them by PZ.
PZ’s “little intro” tells nothing like the whole story.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Tethys:
Really? I think I’d most likely tend to it being the other way.
Dhorvath:
It isn’t about fairness, it’s about having all the information and not putting your idiocy on display. FFS. PZ is under no obligation to make yet another fucking post about all this. Someone doesn’t want to bother reading? Fine, they don’t have to do so, however, they should be prepared when called out on it.
Tethys:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Grace
You are correct in your assessment, but nearly 24 hours late to the thread so you missed PZ agreeing that this is an example of stereotyping back in the 400 to 500 area.
We have moved on to self-bias assessment.
Carlie:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Fine. But don’t comment, then. You don’t want to listen to what other people are saying, then don’t butt in to the conversation.
Maybe not the whole thing, but the last 50 comments or so ought to be an easy thing to expect people to read before they comment.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
[meta]
Grace:
Yet it didn’t stop you from writing “You are guarunteed to get an 800 comment smackdown”.
(Argument from ignorance, how does it fuckin’ work?)
Carlie:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Grace – if you refuse to read what others have to say, why on earth should they read what you have to say?
Alethea H. Claw:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Yeah Grace, you can relax. It got better.
Dhorvath, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Caine,
That idiot is indicating how most of the people who encounter this post are reacting to it: without reading the comments. Sure it would be nice if they all had the time and inclination to catch up on the whole picture, but most of them either can’t or won’t do so. You seem comfortable dismissing them because they don’t do so, I am not sure I can follow you there.
And I don’t think PZ has any obligation, I do think that he will be misrepresented though.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
John:
Something to do with magnets, I think.
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Catching up… thanks, Caine. You’re a frickin’ awesomenessmachine.
Nicoleandmaggie:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Some might disagree that his “revelation” at #430 is actually “PZ agreeing that this is an example of stereotyping.”
He only agrees because the author flat-out admitted that was his intent. If the author had just flipped a coin, he claims it would not still have been a sexist outcome.
CPP points out that one does not have to be intentionally sexist to in fact, be sexist. http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/2011/11/25/skeptic-skepticize-yourself/ Intentional sexism is only a small part of sexism. Intent is irrelevant. If you unintentionally step on someone’s toe, you still cause pain.
We also point out that one does not actually need to make the two discussants of different genders. If gender isn’t a point then make both male, both female, or both different animals of indeterminate gender. One doesn’t even need to flip a coin.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Dhorvath:
Then they have no business commenting. Those who are intellectually honest and have an actual interest in the discussion manage to read the thread, or at least skim it.
People who simply want to scream or troll or repeat something which has been posted 500 times already aren’t interested in a discussion.
This gets played out every time there’s a long thread, and people who do want a discussion manage to handle the thread. The screamers, trolls and other assorted idiots don’t need someone being all concerned about them refusing to use their little brains to figure out what’s going on.
As for fairness, it’s hardly fair to those who have read the thread to continually summarize for those who can’t be arsed. If someone wants their contributions to be considered, they can damn well take the time to see what other people’s contributions were.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Pteryxx:
:D So are you! Thank you so much for catching and correcting all those who were so intent on distorting the issues.
chigau (本当):
November 25th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
If you don’t know what the conversation is about and you cannot be bothered to find out what the conversation is about it would be better to close the tab and move on without commenting.
David Marjanović, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Prediction confirmed: PZ doesn’t read every comment on this thread. So, to increase the chances that PZ will read these arguments that have all already been made several times now, I’ll repeat them:
No. The question is whether it promotes it.
What do you mean by “the man”? There didn’t have to be any man in this cartoon. Or any woman, for that matter.
Good. The link to that evidence was already posted in comments 115, 119, and 138. It’s shameful that you jumped in somewhere around comment 300 and didn’t care about what was written before.
When you don’t have time to read a thread, why do you add to it?
Why?
Because… he… didn’t… read… enough… of… the… thread… before… commenting… on… it.
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
…Wow.
He actually says “the lurkers support me in e-mail”.
I’m out of words!
Granted, but how much damage can it really do? Nigger and cracker aren’t comparable to each other…
It pays off, though. Tardigrades are teh awsum.
Happiness is a warm cat. ^_^
Whoa.
…where “the girl” is a role just like “the hero”, “the rival”, “the mentor”… *headdesk*
“Smurfette Principle” is a good name for it.
Yes, but there aren’t many of us. And even I picked up the pink/blue dichotomy quite quickly, for example – I can’t remember ever having not known it.
BZZZT! Does not compute.
Why use these rabbits and not something else?
QFT.
That means you didn’t have time to reply to the original blog post!
In a very twisted way, this is… awesome. So bad it’s good.
Why?
…which would be… somehow… utterly horrible or something. Downright scary to even imagine. Right?
*long, drawn-out toothy yawn*
We’re Vulcans without the kolinahr. And baboons are pretty awesome.
Most languages lack grammatical gender even in personal pronouns. The Indo-European (like English) and Afro-Asiatic (like Arabic) languages are actually the odd ones out.
As I just said: if you don’t have time to read, you don’t have time to write.
No. It originated to be derisive of people who said “oh look – you used a bad word/don’t verbally cuddle me enough; this proves you don’t have any arguments at all whatsoever, and I can safely ignore everything you say”.
It should become a textbook example once somebody writes the textbook.
Please write your comments carefully, Cameron. It was not at all obvious that you meant it the way you meant it.
When I started writing scientific papers, my PhD supervisor taught me two things: you will be misunderstood (by someone, sometime, somewhere), and therefore it’s your responsibility to minimize the number of opportunities at which you could be misunderstood.
If they want to contribute – yes, absolutely. I just spent four and a half hours catching up instead of going to bed.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
For Grace… but also everyone else, especially the lurkers afraid to comment:
when I comment without reading the entire thread, there are often good reasons, but I always announce that I haven’t read & am prepared to take my lumps if I’m bringing up something that has been said & dealt with quite a number of times.
Honestly, I would prefer a friendlier response to people who do this, but it does guarantee that when I comment without reading, that I always comment in response to particular, specific things and try to say something that is unlikely to have been said many times by others. This makes my posts better.
And there is an arrogance to posting without reading. Not that I think it’s not understandable, but yeah, to see a thread with 1200 posts and assume, “I don’t have to read that, I’ll just say what’s on the top of my brain & it will certainly contribute to the discussion,” comes across to others as, “Y’all are so stupid that what popped to the top of my brain after reading the OP is unlikely to have emerged in a discussion of only 1200 comments over 18 hours involving 100 or more people.”
I get that. And this is PZs blog. Not mine. He runs it how he runs it. He prefers a blog that stomps on stupidity, even if that makes it seem intimidating or unfriendly to some folk. He’s consistent about that, so that even when the stupidity is of a very common type, like failing to read the thread and assuming you have something unique to contribute anyway (which, judging by my own impulses and the number of times I’ve seen others do it, is quite a common form of stupidity), he’s perfectly fine with allowing the horde to jump on that as well.
And the thing is, even if I’m slightly more mild mannered than some, that doesn’t make me **better** mannered than those others: In the context of pharyngula, stomping on stupid is valued for the way it sharpens the discussion over the long haul. People are forced to think about the points that they are making, lest they face the wrath of the horde. It’s a very different way to think about what constitutes being polite, but in the community that PZ has created, (dare I say it?) it is polite and a favor to others to encourage the Darwinian honing of arguments through the crushing of unsuccessful memes and practices.
I am far more ruthless on this blog than I am elsewhere, because I understand its values. I’ve handed out as many porcupines on this thread as anyone else, even if I do it with a little less profanity along the way. And the beautiful thing? People who express themselves in ways that I wouldn’t express myself give me permission to pass out porcupines. I might feel far too reticent to do such a thing if others weren’t doing it all the time. That, in turn, makes me more useful in clamping down on certain tropes that I am more likely to notice than other commenters (we all have our certain areas of expertise).
I can be sympathetic to certain people when I read statements directed at others. I sometimes even cringe. But I never tell people not to do it, not least because this isn’t my community to run. I respect the rules and the mores, and I can appreciate how they are functional.
It may sound unfriendly, but there really are lots of other communities on the internet where discussion takes place under very different rules. This place makes space for good argument, and it helps create that space by stomping on bad argument – including argument that is redundant or that is oblivious to the discussion happening all around that argument.
I dont’ want people that get stomped on to go away. I want them to learn about the community & become better and more productive contributors. But that process isn’t painless. The very first time I commented on Pharyngula, PZ himself took notice and called me “anal” and some other words implying that I had very little intelligence on offer. A good half dozen of the regulars roundly criticized me. I still think I was right: PZ used sloppy language that included a vast over-generalization. Others pointed out that, in context, one should be able to understand that he didn’t mean the generalization, even though it was the literal and obvious meaning of the words he wrote. And they weren’t wrong. But I’m passionate about words and want people to say what they mean. I didn’t feel PZ did that.
I will not lie: that stung. I felt swarmed by the regulars even before PZ weighed in, which he rarely does, pace this thread. But I continued to lurk, and reminded myself what I knew before I posted the first time: regulars get in spats with each other all the time, and language much stronger has been used between other regulars that was directed toward me that day. And, mostly, those people had significant points of agreement and/or friendly discussions on other threads.
It feels personal when we get called out for saying something that either is a bad argument or is a bad comment for another reason (like the content is redundant with multiple other comments and the writer should have known that before commenting). But no one hunts you down. It feels as if we are being called stupid when are arguments are stomped – in fact, often times, we literally are being called stupid. Yet, if you come back a second time and make an argument that contributes, it will be welcomed.
This truly is a meritocracy. It has it’s own rules, and they can be intimidating. However, the rules are there for a reason. What is rude elsewhere is politeness here, In fact, while atrocious comments will get massive attention, the second worst response a comment can receive is sometimes silence.
So, Grace and all you lurkers out there: Please, let yourself be stomped at least as many times as I have. When you get stomped, read what was said. It is almost always clear what you could have done differently to avoid the stomping. When it isn’t clear, ask for clarification. In fact, demand it: if they can’t do you the courtesy of stomping with clarity, the by all means, stomp the fuckwit back – and hard – until they learn to put a useful line of reasoning in with their porcupines.
Soon you’ll be as valued as anyone with an OM, and, not incidentally, you’ll be better at arguing your point.
Dhorvath, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Caine,
You are of course correct that it happens regularly and is deeply aggravating.
I doubt that on a different day I would have said anything and I am sure that I don’t want to have this argument. There is something about this that feels odd to me, but it’s not the time to dig into it. I have not had much part in this conversation, I am following but not stringing my thoughts well enough today to participate, which should have been my cue to continue reading and not chime in. My apologies for making this thread harder.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Whoa, what? About comment #2 by Crys T? No he didn’t, Caine. No he didn’t. His last comment on the matter:
Note that ‘Tis Himself responded then at #793, and you said shawnthesheep’s comment—”Poster #2 in the original bunny thread jumped to a conclusion of sexism”—was “pure assholism. Crys T’s post was an observation and a request for other opinions.”
I agree with your reply to shawnthesheep, but look twice. Shawnthesheep is agreeing with PZ.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Chigau:
QFT.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Sally:
I had my perspective, and I put is forward. Then I put some questions to understand the other perspective, and then “Nerd of Redhead” started to ask me for “evidence” for those “questions” and generally showing off how impeccable his/her knowledge of the scientific method is, without bothering to even acknowledge the existence of those questions: indeed, even going to the extent of saying I has a closed mind and wouldn’t change my mind for anything. And yet some of the same people who go ballistic when somebody says they hadn’t read all the comments call me “disingenuous”. That seems to be all the data I have so far.
Tethys:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Nicoleandmaggie,
All of your points have been extensively covered in this long ass thread. PZ agreed. He is a good ally who made a small error which he has acknowledged.
I suspect he will write another post on the subject after some well earned holiday R&R.
By all means continue to discuss unconscious bias, but I myself am weary of people rushing in to do battle without having read the entire thread.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
ahs:
I didn’t specify that, so don’t be jumping on me. I said PZ changed his mind. He did. If someone wants to know the details of that, they can read the damn thread.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Well, I’m a terminal degreed 30+ year practitioner of science, a hard science. What are your qualifications to talk about science?
Yep, opinion. Now what evidence backs up that opinion so I should take it seriously, and not dismiss it for UNEVIDENCED OPINION? Quit arguing like a philosopher/lawyer. Try arguing as a person of evidence, not questions, must.
Wrong. Science is not about bloviating philosophical questions. Science is about evidence and falsification. Which is why I keep asking you what evidence will change your mind, which is the crucial question for science. Still no answer to a simple question. You are preaching. And will be considered a preacher who is to be blown off until you do. Welcome to real science, not your inane version of it.
physioprof:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
How fucken difficult is it to understand that the internal mental state of the cartoonist who drew the motherfucken bunny cartoon is 100% completely totally absolutely irrelevant to the analysis of the relationship between the motherfucken bunny cartoon and the systemic misogyny that permeates our society?
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
[meta]
Crip Dyke @87, I find that a most excellent comment, and one that people should peruse.
Kudos.
(To those who may have skipped it as TL;DR, I encourage you to do so)
–
PS I want you to know that I have a lot of respect for you (and that not based on that single comment, either!).
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Oh, but Caine.
He did not change his mind about the exact thing that Grace took issue with. So your reply to Grace is, at best, misleading.
(Extra lulz for smacking down shawnthesheep while defending PZ. It’s surrealist comedy?)
+++++
Also this:
+++++
Yep.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
@ John Morales – #96
Why…thank you!
chigau (本当):
November 25th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
physioprof
The cartoonest was an Alien?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Phyioprof:
I don’t think it is completely irrelevant.
I’m going to call you out on using systemic misogyny, too. There is a difference between entrenched, tired sexist tropes and misogyny. Much of the time, when sexist tropes are used, they are simply used by those who haven’t given the status quo much thought. Those are people who are able to have their awareness raised and are able to learn from the situation.
Someone who is soaking in misogyny is likely to have far different motivations and isn’t interested in learning.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Questions are philosophical, not evidence based. Your questions need evidence for falsification one way or the other. You must supply that evidence, not, as the person making the assertion. Where is your evidence, not bloviated opinion????
shawnthesheep:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
#39
I didn’t simply state that I was not sexist because I had female friends. I said that in the context of a larger discussion about me being labeled a sexist asshole. That might not have been the exact terminology used, but I don’t think I misinterpreted some of the insulting things that people were saying about me based on my opinion of the bunnies.
The reason I even bothered to respond again was to make a larger point. I am a feminist. It does not matter if the people on this board believe it, because it happens to be true. I’m on your side. No, I’m not a woman. No, I will never know what it’s like to be a woman. But, sometimes, people inside a group can learn things from the observations and opinions of someone outside the group. Sometimes, when a group has been oppressed for so long and suffered so much discrimination they see enemies where there are none.
That’s my point. Agree with it, don’t. It’s up to you. But if you judge me differently for my opinion because I’m a man and a feminist instead of a woman and a feminist, then perhaps you should examine your own gender bias, just as I try to examine my own.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Prove your assertion, not just make it. Otherwise, how to you know you aren’t wrong. And what will change you mind about this situation? If you can’t come up with something, you are preaching, not discussing.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
#94 Nerd of Redhead:
Nice to know. I am not a terminal degreed practitioner of science, but I would just say that I am not even 30 years of age yet, but I also do a “hard” science for my living. I’d also point out that this is not a slinging match about who has more “experience” in science. Indeed, proofs by authority are rather looked down upon wherever I have worked and it was you who played the authority card (which I must confesses, would have somewhat diluted my respect for you as a scientist if I actually knew you).
Need I point out we are not doing hard science here? As I have noted n number of times so far, I expressed an opinion, and then asked a few questions to test my understanding about the definition of “sexism” being used to formulate the other opinion (which is presumably your opinion too). As far as I see there is no hard “evidence” that can be presented here, since one’s definition of “sexism” is what one’s opinion hinges on. The only possible exception might be if the author himself states that he wanted to portray women in general in a bad light, which as I see was claimed on the thread, but was debunked. Given that avenue is closed, I asked a few questions to see if I got my definition of “sexism” the same as that of others. And yet somehow I get called for practicing an “inane” version of science (presumable all non-inane scientists get their science ratified by you: I am sorry as a junior scientist I failed to notice that was a requirement).
To me the telling thing is that there is still no attempt you have made to answer those questions: it seems you are just more interested in calling me inane, flaunting your experience with science, and repeating the word “evidence” ad infinitum. To which I ask, what would make you change your mind? I claim the only possible answer is “evidence that my definition of sexism is slightly different from yours”, which is what I have been asking so far. I should also point out my question were not “bloviating philosophical” questions: they were very clear applications of the definition of sexism which seemed to be in use in declaring the cartoon sexist, to other scenarios. In the hard science I do, that is considered a very valuable method: take a concept and stretch it to its limits to understand it properly. In fact, some of the “30+ years experienced terminal degreed” practitioners in my field (which I am not) would claim it is one of the most valuable tools in all of the field.
Also I would very much prefer if we kept “proofs by authority” out of it. I have pointed out you are much more experienced to me, and also that in science that does not constitute that your ideas are correct and mine are not. I have also pointed that you started imposing proof by intimidation and authority on me, and I reassert that I would not embarrass all the teachers and mentors I have had by falling for it.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
shawnthesheep, this one’s for you:
http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-they-get-to-decide-whats-racist.html
Yep. That is all true.
But you also don’t have to fight your allies when they decide something is important to them and you don’t see why. You can instead go off and spend your time doing something you think is more important.
You want to hang out in this thread and fight about it? Be our guest, shawn, but you’re going to be offered some porcupines. You are making extra work for your ostensible allies.
SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu:
November 25th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
I judge you because you said you “revere” women. As in, “all women.” I judge you to be either stupid or lying. If you sincerely believe that my gender identity entitles me to your love or reverence then I mistrust your intelligence. If you’re not sincere then I mistrust your motives. The thing is, I usually only hear this sort of idiocy about adoring ALL members of a certain gender from the mouths of men, so I imagine that being a man plays into it, but I’m not stupid enough to think that the mere possession of a penis (or preference for male gender identity) automatically makes you into an idiot who offers undeserved reverence to 50% of the human race.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Science, you are doing it wrong. YOUR DEFINITION is the one in question, and what you must defend. Nada ,zip,zilch zero. Your method to to put us on the defensive. Now, lay out your evidence required for you to change your mind. Until you do, you are preaching, not discussing, doing, science, or even philosophy. If you can’t be wrong, you can’t be right.
Why should I answer your inane questions when you refuse to answer my one question? As everybody here has noticed. Why are you so afraid of that question? A very simple question any scientist is familiar with. But you must not like the implications of that question. That you might be WRONG. And as far as I am concerned, until you answer it, you are wrong.
Grace:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Carlie says:
“Grace – if you refuse to read what others have to say, why on earth should they read what you have to say?”
Carlie I didn’t “refuse” to read what others had to say. I read the blog post. And then read a few of the gazillion comments to find the offending post PZ was referring to. And suprise! A very mild comment on how it looked like typical stereotyping saying girls:dumb, boys:logical. I wanted to see what started this whole Sometimes A Bunny Is A Just Bunny post by PZ that vilified the second poster as somehow ruining feminism and how “This is the WRONG BATTLE” and “I have never seen feminism reduced to such appalling depths of triviality.”
My problem is with PZ blog post. It was arrogant and patronizing, unbelievably so. And yes, I saw the sheer volumne of comments and, not being a masochist, didn’t jump in and read them all. (I’ve learned a lot from the “elevatorgate” fiasco).
Again that is irrelevent since I read the original blog post and the comment PZ referred to that he found so offensive. Sorry that my psychic abilities are so rusty, I had no idea PZ retracted his original assessment of the sad state of female commenters who don’t know when to pick their battles and are wallowing in trivialities. Oh wait, he actually didn’t. Thanks ahs ॐ.
So his OP stands and my comment also stands.
Then I saw latest Pharyngula post and the few comments that are implying women see sexism everywhere (it’s still going). That post doesn’t have a thousand comments. But PZ set the tone and it seems the fellas are quite comfortable saying women get in a “tizzy” over sexism and cute bunnies (I like how PZ kept throwing “cute” in there…because only a psycho could see sexism in cute little bunnies!) So now it seems like it’s common knowledge that women are irrational and overreact to sexism here at Pharyngula.
@shawnthesheep “But if you judge me differently for my opinion because I’m a man and a feminist instead of a woman and a feminist, then perhaps you should examine your own gender bias, just as I try to examine my own.”
Oh, dear Gawd. I often go to African-American blogs and tell people how my opinion as a white person is just as valid as their lifetime experience being subjected to racism, and they’re totally racists if they judge me as if I didn’t have a lifetime of experience dealing with racism. And I certainly tell them when I think they are overreacting because they’re not a good judge of what is racist because they see racism, like, everywhere so they are totally biased. (no, actually I don’t, because that would be ludicrous).
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
shawnthesheep:
First of all, people have nyms, Shawnthesheep. Use them.
Sure, people can learn from observations of others. People in this thread have been trying like hell to get you to pay attention to their observations about your attitudes. You aren’t listening.
You did not address my post to you @388, you have not addressed anyone else who has a problem with your whole “I love women” shtick and you are insistent that your point of view is more valuable and right than that of any woman in this thread.
Any time a woman does address something you’ve said, you handwave and dismiss it.
Being a feminist doesn’t hand anyone a I can’t fuck up! card, either. Your continued stress of how you are a feminist seems to indicate that you feel your credibility is threatened. It isn’t, so cool down on that. Yes, you’re a feminist. That’s great. However, you keep sliding into areas where you aren’t helping, such as implying that SallyStrange has a problem with you because you are a man and feminist. Nope. Get off that one right away, please.
Like myself, SallyStrange doesn’t have a problem with men. We both have a problem with assholes.
You are quite blind in several areas and people keep trying to let you know that. Consider if multiple people are all saying the same thing to you, there’s a good probability that the problem does lie with you.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
I do not like this shawnthesheep, but there’s a reason he’s feeling his feminist cred questioned. It was questioned.
I would rather look the other way while y’all eat him alive, but it was just a couple weeks ago that I was whinging how self-identified feminists who are not obviously lying MRA fuckweasels ought to be afforded recognition of their identification.
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Nerd of Redhead: How many times do I have to say this. My definition of sexism might not be the one people here believe. And possibly, yes, I could even be proved wrong in a real scientific sense (rather than in Nerd of Redhead “what I say is science” sense) by presenting evidence that my opinion carried no weight because the original author himslef/herself intended to portray women in a bad light. So far none of that has happened, as I pointed out before. The only other evidence that would make make me change my mind is if you show me that you definition does not lead us to seduce “sexism” in the scenarios I presented in my questions. And sorry,just because everybody here believe that their definition of “sexism” is the right one, that does not make it the null hypothesis.
You are doing the science wrong, by mixing it with proofs from intimidation, authority and majority, and by implying that your definition of “sexism” is the one that everybody has to adhere to. There is not, and I have been trying to see exactly how you apply you definition of “sexism” to scenarios you presented to understand it better and to change mine if I see that is the right thing to do. I am perfectly willing to change my mind, and I have stated ample number of time what would induce me to. But at the risk of repeating myself, all I get is flawed claims about the scientific method backed with the weight of implied authority.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
[meta]
Grace:
So… you didn’t refuse to do so, you merely chose not to do so.
(Sophistry is sophistic)
I do not think that word (‘stands’) means what you think it means. :)
To you, perhaps; certainly not to me.
You write that as if it were the conclusion to an argument you’ve made, rather than as a re-statement of your own perception.
When it comes to sarcasm, you try too hard and you do it very poorly.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
ahs:
I’m not looking to eat him alive, I’d prefer he start using his brain and being honest, which he is not doing at the moment. Whether or not it goes to Bread and Circuses is up to him now.
Cesar Hechler:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
I have to qualify what I say here with an ‘I’ve read the thread’ and, as someone else pointed out, if someone has been bitten by a pit bull they have every right to be afraid of dogs. The people who have complained about sexism have a very valid point, their experiences have made them much more aware of the issue than others. However, sometimes the message isn’t obscured by a social faux pas. Upon showing the cartoon to the women in the house the only responses were, ‘OOOOOH! Tzing! Score one for our side!’ and the gender-related comment, ‘Ha, funny…hey, why is the bunny’s top falling off?’ Maybe, if we’re lucky, the piece will be redone with costumes off and neutral talk balloons. Wagner and Lovecraft don’t have to be discarded for racism, just as this piece, or at least an edited version, shouldn’t be tossed in file 13 for sexism.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
[meta]
Nerd @107: “YOUR DEFINITION [of “sexism”] is the one in question, and what you must defend.”
Circe @111: “You are doing the science wrong, [...] by implying that your definition of “sexism” is the one that everybody has to adhere to. ”
–
Circe, it doesn’t look good when you lie about what Nerd has written.
Grace:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Thanks for the nitpicking there John Morales. You do it poorly. I stand BY my statement just as PZ stands by his original assesment.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
I would rather look the other way while y’all eat him aliveI don’t know what came over me.
I would rather watch while y’all eat him alive.
Just wanted to point out, that comment from Gregory is probably where his insecurity began.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
[meta]
Grace, my nitpicking might be poor, but nonetheless it encouraged you to correct your phrasing so that what you’ve written expresses what you actually meant.
(You are welcome)
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
ahs:
Probably. I’m trying to work right now (and obviously not very hard), so I’m not going to go back and search every interaction. Thanks for the pointer, though, because after Gregory’s post, shawnthesheep seemed to really up the “I’m gay!” and “I loves women!” and “I’m a feminist, I’m on your side!” stuff.
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
But, wtf. My comment about that is best directed at Gregory anyway.
I would rather look the other way while y’all eat him aliveI don’t know what came over me.
I would rather watch while y’all eat him alive.
Grace:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
@John Morales
I’m so very grateful (sarcasm, poorly executed by my lamebrain of course).
Circe:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
@John Morales: I made my statement clearer in the same post, by stating explicitly that Nerd was assuming her definition was the null hypothesis, which is indeed what she was doing. But I agree, taken by itself without the context of the post, that sentence does seem to be misrepresenting her position. I apologize for the lack of clarity in writing.
@Nerd of Redhead: I think I would leave now to go and do my day job (aka: trying to prove stuff). Thanks for affording me a great break, and for reinforcing the age-old lesson that a young scientist should always be wary of proofs from authority. Sorry for any personal remarks I may have made, but I stand by my comments that I was not provided the evidence I stated would change my definitions/opinions, and also that this not for want of asking. It was a pleasure arguing with a scientist as experienced as you. I wish I knew you and could also have had the opportunity of perusing your scientific work, but in the interests of internet anonymity, that is sadly not to be.
Good night (assuming you are in the Western Hemisphere) and have a great weekend!
ahs ॐ:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Something went wonky with my connection and I didn’t realize I was successfully posting. Sorry about the double post.
I lol’d.
Cameron:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
@David Marjanović, OM.
Yup, fair enough. I plan on doing my masters once I’m done with my degree so I should learn to be clear in my comments now rather than later.
Couldn’t find the page where all the other responses are and this is the only response to me on this page. Think everyone gets what I was trying to say now.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 25th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Come on, Shaun, don’t disappoint us. I’ve got a nice bit of brie sitting in the refrigerator that needs some bread to be truly appreciated.
Tethys:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Circe
You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills Circe.
I am getting a good laugh out of the latest iteration of the “Nerd is the only woman on pharyngula” trope.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Then why are you trying to ram it down our throats?
Ah, intent versus reality. Sorry, the author did deliberately used the female as the religious one. Intent. He used the colors pink and blue for balloons for the female and male respectively. Intent. You lose. Intent isn’t reality, but it made it so in this case.
Why should I play your game? I’m not doing that. You aren’t the boss here, and you are really pretending you are the authority, and you have been behaving ina manner that is typical of what we call the MRA brigade in trying to ram your definitions and opinions down our throats through sheer persistence. Why aren’t the folks here entitled to our opinions that differ from yours? Why must you keep persisting aggressively attempting to change our minds? It is people like you how have made this thread so long. Those who disagree with us, and can’t put up the evidence to change our minds, or just state their case, and then fade back into the bandwidth like a civil person would do, are those who have blown up the thread and caused the flamewars. So, what is your problem in that, since you have stated your case, and nobody is agreeing with you, you can’t just fade civilly fade into the bandwidth? What ego is causing you to require us to submit to your opinions?
I’ve never said you have to agree with me. Just that in order to convince me, you need to supply the evidence I asked for in my first response to you. And you haven’t done so. So I don’t.
You may not like my questions, but introspection is needed on your part. For me, bed time.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Tethys:
It’s a trope for a reason. :D It is interesting to see how many people can’t read Nerd’s nym correctly.
John Morales:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
[OT + meta]
Cameron:
Look above the comment box, over ‘Leave a Reply’, where it has a link labelled « Older Comments. That link will take you there.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
John:
:sigh: I wish you had let him stay lost and wandering, John. Oh well.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
‘Tis:
Are you humming Send in the Clowns?
Pteryxx:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Caught up now, more or less. Mostly I’m responding to Circe; partly to summarize my own comments spread over this thread, and partly because Circe keeps complaining that nobody’s addressed ‘ir list of specific examples aimed at me. So yeah. It’s easy enough to do a Find on my comments, but apparently ‘e wants the personal treatment.
To Circe: I don’t think your supposed questions need to be addressed at all, because all you did was misstate my position as a true-false argument, and then parody it with a list of yes-no checkboxes (in your #690 and #781 if anyone cares to look). From #690:
Which misrepresents #258, where I had clarified my argument to you:
And my original argument in #19 was:
I pointed out the same unfortunate association that others have critiqued. But all over this thread, those arguments have been misrepresented as extreme and absolute. Usually in the form of statements such as “you expect women to NEVER be the dumb ones” and similar. I called out those absolutist caricatures posing as legitimate critiques in #241 and #258 (along with my #275, 392, 402, 421… okay, most of my contribution to this thread.)
By misrepresenting my objections to this cartoon as FLAG + FLAG = SEXISM, you’re making a similarly flawed argument. In spite of everything I’ve said, you still insist on an absolute, binary view. Perhaps you think I can provide some sort of sexism dipstick test that you can stick into any given situation on your list and get a + or – result. That is not and was never my point.
To assume that of me, you must have failed to comprehend any of my call-outs of absolutism. You missed #145 where I said the gendering went too far and I suggested changing the speech bubbles’ color to compensate. You missed my entire conversation with Ganner, including my statement from #318:
You missed #340 and #398 where I mentioned how subtle this particular instance was. And, you missed my response to Liesmith at #392, where I gave examples of negative female characters that I don’t consider stereotypical to prove that such characters exist.
I even cited and linked to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic as an example of what I consider acceptable female characters, even though they have blatantly stereotypical aspects. From my #392:
I think I’d adequately established that the mere presence of stereotypical elements does not make a work sexist in and of itself, before you ever began demanding answers to your list. I’d be glad to have a conversation with someone who actually understood that concept.
So my answer to you at #699 stands:
And maybe that will help show you the difference between a cute girly character that’s sexist, and a cute girly character that I can respect and stand behind.
Those youtube links again:
Best Night Ever part 1
Best Night Ever part 2
*goes to watch*
chigau (本当):
November 25th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
Why are only women defined by hair-colour?
redhead
blonde
brunette
[/rhetorical]
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Chigau:
That’s what has always amused me the most about the assumption that Nerd is female. People see ‘Redhead’ and it automagically equates to ‘woman’, as if there are no men with red hair.
Tethys:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Circe quoting Circe
You clearly do not get the discussion and you completely misunderstood what pteryxx was saying.
Then you go on to interpret the xkcd comic in a grossly idiotic manner. Let me correct your misconceptions.
Being a mother is feminine due to biology.
Giving people diminutive nicknames is not inherently feminine.
So ergo…No sexism.
You also missed the actual point of the comic.
Panel A-B Shows a mother on the phone to her son’s school because of some computer issues.
Panel C reveals that her sons name is Robert) ; Drop Table Students aka Little Bobby Tables. (It’s a computer code command you dolt, guess what it does?)
Panel D School “We’ve lost this years students records, I hope your happy.” Mom: “And I hope you’ve learned to sanitize your database inputs.”
Your examples show you don’t even have a basic grasp of the concept of sexist stereotypes. They do show that you consistently fail to read for content and have a highly suspect definition of sexism.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Tethys:
I’ve noticed for quite some time now that whenever Circe shows up in a feminist or sexism thread, xe is always vaguely on the side of the sexism and finding a myriad of problems with whatever feminists have to say on any given subject.
I imagine hir definition of sexism is…interesting.
Allie:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Grace–I completely agree with you. PZ’s post is wrong and patronizing. I don’t need to be told which battles to pick, kthanks. And also the cries on the other thread (and here) about how we’re ‘hurting the movement’ are ridiculous, not the least because I consider sexism to be a much bigger problem in our society–and one that affects me daily more deeply–than anti-atheist bigotry (not religiosity, note. I would probably judge those to be equally pernicious, if I had the ability to judge them.)
Caine–Where did PZ change his position? Certainly not in the OP and I read all 344 comments of the last thread (some here are saying there are 800+ comments but I see PZ closing the thread at 344. Is there another place where ppl are commenting?)
General–I had my 13-year old look at the first frame of the comment and said, “Tell me about these bunnies.” And she immediately said, “They are stuffed and cute. And one’s a boy and one’s a girl.” So easy a 13-year old can see it!
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 25th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Allie:
It’s comment #430 of this thread. Pagination kicks in once 800 posts are reached. See the ‘Older comments’ right above ‘Leave a Reply’? Click that for the first page.
Allie:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Eep, nm, John Morales answered by question @ #129. /blinders off
HAVE I BEEN MISSING ALL THESE COMMENTS THE ENTIRE TIME I’VE BEEN READING THIS BLOG????
Yes. Yes, I have.
Tethys:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Caine
I think it gets read as Nerd the Redhead, rather than Nerd of Redhead. Oops, there’s that reading comprehension thing again.
On a rather depressing note, the only other thing that I can think of that is identified by its hair color is horses ie; paint roan, bay, dappled gray. (sorry cicely!)
John Morales:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:07 am
chigau,
So, I did a quick-and-dirty check on this by plugging those terms alone into Google Images.
(Warning: If you want to replicate my method but pr0n bothers you, use the “Safe Search” option*. Seriously.)
I note that the results are overwhelmingly** (if not universally) indicative that you are, indeed, quite correct.
–
* I personally never use it, but then I’m not normal.
** I am not using hyperbole, either!
Allie:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:10 am
John,
Unsurprising. A woman’s worth has traditionally (been and still is) associated with her beauty/physical attributes.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:18 am
Well, a woman’s hair has always been a specific focus. “A woman’s hair is her crowning glory.” and all that. There’s also been the traditional notion that a woman should always have long hair, and it should be bound up in public, the
ownerhusband being the only one who should see it in its, er, full glory.Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:48 am
@ Caine – #130:
Arrrgghh. I am so with you. Especially after #6. He really deserved to wander…
Cesar Hechler:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:48 am
If hair hadn’t been turned into a ‘thing’ the entire ‘product’ cosmetics industry would collapse. There would be widespread panicking and economic catastrophe! Oh, too late for that…nevermind.
Anyway…
Fructis 2in1: $2.95
or
Hair Salon Product: $49.95
Definitely looks like someone is being scammed there.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:53 am
Crip Dyke:
I’d like to think he’d take a hint, but seeing as it’s fick as a brick Cameron, I won’t hold my breath.
John Morales:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:01 am
[meta]
Ack! I’d forgotten about Crip Dyke’s #6; I properly should’ve referred to that in my #129 (which, though ostensibly aimed at Cameron, was really for any new readers).
(My bad)
chigau (本当):
November 26th, 2011 at 1:16 am
Woman-as-hair could also account for the “feminist hair” thing.
link
I wasn’t going to link to that thread but it’s all cleaned up now.
We all just look like we’re talking to an imaginary “friend”.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:21 am
Chigau:
It could, as in “you did unnatural things to your hair, you ___!” and feminist is replacing slut.
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom:
November 26th, 2011 at 2:02 am
[meta]
I don’t know if I’m just being naively optimistic here or what, but I’ve noticed over the last couple of “feminism” threads (bar the bunny one PZ closed), it ended with a good and interesting discussion on gender and bias related things rather than STILL trying to get some trolls sorted until they loose interest and wander off.
For me, this is incredible. I love it.
[/meta]
Grace:
November 26th, 2011 at 2:23 am
Hi Allie,
Thanks! I just was amazed at how tame the original comment was that made PZ think all da femanists were wigging out/getting in a tizzy over nothing.
This:
“Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself.”
“Because that would truly suck.” – Crys T.
Sounds like a pretty tame thing to say, no? Not like some World War 3 battle cry? Jeez!
Tethys:
November 26th, 2011 at 2:42 am
It amazes me that such simple observations as “That would suck” and “Guys, dont do that.” get turned into flamewars.
It was the #11 killjoy comment that really got the battle going though, don’t blame ChrysT.
ibbica:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:23 am
I feel the need to ask:
If the comic was redone with naked bunnies and green & yellow speech bubbles…. what would the resulting discussion be? What would YOU (i.e. anyone reading this comment) have bothered to say about it?
Sure, it might have been meant by PZ as a simple “hey, look at this, it’s funny ‘cuz it’s true” quickie post (and if not, I do apologize for that assumption). That can be nice from time to time, and I respect PZ’s decision to make of his blog what he will. But I typically look to other sites for that sort of thing and have come to expect more substance from this particular blog.
Frankly, I for one have found *this* discussion to be far more interesting (and even, to some, enlightening!) than any “on topic” discussion that could have resulted from PZ’s audience reading what amounts to a statement along the lines of “Fundamentalists can’t see past their own fundamentalism” (and no, I don’t consider obvious trolls to be “interesting”). But perhaps I’m simply lacking in imagination.
A. R:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:36 am
ibbica: We would have probably had an enlightening conversation about the stupidity and evidence-blindness of religious people and ended the thread at one hundred or so comments. But the moment any thread takes a feminist bent, the trolls come streaming in (how the fuck do they know what we’re talking about anyway) and you get a gigantic megathread like this one.
KG:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:52 am
Are we supposed to be impressed by your level of education? There are plenty of regulars here with doctorates, but it’s the quality of your arguments here that matters.
KG:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:53 am
You forgot to tell us that your girlfriend doesn’t think it’s sexist.
Giliell, the woman who said Good-bye to Kitty:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:56 am
Gunboat Diplomat
Helllo-ooo, cupcake, where have you been those last few decades of cultural theory?
Yep, context matters. And this cartoon doesn’t have an artistic context of being embedded in the broader work of the artist or an exhibition. It’s stand-alone, it doesn’t come with an explenation or disclaimer what the artist was thinking.
And, just standing alone, whether the artist intended it or not, it reinforces stereotypes.
You don’t need to understand postmodernism to understand that.
municipalis
The problem with your argument is that (I’m consciously over-generalizing now) your child gets Hemingway all day long. There never is anything else in school or popculture except Hemingway and a few others like him. And Rosamunde Pilcher. Your kid had it all day long. So, your choice is to have 1 hour of Margret Atwood at night or another hour of Hemingway and Pilcher. Even if it’s the best work he’s ever written, are you going to go for it or do you think that maybe it’s time for a bit of diversity?
Shak
Great big thank you
Sally Strange
QFT
gddiver
Entertaining the idea that you were correct, that he had made the subconscious sexist assumption (which is what most people actually thought), can you please tell us where he was thrown under the bus? He received some mild criticism while the comic in general was greeted with lots of approval.
Well, of course by now we know that he explicitly chose the gendered version. Still nobody calling for his execution.
Crip Dyke
QFFT
And guess what, nobody has ever told me to fuck off, shut up etc. Sometimes people kindly directed me towards the relevant comments on the points I raised.
Pteryxx:
November 26th, 2011 at 5:35 am
ibbica: what A. R said. I think using puzzle pieces is a decent metaphor, it’s well-written and very carefully staged and photographed.
(I’d make a few tweaks besides the speech bubbles and clothing, but enough about that. ~;>
Well, PZ apparently sourced the original from here: (link) and then appeared the following comment:
So I’d guess that whenever a woman dares to say “That’s not cool”, the word goes out that Feminists! Angry! On the Internet! and the flying monkey militia needs to swoop through and drop a few turds. It just amazes me how much more reactionary these ones are than the godbots or the animal activists. Even the libertarians aren’t this touchy, though they’re a lot longer-winded.
Richard Eis:
November 26th, 2011 at 5:44 am
I hope and pray that men are never measured by their hair.
Especially the over 30′s.
Richard Eis:
November 26th, 2011 at 5:49 am
There would have been about 25 comments, all pretty much saying “yup…so true”… and i’d have had a much more dull day.
..but lower blood pressure.
julian:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:01 am
Sorry if this has already been touched on but, why exactly do so many people insist on making comments like ‘only a true sexist would notice the pink/blue!1!’?
It’s well known boys are expected to wear blue and girls are expectred to where pink. Any toys, clothing or maternal ward will tell you that. Pointing out another instance of that should not create so much contention.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:05 am
That’s because whining about the government requires more explanation than bitches ain’t shit! does.
Nimravid:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:07 am
I’ve been lurking for a few years. I read all of the comments.
PZ says:
People who don’t notice or care about sexism aren’t the entire “rest of the world.” I’m part of the rest of the world. But when I see comments about how it’s trivial and petty to bring up issues of bias against women, how we should take one for the team and hold our tongues so that “nobody” (nobody male) is bothered by our speaking up, only talk about things “the rest of the world” thinks are important, that the person who points out the problem is the problem maker, that of course women should accept some small amount of disrespect, it’s irrational and overreacting to object to just a little contempt, we should pick our battles (the ones that some outside and no doubt more rational point of view has chosen for us) – that does not define a safe space for women to express themselves. It doesn’t damage feminist credibility to take the smaller issues of sexism seriously, but dismissing any discussion and telling people they’re a derail from real issues does.
If the “rest of the” fucking “world” thought bias against women was even a minor concern, there wouldn’t be a fucking flame war. The “rest of the” fucking “world” thinks bias against women is nothing to get all het up about. They aren’t ever going to notice unless someone makes a comment. Shutting up those comments leaves low level sexism unchallenged and normalizes it. That low hum of “women are irrational, unimportant, not too smart, not quite as human as men” is constant, and always letting it go enables more egregious sexism. If the fucking “rest of the world” didn’t think it was natural and right for me to eat just a little bit of shit (and it had better be without any complaint that would distract men from the real issues), we’d have no disagreement at all. So I am thinking about how the “rest of the” fucking “world” perceives an objection to sexism; that’s why we have to have a goddamn flamewar about the fucking bunnies.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:11 am
Nimravid, well said.
Carlie:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:21 am
Nimravid – oh my, why have you only been lurking??? :)
Yes, exactly.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:25 am
Nimravid for the win!
Cesar Hechler:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:29 am
KG @156 –
“You forgot to tell us that your girlfriend doesn’t think it’s sexist.” – KG
I purposefully left that part out (and it’s wife, not gf, btw). I will just say that her opinion, upon discovering the goings-on here, would just offend the offended. I won’t elaborate as there’s already enough bruised and battered bodies in this thread.
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:38 am
Having slept (poorly, mind you) on the whole thing, and having read all of the comments, I’ve decided that there are several reactions to the initial cartoon, and the reaction to post #2, and PZ’s response to the whole first comment section, and my reaction, and your reaction whether you agree with me or disagree slightly or disagree 100%, and most of you probably had 2-3 of these different reactions. And they are all the SAME reaction:
“This again?”
Someone sees the bunnies, notices the gender coding, and says “this again?” Someone sees that posts, dislikes feminism, and says “this again? fuck you!” Someone sees that, remembers Elevatorgate, and says “this again?” The whole thing turns into a giant shitstorm that ignores the initial point of the post, PZ says “this again?” and shuts it down. I’m sure somewhere on the Internet a pack of wild MRAs stopped sharing tips on getting women drunk for cheap in order to look over here and say “this again?” before emailing Abbie Smith en masse to start a new “monument” thread.
It would be nice if someone could figure out a way to nip some of this in the bud, because it really isn’t as productive or as interesting as it could be. Maybe PZ should be quicker on the draw to split conversations off so that he can have the blog conversations he wants to see without stifling the natural off-topic conversations that are always going to happen. Which I think he mentioned; I’ve read all the comments but I’ll be damned if I’m wading through them again! Maybe when that’s effectively in place threads won’t get derailed as quickly because people will hold out for the split.
And, of course, no solution for the trolls. Someone’s going to win a Nobel Peace Prize when they figure out that one.
julian:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:38 am
If you actually gave a fuck you wouldn’t have replied. But you just had to get that last lick in, kick them one more time, before moving on.
John Morales:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:40 am
[meta]
Cesar, you have a lot to learn about eliding your belief about others’ opinions.
(Gee, I wonder what you think it may be, given what you’ve written?)
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:40 am
@Cesar Hechler: my wife too, believe me. :P
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:42 am
Julian:
Eh, don’t get fussed, it was weaksauce.
John Morales:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:45 am
Improbable Joe:
There’d be less of it if people such as you didn’t post comments such as that, wouldn’t there?
(People will respond)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:49 am
QFT, a nice read before coffee. Stick around Nimravid. *goes in search of coffee*
physioprof:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:58 am
That you think any of this has to do with searching for “enemies” indcates very clearly that your claims to be a feminist are empty. Achieve a basic understanding of feminist theory, and you will discover that feminism has nothing to do with dividing the world into individuals who are sexist–and thus “enemies” to be attacked because they are the cause of women’s oppression–and individuals who are non-sexist–and thus “friends” who are immune from criticism because nothing they do causes women’s oppression.
Just because you supposedly “revere” women doesn’t make you a feminist. If you really do give a shitte about feminism–and don’t just want to use it as a platform for ignorant mansplaining–you’ll go do your fucken homework before you open your mouth again.
ChasCPeterson:
November 26th, 2011 at 7:04 am
lol
Maybe look again?
Sometimes a couple of baby bunnies are just a couple of baby bunnies.
According to the cartoonist, the ultracute baby bunny toys are hir daughter’s. They are ultramegacute as mentioned. Hence the decision to photograph them for a cartoon that takes place in a world of children’s toys.
I really don’t think the choice of toys can be fairly criticized here. The perceived problem was the assignment of roles.
oh but wait:
So your position is that cartoons in which gender isn’t a point should not portray any animals that are sexually dimorphic in morphology or clothing. No more mice in dresses and bows, no more elephants. No more humans.
I’m certain that all of the major cartoonists’ organizations will be getting right on board with your decree.
2 words: midnight ride. Knowhatimean? *wink*
Nimravid:
November 26th, 2011 at 7:25 am
Thanks for the nice welcome. But I’ve stayed up too long reading the flame war, so I’ll have to catch up on any fresh horrors later.
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 7:42 am
@John Morales:
People “such as me”? Really? I don’t think you understood my comment, such as it was.
Carlie:
November 26th, 2011 at 7:51 am
This again?
For great atheism comic without any gender baggage, see tree lobsters.
For dumb bunnies, both male and female, who do not reinforce gender stereotypes regarding stupidity or irrationality, see The Dumb Bunnies.
I don’t see that it’s such a huge imposition to say that if one creates a situation wherein there are adorable figures of any species who are gendered and in their gendering conform to a very specific stereotype (and in this case, it’s not girl=stupid, it’s girl=irrational nonskeptic who must have the truth explained to her by the guy, and is therefore an outsider to the atheist movement), that someone else may notice and comment on that. Is that such a terrible fate? Because that’s all we’re talking about here – commenting on it. And maybe hoping that people who are involved in creative work might stop and think to themselves whether they have included any tired stereotypes in their work before they hit publish. If it does, and they decide their artistic vision demands it to be so, then just be prepared to deal with that criticism. Ye gods, people who create messages and/or art might get some critique on it when they put it to the public. What is the world coming to?
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 7:56 am
@John Morales:
Sorry, that was a bit snippier than necessary. What did you find objectionable about my post?
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 8:13 am
Carlie@#179
Correct me if I’m misreading what you’re saying, but I’m getting that this is in some sense artistic criticism with a feminist focus? The dumb one can be the woman if there’s an actual character being presented. If you’re not building actual characters, it is easy/lazy to use cultural tropes to help put your idea over. Maybe you signal “smart” by putting glasses on the character, and “dumb” by making the character a football player. Making the irrational character a woman is the same sort of easy/lazy thing, except that no one makes 20-25% less per hour at their job because they wear glasses or played football. So when it doubt and you’re not creating whole characters, and especially if they are going to be non-human and there’s no reason for the characters to have gender, best to make them talking trees or naked non-gendered bunnies. Maybe give the dumb one bad teeth or something.
I’m just trying to make sure I’ve got this exactly right.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 26th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Nimravid, great post.
Improbable Joe, that’s exactly what it was – a bit of deconstruction with a feminist bent, a few comments, a noticing of ‘this again’. Someone upthread referred to the well-known problem of ‘the hero, the sidekick, the smart one, the girl‘ – growing up with this as a constant becomes wearying because there are so few examples of women with actual character not related to her being female in the first place that it becomes an everyday irritant. Note for the hair-triggers amongst us – an irritant, not a life-consuming drama of misandry. Pointing it out gets people who hadn’t noticed or thought about the coding to notice it and think about it, and wonder why the coding is so prevalent. Wondering why is important.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Improbable Joe:
No you aren’t, you’re trying to be an asshole. Carlie was perfectly clear and provided links to examples. If at first you don’t comprehend, read, read, read again. Don’t expect people to spoonfeed you.
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 9:09 am
What I wonder is what would have happened if that “killjoy” person could have choked down the “fuck you” business. I mean, there’s probably a way to say that without being a giant asshole about it, maybe in a humorous joking sort of way? You know, like “I’ll bet you shout ‘Greedo shot first’ every time you see anything Star Wars-related” or something. The “fuck you” business was a huge overreaction to a minor observation, which seems to be what set this off and running.
I’d love to take a stronger stand on some aspect of this and argue vociferously for it, but I think that even the people disagreeing have at lease some validity to their position, except for the obvious trolls. And hell, I think I read something from at least one troll that might have been valid, even though that would have been completely accidental on their part.
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 9:10 am
Caine, I didn’t say or do anything to rate being called an “asshole”. I was trying to make sure that I wasn’t filtering what was said into what I wanted it to say. You know, avoiding bias and snap judgments.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 26th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Improbably Joe – I think that honest disagreement maybe wouldn’t have turned into the essplosion. The ‘shouldn’t be talking about this’ and ‘you’re seeing things that are not there‘ were the sort of comments that understandably got peoples’ backs up. Dismissal rather than discussion.
WishfulThinkingRulesAll:
November 26th, 2011 at 10:03 am
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
This is the kind of thing that makes me laugh, then cry. I mean really people? 1000s of posts because of a bunny cartoon? For those of you like me, living in ‘merika, *this* is how you spend your long weekend? For shame, for shame.
*goes back to the real world*
Gregory Greenwood:
November 26th, 2011 at 10:40 am
ahs ॐ ’110;
Mea culpa, I seeems I jumped the gun somewhat with that post. I read a post that seemed to state something along the lines of “I am a male feminist, and here is where all you lady feminsists are going wrong…”, followed by a complaint about how terms like ‘mansplaining’ just aren’t constructive, and I allowed my suspicious nature to get the better of me.
It seems that I misread what I thought were signs of another passive aggressive MRA troll coming to try to silence the voice of women while hiding behind a mask of faux-feminist righteousness, and as such I poisoned a possibly fruitful debate between differing feminst perspectives before it began, and as such I apologise without reservation to Shaun and to the other participants in the thread. I will try to be more careful in future.
Carlie:
November 26th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Joe – to me, at least, it isn’t quite that generic. We’ve just gone through a solid eight months or so in the atheistosphere having arguments about whether or not the atheist movement is welcoming to women, and how much sexism there is in the atheist movement, and how difficult it is to talk about more than in other places because so many people want to believe they’re rational and egalitarian and not at all sexist, when really everyone growing up in most cultures is sexist to some degree. And before that it’s been a couple of years of someone asking “Why aren’t there more women in the atheist movement?” and then women saying “Well, here’s why (list of many reasons)” and men saying “Oh, that can’t possibly be it, you’re wrong.” And then when something like (one of many reasons) happens, some woman tries to point it out as an example of “Here, this is what I meant”, and then gets attacked as a reverse sexist or feminazi blowing everything out of proportion or what have you.
So go ahead and make women characters dumb sometimes. I know some fairly dumb women myself. But when it’s in this context, when it’s another “ha, women are irrational” from our own side, specifically how rationalists are men and irrational zealots are women, given how we’ve been treated in the movement itself, it rankles more than a bit. It’s kind of the difference between poking me in the shoulder and poking me in the spot on my shoulder where I got a bad bruise yesterday.
And for the other part, it’s so tiring when every mild critique gets attacked so strongly, as has already been said a few hundred times. Is it so hard to say “huh, didn’t notice”, and move on? Apparently so, to some guys who feel they must charge in and defend the status quo at all costs.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Gregory:
There’s no need for a mea culpa, you were right. Shawnthesheep has been less than honest and denying he has any blind spots at all. You’ll see these issues brought up, again, on this page.
KG:
November 26th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Cesar Hechler@167,
Come on, you’re an undercover agent for radical feminist separatists, aren’t you? You fooled me with your first dumbshit, but the second was way over the top.
Pteryxx:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Heya Improbable Joe. I hope you know one of the biggest reasons I respect you is your brutal honesty while being mistaken about something. ~;>
So in response to your @181: I think discussing the messages conveyed in the bunny cartoon itself absolutely constitutes artistic criticism. (Currently I’m an art student, so I may be a tad biased.) Gender signalling is one such significant message. The artist’s intent may count as well, though in this case his decision seems pretty blatant. As opposed to discussing, say, gender signals overall, stereotype threat, what constitutes sexism and so forth – those can be backed up with research.
However, an artistic critique (instead of a scientific one) is subject to disagreement. In this case, making the speech balloons neutral would’ve weakened the association of feminine with stupid enough for me to accept it. That’s also an easy, quick fix that’s well within the artist’s capabilities; therefore I feel justified in expecting him to have thought of it. Better still would be to have nongendered characters at all; but that would’ve required more effort. There are other options with their own pros and cons. This is part of what makes art critique so complicated; there aren’t any absolute right or wrong answers.
So I think your analysis in #181, while clumsy, is a good start.
Well, until you said this:
…*twitch* *twitch* … But I’ll… f-f-forgive you that. Once. *twitch*
Besides that MLP episode, here’s another couple articles deconstructing specific sexist portrayals:
Sigourney Weaver’s costume choice in Aliens
A 7 year old girl responds to DC Comics’ sexed-up reboot of Starfire
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
@Carlie:
So maybe more feminism with a splash of artistic criticism… I didn’t mean to minimize the feminist aspect of it. And I agree completely that if someone didn’t see the sexism in it, even if they still don’t see it, I don’t see how it is unreasonable to accept that other people do, let alone a “fuck you” response immediately.
And even though I get where PZ is coming from especially since this is his “house,” on the other hand I also feel like no one really gets to tell anyone how to practice their “-isms” whether they be atheism or feminism or whatever. The same way we atheists get steamed when people try to concern troll us into being more accommodating, I’m guessing lots of people reacted to PZ saying “you’re picking the wrong battles.” Not such a great thing.
You know, the more I type this stuff out the more it sort of shakes itself out… so thanks a bunch for replying to me. You don’t owe me shit and you don’t have to be helpful, so I appreciate it.
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Pteryxx, I’ve been wrong exactly 14.5 times in my entire life. :)
I’ve seen your link about the comic books, which bugged me enough to not pick up any of the relaunch comics at all. The Ripley thing I hadn’t seen, but I always figured that was a response to them getting Weaver into her undies at the end of the first movie for absolutely no good reason. I respect the decision to go back for the cat, that’s something I might do.
As far as getting things “exactly right” or being especially clumsy… I don’t see the problem, and maybe you can fill me in. Not any more clumsy than normal, at any rate.
Pteryxx:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Gah! I mean, look at this BS caricaturing:
WTF, supposedly rational sensible folks who can’t distinguish between a simple critique and the End of the Wooooorld?
—
*applauds*
michaelblayney:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
I just wanted to say that I am thankful for threads like this because they show me I still have some blind spots; I wouldn’t have even noticed the sexist trope had it not been pointed out. As a recovering misogynist striving to be a better person I’ll take any opportunity I can get to have my awareness raised. So thanks.
Now back to lurking.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
michaelblayney, thank you and lurk less (meaning, post more). :)
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Pteryxx:
Feminism/sexism threads bring out the worst in Chas.
Pteryxx:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Well, from this paragraph you seem able to do critique in general, but maybe you didn’t notice that the articles I gave specifically deconstructed the sexism in those character portrayals. Going back for the cat makes sense to you, and you’re willing to back it up even though I might say it was a stupid decision. You can see that a different version of Ripley might have made a different decision, and that would say something about the character, right?
Now, can you learn to read for sexism, and say that you agree or disagree with Ripley’s costume (for instance), what that says about the character, and why?
…Yeah, I can see you don’t. Working on that, bud.
Pteryxx:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Huh. All I know is the name looked vaguely familiar. That’d be my blind spot…
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Pteryxx:
Chas used to have the nym Sven DiMilo.
Pteryxx:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Uh, I appreciate it Caine, but that name just looks vaguely familiar to me also. *shrug* I stand by my critique; if it turns out I’ve been too harsh on a regular, I’m sure y’all who actually recognize people will smack me down, and thank you for it.
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Pteryxx:
Nope, your critique was fine and you weren’t too harsh at all. Chas has a history in these types of threads, he finds them hyperbolic (and often considers them wrong) and it gets worse when people disagree with him, yada, yada, yada.
Basically, the type of thing you quoted was typical for Chas in a thread like this.
piranhaintheguppytank:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
At least blue-captioned bunny didn’t ask, “Want to come back to my place for coffee or whatever?”
tinfoil hattie:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Hey, Myers: Women ARE the rest of the fucking world. The rest of the fucking world is fucking tired of so-called feminist “allies” loftily instructing women which battles to pick. You’re part of the problem when you think a woman pointing out sexism, and then being jumped on AS USUAL for pointing it out, is not a battle worth fighting.
It’s every day of my fucking life, so don’t bother to scold me about What’s Really Important For Women To Care About.
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Pteryxx: honestly, I don’t know that I can “read for sexism” with any accuracy or precision, and I’d hate to even try. I can say that in the context of the first movie, Ripley wasn’t even a major character at the beginning, and certainly not the one you would expect to see survive, so her questionable decision-making with the cat seems in-character. It is also sort of horror movie “last girl” tropes all over, up to and including the getting her in her undies bit and saving the cat both.
Like someone said earlier, these less-overt sexism things are tough because there’s a lot more room for interpretation than the blatant, in-your-face stuff. Even when I don’t see it… there’s a difference between saying “I don’t see it, but I don’t have your perspective on it” and “I don’t see it, and therefore you’re wrong.” I’m squarely in the first camp, and I have no problem accepting that I don’t have the insight that other people have.
I do what I can. I’m not going to pretend I’m particularly good at it, but I’m not going out of my way to be bad at it either.
Grace:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
PZ says:
“And there’s another personal source of my ire. I want this to be a strong safe place for women to express themselves, and it should also be a place with some credibility for taking feminist issues seriously. It’s taken a hit because people have been baited into a flamewar over goddamned stuffed bunnies. Sure, you see it as an aspect of anti-woman bias, but try, just try, to see it how the rest of the world sees it.”
Wow. Who “baited” anyone with “that would suck”? Some people chose to take that like an angryfeminist battle cry. But of course she started/asked for a flamewar. Duh. Now she ruined both feminism and the safe space I created for them!
I feel your pain PZ. Thanks for nothing.
Pteryxx:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Heh Joe, I bet you don’t know it, but you’re confirming my good faith in you.
Look at your own words again:
You just stated that you doubt your own ability to critique, and then follow up with an excellent analysis of Ripley’s character:
And follow that demonstration of acumen with another statement of doubt in yourself:
That pattern, doubt-demonstration-doubt, I’ve seen over and over when a person’s got nothing holding them back but their own fears, and is just on the verge of discovering what they can really accomplish.
Dude. Seeing sexism isn’t some mysterious “insight” that people (*cough* women *cough*) just happen to have. It’s a skill, like any other analytical capability, and you’re showing all the tools you need to learn it. AND you don’t get all snarly when someone calls you out for showing your ass. Trust me, seeing the “girls are irrational” trope isn’t any different than seeing the “last girl” trope or the “dog/cat always survives” trope. We’re just conditioned NOT to see it. It’s taken ME many years of work to get this far, and I still screw up sometimes. I bet you can learn better, too.
piranhaintheguppytank:
November 26th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“Everything in life is either sexual or political.”
–Harold Ramis (from the audio commentary for the movie “Ghostbusters”)
Grace:
November 26th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
@tinfoil hattie
But it’s all about the bunnies! PZ keeps reminding us to think about the bunnies! They’re toy animals and they’re cute!
Who in their right mind would provoke a flamewar over cute stuffed bunnies! Women!
Echidna:
November 26th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
One issue I wouldn’t mind tackling is how to discuss issues like feminist tropes without giving power to mra’s. PaulG stands out for me as someone who partly dominated the thread, and really we shouldn’t have permitted that.
David Marjanović, OM:
November 26th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Ooh. Now I suddenly want feminist hair :-)
Very few threads reach 801 comments.
Seconded :-)
…and they represent…?
LOL! You’re new here, so I’ll simply explain to you that you just accidentally insulted us by claiming we couldn’t see through the tone. :-) Don’t bother apologizing, it’s fine. *patting on back* Just read comment 186.
Improbable Joe:
November 26th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Pteryxx, it is comments like #212 that make me wonder why I bother posting. If people can just make up nasty things about me, and there’s no defense against it, what’s the point?
WishfulThinkingRulesAll:
November 26th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Phew, this thread pretty much died down, good. 1300+ posts like this in so short a time is not a good or useful thing.
Unfortunately there is a significant (and significantly stupid) large minority of people here at PZ’s site who don’t give a damn. They keep “feeding the trolls” no matter what, as their own entertainment matters more than any substantive conversation (only a few admit to this, but many exhibit this through their actions). I realize dealing with trolls may sometimes not be easy, but when people proudly and pridefully boast about how they keep on going and going and going with a troll, never stopping, ***no matter what*** , magnifying the troll’s thread ruining powers x100, as if that is a *good* thing, well it just blows my mind. It is one thing to be a selfish asshole, ruining threads which have real value, for fun, but claiming it is good and noble behavior? That’s delusional. And sadly, quite a few here suffer from that delusion.
Of course I get attacked for this, and am labeled a “troll” myself. The irrational hyper defensiveness of these people is shocking. They act as if even attempting to have some kind of thread integrity is a bad thing. Or worse, pretend I want them to ignore trolls totally, as if they cannot read, or cannot comprehend gradients and ranges of behavior. It is either full on attack, for eternity, or retreat. The black and white thinking boggles the mind. I suppose I should lower my expectations, as I assumed my fellow atheists would, for the most part, be reasonable. And maybe they are mostly reasonable, maybe all of the hyperactive obsessive moronic ones have gathered at Pharyngula. Hopefully the general atheist population does not contain this high a percentage of illogical imbeciles.
WishfulThinkingRulesAll:
November 26th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Improbable Joe says:
LOL. Regardless if you were actually misrepresented just now – Welcome to the internet man, where you will forever be misquoted and misrepresented. The sad thing is that here, people should know better. People should be reasonable. People should take more than two seconds to read a post, so as not to skim it and miss everything that was actually said.
Many here are actually good about reading, comprehending and replying without a dozen fallacies. But they are often overshadowed by the dunces who either cannot, or do not care to, engage in a good faith conversation.
Dhorvath, OM:
November 26th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
It would be farcically illogical to suppose that any self selected group defines the larger population. We are here because here is where we fit, and that will magnify traits anywhere that self selection plays a role.
Pteryxx:
November 26th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Joe: is it about you, or about helping?
I’m not jumping down your throat because I accord you more good faith than some. Not because Caine or David are wrong in according you less.
David Marjanović, OM:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Oops. I didn’t refresh before commenting because I underestimated the growth rate of this thread.
Not always. He was on the side of sanity throughout the Rebeccapocalypse.
ahs ॐ:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Caine, this is the Improbable Joe who normally hangs out at Ophelia Benson’s place; it’s hard to imagine anyone less likely to be “trying to be an asshole.”
Joe, I really think she’s only experiencing Poe’s law here. If I wasn’t familiar with you, I think it would be easy for me to read your comment as sarcastic baiting.
I don’t know that there’s anything you could have said differently, though. This just happens sometimes when two people are being honest but can’t confirm honesty in the other. Only increasing familiarity can eventually resolve it.
David Marjanović, OM:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
*blink* What did I make up, and what do you mean by “there’s no defense”? Just tell us what I got wrong.
You wondered whether the person who said “killjoy” would have triggered less of a reaction if they had used a friendlier tone, and I pointed out how clearly this shows you don’t know us very well. :-|
I can’t find anything to disagree with in comment 208, BTW.
Have you really never encountered someone with SIWOTI syndrome before? (Don’t forget to mouse over the picture to make the alt-text appear.) I’m* hardly capable of letting go. I don’t get much from not letting go, there’s not a lot of entertainment in it, I just see something wrong, want to fix it, and try to fix it. :-| On occasion, I’ve even barged into meatspace conversations total strangers were having with each other, just to remedy their lack of a particular fact. It may be part of “Asperger’s syndrome” (as a poorly defined part of the autism spectrum used to be called), which or something close to which I probably have, and which is (in various degrees) common among Pharyngulites.
* I know you’re not talking about me, I wasn’t present during most of the thread. I’m just using myself as an example.
Carlie:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Joe, I don’t want to speak for others, but part of it may have been your initial insistence on getting it “exactly right”. While I assume that was earnestness, it can easily read as sarcastic baiting trying to get the other people to take up time getting as specific as possible so that at some point some little detail is wrong and it becomes a “gotcha” (especially since we’ve spent the last two days dealing with lots of that).
Plus, there isn’t an “exactly right”, I don’t think. It’s perception, and opinion, and everyone has a little different trigger point and interpretation as to which part of it was why they thought it was sexist and what they paid the most attention to (such as someone who was forced to wear dresses while growing up in a fundie cult would be upset by the girl being in a fucking skirt again, while a scientist would get upset by the girl being irrational about physical evidence again, etc.).
Horace:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Given that on average both women and african americans are more likely to be religious, shouldn’t the theistic bunny have been a female bunny of colour ?
sandiseattle:
November 26th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Really Horace? Just here to stir the shit?
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 26th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
@WishfulThinkingRulesAl
Are you trying to troll this thread to balloon to 2000? Other than the small converation going with Mr. Joe most of us have *gone back to the real world* after having our say.
And yes, there was a lot posts about this. Is that such a big deal? So I guess it was never about the bunnies after all…only the wilfully ignorant would conclude now that is was. It was issues underlaying that touhed a nerve with many. As it would if the bunny in the coveralls was depicting wearing a white sheet and the other bunny in the dress was black. As cute as they are, I sure the shit storm over that would of reached into the tens of 1000′s. My only disppointment is PZ really didn’t see this whole affair for what it was.
But either way though, I’m done feeding you. No one else is really paying attention. /shrug
Momo Elektra:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Hey,
my first reaction to comment #2 on the other thread was: “Oh no, not again. Why can’t those patronizing feminists leave well enough alone. This is not relevant now. The comic is about something else.”
But that was, well, my first reaction.
When I was about 20 I thought feminism was a thing of the past and feminists of today were hysterical (yeah, I know). 10 years later I got stomped ( in that e-gate-thing) by men and women of the sceptical/atheist community I considered my allies, because I didn’t want to shut up about something I consider a trivial matter of common courtesy among humans. What the hell…
I (think I) get why this discussion on this comic bothered you, PZ. The message of the comic was another one that got discussed (simply put).
But the topic of sexism/sexist tropes, sadly, seems to be a white and black topic. Either you talk about it or you don’t. Either you notice it or you don’t. Either you call out on it or you don’t. Either you care for it (in this example) or you don’t (in this example).
It’s not a battle of the sexes, it’s not black world against white world, it’s not women vs. men, it is always a battle against yourself and the things you learned in the world you grew up in and the behaviours you internalized.
And I realized, my first reaction was not really mine, but what I learned, how I learned to react to claims like that. Because feminists are hysterical and see sexism everywhere.
I get the “why do we have to talk about that now, since the comic is about something else.”
But we do have to talk about it because the comic is about that, too.
And the intention does not mean shit. The artist is not on trial, the comic is.
And it won’t go away if we don’t talk about it. It won’t go away if the first reaction is “Gosh, they really see sexism everywhere!”. Because sexism is everywhere. There is no overreaction.
I want to thank everyone, who, again, took their time and nerves to explain, to respond, to fight.
Thank you, I learned a lot. Again.
And I hope the next thread (and there will be one) will be filled with you people, too.
So I can learn again.
WishfulThinkingRulesAll:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
David Marjanović, OM says:
No, I’ve encountered plenty. Still, is that syndrome supposed to include interacting with trolls? With people whose only real goal is to bait and cause long flame wars? I assumed us folks who are skeptics and rational would have the sense to recognize that, for example, the 30th post to a given troll is probably enough, and that they should move on.
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome says:
No, fucking moron, pointing out ridiculous thread destroying behavior by many in this community is the opposite of trolling. You’d have to be a really dumb fuck, or a person who skims posts while multitasking on 12 other things, to get this wrong. I mean you proved one of my complaints – after mentioning the total lack of reading comprehension, even towards explicit and simple points, you somehow completely and utterly missed what I said.
No, not on its own. I mean it is pathetic it happened when it did, considering most Americans had time off, and somehow people here devoted many hours to this? Madness! It is not like threads like this don’t happen often either, because they do. So, besides complete and utter pathetic-ness, I fail to see the reason why it blew up when it did, unless almost everyone battling it out were Brits and Aussies?
That’s besides the point though. One guy complained about a troll overtaking the thread for a time, so I commented on how trolls have crazy enablers who insist on ruining threads at the expense of everything else. Enablers who think they are good and noble for battling the troll, when after a little while all they are doing is helping the troll make a huge mess of things.
So that was my beef.
Delft:
November 26th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
656 Candra Rain “Who complains about a paper cut?” brought tears to my eyes. It connects me to the deep pain that can surface over something as “trivial” as a cartoon.
It is not the cartoon that causes my pain, but the millions of times I’ve heard/read the message that women are not as intelligent, valuable etc. My interpretation of Chrys T was, that like me s/he finds this association painful, not that s/he is accusing the cartoonist of being an evil sexist.
Dismissing an expression of this pain as trivial, inane etc. is dismissing my experience and my feelings, and that hurts too. You can disagree about whether something or someone *is* sexist. Disagreeing on how someone else feels is crazy.
Perhaps this fundamental misunderstanding allows mild remarks to spark flame wars: bunny cartoon, or elevator passes. Life, basically.
A: I don’t like this
A means: I find this painful/ frightening…
B hears: This is evil, should be forbidden, the person who did this needs to be punished.
After this point it seems NO AMOUNT of explanations help.
Perhaps (part of ) a solution would be to assume that everyone is well-intentioned. Yes, even the trolls.
Take PZMyers: (no, I am not suggesting he is a troll):
Yes he dismisses these expressions of pain as “appalling depths of triviality”. Ouch. And no, he has not retracted the really important bits. To him it’s still about what the artists motivations were. And there are still more important battles.
So, if he is well-intentioned, what could have made him write this?
Well, he could be embarrassed that something he posted as amusing is causing a flare-up, he could simply want people to cut him a little slack, believe he is a “good guy”. He may be worried that while everyone is arguing about bunnies, some life-and-death issues are not getting enough attention (chinese girl babies?). Or he may be upset that apart from always being cast as the evil sexist, rapist etc., men are from now on going to be the dumb-ass bad guys in every cartoon story.
Or maybe he didn’t twig it that it’s not about the cartoon/cartoonist being sexist, evil etc, but that it triggers pain. Who knows, if someone had written explicitly about their experiences, and how much this message has been ground into their soul, how deeply they have unconsciously bought into the message – maybe he would have understood that the issue is not so *trivial*. And that it’s not really about bunnies.
My proposal: before condemning someone think of 3 reasons why they could be doing, saying etc what they are while being well-intentioned. You will probably not hit the mark, just as I probably missed it on Myers. But the exercise does help let go of what we believe to be the other persons (obviously evil) reasons for doing something we don’t like.
The bit about the troll is left to the reader as an exercise.
Hint: what circumstances / experiences would make you troll? Don’t say “I’d never do that” – What if someone held a gun to your , or your child’s head?
Letting go of the troll doesn’t mean you need to feed it.
chigau (本当):
November 26th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
WishfulThinkingRulesAll
Are you really this oblivious to irony?
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 26th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
chigau (本当) has it right. WishfulThinkingRulesAll is trolling this thread by whining about trolls.
Pteryxx:
November 26th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Heck, it’ll take more than that to kill the glow from Momo Elektra’s #225.
♥ *inclines head* ♥
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 26th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
ahs:
I well aware of who he is. He seems to act the asshole here more than at Ophelia’s. When he’s agreeing with that moron Cesar and making yuk yuk jokes about “yeah you don’t want to know what my wife thinks either” and being snarky about getting shit *exactly* right, he’s inviting less than pleasant responses.
I’m not that important in the wider scheme of things, and Carlie and Pteryxx have been doing sterling service in attempting to educate Joe. He can concentrate on that and I’ll reserve my opinion.
Utakata, yes that pink pigtailed Gnome:
November 26th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
@WishfulThinkingRulesAll
Oh I’m a fucking moron now. Did I hit a nerve? (I would be more worried though if somebody like Caine, Fleur du Mal called me that.)
…but I digress. I know you’re looking for dessert, but what part of I am done feeding you did you not get?
*Back to reality*
ahs ॐ:
November 26th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Caine,
Ah. My bad.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 26th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
It is trolling. Tone trolling. I have your porcupine ready…Now back to reality, away from idjit thinking like yours.
Bob Loblaw, Read my law blog!:
November 27th, 2011 at 12:33 am
Well I must admit that I have learned a lot from all this.
I was in this all for the fun of it and then it got really serious quickly.
I always thought of the wider community as being fairly tolerant and was deeply unaware of the deep problems with sexism. Though, to be fair, I have never been too active in the community.
Tone doesn’t always translate well when joking online, especially when others are more invested in the conversation.
In portrayals of gender I hold firm that possibilities for all matter of gender interactions idiots, and otherwise must be accepted and encouraged otherwise we are not accepting the full breadth and depth of the human condition, and consequently our gendered identities. While having ungendered anything (instead of rabbits) is possible, I think it wasn’t necessary, as the comic could reflect a myriad of encounters I have daily with both men and women.
MRA – sometimes used as a broad smear. some comments needed to be clarified first. Some people were surely MRAs but not everyone accused.
John Morales:
November 27th, 2011 at 2:07 am
[meta]
Improbable Joe @180:
Snippiness is largely irrelevant, nor did I indicate I found anything objectionable about your post in my #173.
(My parenthetical was intended to reiterate my point)
–
WishfulThinkingRulesAll:
You assumed wrong.
This. Is. Pharyngula!
(That means we don’t ease up after 30, 300 or even 3000 comments*)
You don’t like that, well, either go elsewhere or get and run a killfile, or find some other way to cope.
–
* Do you know anything about the genesis of TET?
Grace:
November 27th, 2011 at 2:50 am
KG says:
“‘From the outside, it looks entirely ridiculous — everyone is fighting ferociously over toy bunny rabbits? – PZ’”
“Then why wasn’t it ridiculous to use toy bunny rabbits to point up the foolishness of religion?”
Great point, KG. PZ seems to wedge a big part of his argument on women/feminists hurting the cause by thinking the cute bunnies might reinforce gender sterotypes.
Like anyone is actually fighting ferociously over toy bunny rabbits. What a dishonest fuck. That’s like saying “elevatorgate” was just about coffee (it’s just a delicious beverage, what’s WRONG WITH YOU?) And who is the “outside” he is so worried about?
“Are you really fighting for the right for the cute bunny in the dress in a cartoon to not be the religious one?” Er, no.
Someone just made a mild observation that it might be an example of the typical ‘girls are illogical’ stereotype in society. God forbid!
Then she was flamed by a bunch of guys, but he chose to write an entire blog post to chastise her and the silly feminists for provoking it over their ‘trivialities,’ not the sexists asshats who actually made a bigger deal about it than anyone (there’s a reason any thread that brings up sexism goes to over 1,000+ posts).
Then we get the “there are more imporant things in the world!” patronizing B.S. How Dawkins of you, P.Z. Maybe you want to get back into the good graces of your sexist colleagues after all the abuse you got from defending Rebecca Watson.
Then you tried to backtrack from your numerous assertions that commenter #2 caused this “flamewar.” (Are flamewars unusual here? Why is this one such a big deal?) Whenever anyone tried to reason with you, you accused them of putting words in your mouth (which no one did).
I’ve read the entire thread (thanks to insomnia and boredom), and my opinion of PZ has gone down to nothing. Sorry, I don’t still see him as an ally like some other women here. He’s a dishonest, patronizing, self-absorbed ass.
This is your ‘Dear Muslima’ moment, PZ. You may not be an MRA, but you sure made them happy. Take your “safe space” and shove it.
John Morales:
November 27th, 2011 at 3:33 am
[meta]
Grace:
Your opinion is worth what it is worth.
1. Your hyperbole is noted.
2. Your bullshit, also.
3. PZ has never made that claim; however, that claim has been made by multiple women and multiple feminists.
(No, I am neither a woman nor a feminist)
Richard Eis:
November 27th, 2011 at 7:05 am
Probably, since he has brought up two in his last 4 posts in quick succession about how people post too much… while discussing how a bunny representing religious motivations could never represent anything else but cute bunnyness.
I wasn’t going to comment, but then since no one shot him down, he didn’t shut up. Thus proving once again that ignoring trolls doesn’t shut them up, it merely gives them implicit approval.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 27th, 2011 at 7:37 am
Hyperbole perhaps, but a dismissal still feels a hell of a lot like a dismissal.
Nicoleandmaggie:
November 27th, 2011 at 10:11 am
@92 Tethys
Except… they weren’t. PZ only “changed his mind” because he found out about the intent of the author. The intent is irrelevant. If someone unintentionally steps on your toe, it still hurts.
As later commenters ask, where exactly are you getting that PZ changed his mind? Because it sure as heck isn’t in comment #430. That only acknowledges that hey, the author chose a feminine bunny on purpose, and that kind of sucks. Completely in contradiction with CPP’s points #2 and #3 about intent being irrelevant. Intent is the ONLY thing that’s relevant for him in his decision.
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 27th, 2011 at 10:38 am
A thought just occurred to me.* In the original bunny thread PZ expected a discussion about how certain people dogmatically cling to a position despite mounting evidence that the position is wrong. When the discussion veered away from “it’s a duck” PZ got annoyed. He shouldn’t have been annoyed because he got the discussion he expected.
It was noticed that the cartoon was subtly sexist. Various people leaped in to say “no, it’s not, no sexism there at all, nope, nope, nope.” Despite all evidence to the contrary, these people continued to deny the cartoon was sexist, just like the one bunny kept denying the puzzle was about Pooh and Tigger. We saw people steadfastly denying the obvious sexism or trying to minimize down to nothing. This denial continued even after evidence was produced that the artist intentionally inserted the sexism. We actually saw how dogmatic certain people can be despite mounting evidence their position was wrong.
*Yeah it happens every so once in a while. Don’t act so surprised.
ChasCPeterson:
November 27th, 2011 at 11:21 am
But that’s incorrect.
Intentional insertion of sexism would have to involve making the dress-dressed bunny the allegorical religious person because of a belief or assumption that women are stupider or stubborner or less rational or whatever than men. That’s not what happened.
Unintentional insertion of sexism would normally involve not even thinking about it, just sort of automatically assigning gender roles based on unconscious cultural training or whatever. That’s not what happened either.
Instead, the cartoonist decided which bunny to make the allegorical religious person by looking up data on the subject and learning that women are, empirically, more religious than men in both belief and practice*. This is uncontroversial fact.
The procedure was sexism-neutral, and therefore any sexism inherent in the cartoon was unintentional. You can castigate the cartoonist for choosing not to be anti-sexist, for not making a statement (orthogonal to the point of the cartoon) that you would have liked to have seen made, but not for intentionally inserting sexism.
*(on average, of course; as always, statements about group differences do not accurately predict individual cases)
julian:
November 27th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Not to speak for him or anything but pretty sure Tis Himself meant intenetionally inserted *thing that is sexist* and not intentionalliy inserted *sexism.*
Lexic:
November 27th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Tis Himself, OM – Your realization in 242, is perfect.
Momo Elektra:
November 27th, 2011 at 11:36 am
@ChasCPeterson
“[...]the cartoonist decided which bunny to make the allegorical religious person by looking up data on the subject and learning that women are, empirically, more religious than men in both belief and practice. This is uncontroversial fact.”
100% of catholic priests are male. That is uncontroversial fact, too.
Still no reason to make the irrational rabbit female and the smart one male (or the other way arround).
'Tis Himself, OM:
November 27th, 2011 at 11:58 am
You’re right. However in my defense I have to claim I do know how to spell intentionally.
julian:
November 27th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
How much better would the cartoon have been if it offered a pair of spectacled friars?
______
If that’s what the cartoon was about (changing our beliefs based on new and mounting evidence) the whole ‘women are more religious’ thing seems kinda besides the point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but women and men are equally likely to refuse to let go of ideas they’ve long held despite what the evidence says.
julian:
November 27th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
And in my defense
meh
Pteryxx:
November 27th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
…That would be AWESOME! Perfect! It’d lose the unfortunate sexism and gain massive stealthing qualities all in one go.
Ichthyic:
November 27th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Various people leaped in to say “no, it’s not, no sexism there at all, nope, nope, nope.”
huh, it seemed to me from a cursory glance that most of the people decrying calling the comic sexist were indeed complaining more along the lines that PZ was.
IOW, yeah, it COULD be interpreted that way, and it would be a good thing to alert the author that it could, but not that it was the main issue involved, and that many appeared to be pissed that the main issue involved had been sidetracked for an argument about sexism that may or may not have been intended, but that nobody bothered to actually ask the author about first BEFORE claiming “it’s sexist”.
and, what’s more…
THINK OF THE BUNNIES!!
Pteryxx:
November 27th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
‘Tis Himself:
“The box says it isn’t sexist. It can’t be sexist.”
~X>
physioprof:
November 27th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
This is a red fucken herring, and has nothing to do with what is going on here, except to the extent that it is siezed upon by a bunch of fucken hypocritical fake “skeptics” who understand nothing of the basics of feminist theory, yet can’t stop themselves from ignorantly and credulously mansplaining to a bunch of women what feminism should be focused on.
ChasCPeterson:
November 27th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
No, it’s a separate, tangential argument. I’m not trying to divert anybody from discussing anything.
Except that it was in direct response to something somebody just posted here. And it’s also directly relevant to all kinds of shit that has been discussed in the many many comments above, few of which I’m guessing you could be bothered to read, Comradde. But stay on message, whatever it is.
Tethys:
November 27th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Nicoleandmaggie
PZ #430
What part of “I change my mind” are you disagreeing with?
Would you prefer it if PZ donned sackcloth and ashes and performed a few acts of public self-immolation?
On a less hyperbolic note, an addendum to this post would not hurt. Something along the lines of “Damn I was wrong! Sometimes a Bunny is just a Bunny…except when it perpetuates sexism.”
——-
Even though this discussion was not what PZ intended, it has been very thought provoking on the subject of unconscious gender bias.
Nicoleandmaggie:
November 27th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
@255
CPP eloquently said 3 things http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/2011/11/25/skeptic-skepticize-yourself/:
(1) flat-out denying that the cartoon could be propagating misogynist tropes,
(2) flat-out asserting that all that matters is the intent of the author, and
(3) flat-out asserting that even if the cartoon might be propagating misogynist tropes, it isn’t important and bitchez should STFU.
From the part that you have quoted, as I, and many others have pointed out MULTIPLE TIMES, PZ has said, oh, I guess I was wrong about the cartoon (1) propagating misogynist tropes. He only said that because he STILL BELIEVES (2) all that matters is intent. The only reason he changed his mind on (1) is because he believes (2). Got that? He changed his mind on one thing, but not the thing that is actually important. And he only changed his mind BECAUSE he is denying the important more general point. Because the author had intent, all of a sudden that changes this case, even though the effect of the case is the same regardless of the author’s intent.
I ask you, What part of INTENT IS NOT IMPORTANT do you not understand? And where does PZ say he was wrong about intent not being important? He doesn’t.
I can pull out the toe stepping analogy for the Nth time, but if you didn’t get it the first N-1 times, I’m guessing reading comprehension isn’t going to kick in the Nth. It’s up there in the comments. Just search for “toe.”
Richard Eis:
November 27th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Ooh, i raped a woman…but i was drunk and didn’t mean it… can i haz a free pass please??
Richard Eis:
November 27th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
I know, i know, i just noticed… slightly out of context…but that was the line you pulled so that was the line i read.
It still doesn’t change the fact that if you get your facts from public opinion, all you will get is the Daily mail.
chigau (本当):
November 27th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
If the author of the cartoon had done his “research” on “religiosity and race” rather that “religiosity and sex”, what would we be discussing right now?
Caine, Fleur du Mal:
November 27th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
NicoleandMaggie:
Stop using all caps. If you can’t figure out other methods of emphasis, go away until you do.
Nicoleandmaggie:
November 27th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
@Caine
Seriously? Wow. Way to deflect the point of the discussion.
Also: I had no idea that you made the rules. CPP hasn’t been following them either. I guess we’re naughty. :Þ
@257 and 259: Excellent points.
Nicoleandmaggie:
November 27th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Also: I guess this is how the patriarchy wins in the end. They wear you down with their inanities and terrible reading comprehension skills until you decide you have better things to do than repeat the same argument. And then they “win.”
It’s not like, Oh! If I use tags for bold or italic this time, they’ll actually understand that intent is unimportant unlike the last 4 or 5 times I explained it. Good grief.
@Caine, I have decided that you’re not allowed to post unless your font is purple and you’ve included ASCII pictures of flowers on every comment. If you aren’t willing to do that, then I suggest you turn off the computer and just give up. Oh, also you need to send us a dollar each time you post. You can use paypal. The email is grumpyrumblings at gmail.
vexorian:
November 27th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Seriously.
This is not about saying that it is just a cartoon so you shouldn’t worry about its stereotypes.
It is more about having no evidence whatsoever that the cartoon has a misogynistic bias.
Oh sure, the female character is Simplicio. Just note that whenever there is a chat between two characters, there is a 50% chance that the more stupid one will be a woman. Unless of course, the author is sexist, then the chance will either be 1% or 99% depending of his/her kind of sexism. Unless you chose not to add genders… But then are you really asking media not to have genders? That would be lame.
The cartoon itself, other than having the female bunny be the irrational person, does not seem to have any hints of misoginism. There is really no strip that seems to specify that she is irrational because she is female.
The problem with this lame nitpick without evidence is that it derails a great comic making a great anti-religious argument.
If you happen to have better proof demonstrating an actual pattern of chauvinism in part of the comic’s author, like another strip in which it is clearer, then be my guest and post it , I will then agree with you.
I have no problem with asserting that a cartoon has an anti-women bias, and I do not think that would be a small problem. I do have a problem with accusing something to have a bias when there is simply not enough data to back it up. Because we are supposed to be skeptical even about things that we would like to be true.
chigau (本当):
November 27th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
NicoleandMaggie @261
uh, thanks?
What point did I make?
chigau (本当):
November 27th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
NicoleandMaggie
Since you are new to the internets:
ALL CAPS is equivalent to SHOUTING, not emphasis.
It doesn’t add to the impact of your argument, it takes away from the impact of your argument.
Incoherence doesn’t help your argument either.
vexorian:
November 27th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
After the last post, I noticed. We have been handling this in the worst way possible. I have a piece of software called, The GIMP and I can use it.
PZ’s intent when using the comic was not really to have a discussion about gender stereotypes in comics and media. Although that is an important topic, I will make the wild guess that his main objective was to criticize a view that is almost always present among religious types. I think this is the reason for PZ’s not liking the discussion, and the reason many react strongly to it.
So, instead of continuing the discussion, let us just fix the godamn comic. Here it is:
http://i39.tinypic.com/nr0i2x.jpg
Pteryxx:
November 27th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
*shrug* Sometimes I use all caps for emphasis because I’m posting quickly, and hitting capslock twice per phrase is easier on my hands than holding down Shift four times in rapid succession. Also, all caps doesn’t require Preview to troubleshoot, and saves with a quick copypasta while italics and bold disappear. So I guess I’m polyemphasist.
Pteryxx:
November 27th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
SWEET *cough*
vexorian:
November 27th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Actually, after posting the URL to the fixed version of the comic, I noticed that tinypic resized it to a very tiny picture (the name must be indicative, hmmn).
So, here is the complete version:
http://www.filesonic.com/file/4026659014/religiouslogic.jpeg
Gunboat Diplomat:
November 27th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
@268 Pteryxx
While you’re at it why don’t you rewrite Cervantes Don Quixote as it was meant to be written? I’m sure it would be awfully more meaningful than the original and surely the mark of the true artist is the rewriting of classic works. It gives them a much deeper meaning and does our species an inestimable service:
http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/borges-quixote.html
I for one await with bated breath.
chigau (本当):
November 27th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
vexorian
Did you hear that wooshing sound?
Pteryxx:
November 27th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
@GD: Oh, I might write up something about caricature and misinterpretation, possibly involving unicorns, if the idea should come to fruition. At the moment I’ve got other things to do.
Small props for using “bated breath” correctly though, I hate when that expression gets screwed up. ~;>
chigau (本当):
November 27th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Gunboat Diplomat
Pteryxx was quoting vexorian.
Richard Eis:
November 28th, 2011 at 3:06 am
Vexorian… the Mcguyver of the feminist movement.
julian:
November 28th, 2011 at 3:18 am
Not exactly informed on the subject of literature but isn’t that sorta what all writers have historically done? Taken an older work, story or myth and rewrite it in a way that emphasizes the themes they wish to stress?
John Morales:
November 28th, 2011 at 3:47 am
[OT]
julian responds to Gunboat Diplomat’s sarcasm:
Clearly not, since that reduces to an infinite regress.
Cesar Hechler:
November 28th, 2011 at 5:14 am
Wow. Did not see it coming. Went from snortles to moron in 3.8 seconds – or at least the time I was away for the weekend.
KG asked what was said when my wife was shown the cartoon and then informed of the contents of the thread afterwards. I was simply reporting.
When I first read the cartoon and PZ’s write-up, I didn’t think it was as important to people as it was. I only had my own perspective at the time. After reading the comments from people who found the cartoon sexist and their reasoning I agreed they had a right to those feelings and were making agreeable arguments. When KG asked what was said here I didn’t think it was wise to go into too much detail given what was said by my wife and older (high school senior) aged daughter as I knew it wasn’t a popular opinion given what was said here. And I can’t apologize for my wife’s or daughter’s speech mannerisms either.
They aren’t anti-feminist and I usually consider them to be with the program in that department. The gist of what they said, and trying to sound least obnoxious (if that is possible) was that there are instances when the sexism is brash, purposeful and with intentional derogatory harm. They take offense at that. Since they (nor I) noticed anything without it being pointed out, our original perspective was that it was a harmless cartoon. My youngest daughter doesn’t fully understand the issue and it was she who mentioned the topless bunny and the eldest agreed.
Out of my household, only I had the benefit of reading the comments here and KG asked what was said so I responded as diplomatically as possible (I guess I was wrong). I’m not particularly keen on being romantically suicidal so I’m not going to take my wife (nor the girls) to task for their perspective since they had their own rationale for feeling the way they do. I don’t want to make unscientific guesses but my only speculation could be that it centers on my wife’s Asian heritage and the way she was brought up and sees the world with regard to genders. Now I am probably going to be accused of racism.
Now, if we are ever at a convention and someone here wants to get into that discussion with my wife or eldest and they’re open to it, I’m happy to introduce you. I have read the comments here and can honestly say I’m sympathetic with the people who were angered here. I’m also living in a house with people and am required to be sympathetic to their opinion as well. If that makes me a moron, well, I’m happy to remain a moron in that regard until the reaper finds me.
I don’t know if explanation counts for anything here as an apology, but I’m sorry I offended. I just won’t comment any more. That’s been my MO previously and I will just return to that mode. I’m sure this is now tl;dr so it won’t amount to much anyway.
John Morales:
November 28th, 2011 at 6:08 am
[meta]
Cesar:
Then you did it very poorly: “I will just say that her opinion, upon discovering the goings-on here, would just offend the offended.”
You should ponder that claim in view of the numerous explanations posted in the comments, not least in the OP: “Much of it [sexism] is unconscious and not intended maliciously, but it still perpetuates a problem.”
IOW, you’re the one who has been hurt and offended, and who cringes away from confrontation.
Surely you’re not trying to make it seem like you’re protecting us from your harsh opinion? :)
Clearly, you are wrong about your comment being teal deer, as my response indicates.
(You were also sure people would be offended at your wife’s opinion, too. Perhaps you were just as correct then as you are now?)
Cesar Hechler:
November 28th, 2011 at 7:34 am
J. Morales: I’m not hurt or offended, I was just kind of surprised at what I read when I returned. As you suggested, I made a hash of responding to KG’s question. With regard to the perpetuation of the problem, I have a greater understanding of that via this thread, and if conversation allows I make suggestions. My wife and kids are allowed to their own opinions though, I don’t presume to coerce them one way or the other after being given anecdotes or evidence. They usually make a decent rational choice. We’ll see what the effects of the in-laws influence has on the issue…they aren’t the most progressive family I have ever met and my attempts to persuade them of anything lefterly-leaning usually gets me stared daggers.
Still, I’m awfully good at putting my foot in it when I open my mouth, so better off just watching everyone else play verbal tennis.
Pteryxx:
November 28th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Tangent example from my faaaavorite show (in this thread). From the DVR description of the newest MLP episode, freshly recorded Saturday morning:
Sure, Rainbow Dash is athletic, competitive, heroic, and not a little arrogant. (And pastel-blue with rainbow mane and tail.) But she’s also a SHE.
Does anyone seriously think the description-writer intentionally called Dash “he”? Or have any doubts why that particular mistake got made; or that it might annoy other MLP and Rainbow Dash fans besides myself, even if they’re too young to articulate why it hurt their feelings?
Yeah… gender coding exists, people do it unconsciously, and it’s a problem.
Porco Dio:
November 28th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Can anyone explain why a Deepak Chopra audience is usually upward of 80% female?
Cyberwulf:
November 28th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Ahhh, I love it when a man takes time out from his busy day to fill his pants in rage while scolding women about being hysterical. Good for you, PZ, good for you, you fucking Liberal Dude.
Cyberwulf:
November 28th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
I do love the irony in PZ completely ignoring the objective evidence of sexism, until at last the Creator (of the cartoon) handed down the Word (the genders were deliberately chosen). And lo! his eyes were opened and he did see. Though not well enough to edit this steaming pile of condescending, pity-me bullshit, of course.
Richard Eis:
November 28th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Because that is the target group he aims his crap at?
I wonder when “annoyance” appears as rage? Do you have special glasses you have to wear to make that appear to be true? Like beer goggles, but instead made out of hyperbole and stupid.
tigtog:
November 28th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Exactly, and it’s the exact same reason why ~90% of the audience at any Jeremy Clarkson event is male. Broad-brush demographic targeting works really, really well on the getting bums on seats level and is a highly successful form of marketing both escapist woo and comfortingly ‘commonsense’ rantage (which are classes that intersect, natch).
tigtog:
November 28th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
P.S. to my #285: It’s no accident that both Chopra and Clarkson target middle-aged people trying to feel better about their lives once the obvious consumerist goodies have been accumulated yet they still find themselves unfulfilled, and that the solutions they offer (woo will fix you; going faster and louder will fix you;) generate much transfer of cash in their direction both directly and indirectly. The products offered to the mostly-women-demographic are smaller/regular purchases (books/dvds/getaways) while the products offered to the mostly-men-demographic are large look-at-what-I’ve-got purchases (new cars/stadium shows) aligns precisely with gendered spending patterns – fancy that.
Cyberwulf:
November 28th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Richard Eis @ #284 – when someone makes a whole new post screeching about despair and embarrassment, scolding women for wasting their time on something “trivial” (and how fucking dare PZ or any other man tell women what incidences of sexism they should and shouldn’t care about), and tops it off by climbing up on the cross and snarling OTHER WOMEN EXPERIENCE *REAL* OPPRESSION, that goes beyond annoyance. That’s pants-full-of-shit rage.
Herp N. Derpington:
November 28th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Self-important binary commentary circle-jerks like this make me glad I avoid commenting/reading the comments on Pharyngula. 1037 comments that no one not involved in the “argument” will read, ever. Love it.
devnull:
November 28th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
You inviting this nonsense onto your blog PZ, one of the reasons why I no longer read it (the bunny pic was linked on JREF).
chigau (本当):
November 28th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
And I cannot express how sadly you are missed, devnull.
Really, I can’t.
John Morales:
November 29th, 2011 at 1:27 am
[meta]
Eponymous one:
You just commented, and how do you imagine know the contents of the comments if you haven’t read them?
(If you must be a liar, at least try to be plausible)