Utterly Gratuitous Sexism, Anyone?

Oooh. “Sexism” really is one of those words who utterance makes you feel you’ve wondered into the “Communications Studies” seminar rather than the Classics one. “Sexism” as a useful sociological concept, let alone term of abuse, ended on the opening night of Basic Instinct.

98% of the western world is sooo over “sexism”. Among the other 2% are old lesbians and pencil-necked softer social-studies academics.

In 2009, it’s pretty naff to say “sexism” with a serious face in the company of educated people.

@Jock: I am gratified to hear that the western world ‘is over’ the concept of sexism. If only we could get over the practice of it too…

That’s a pretty harsh verdict for a relatively minor offense — especially when, as you note, Randall Munroe seems to be Ross’s main accomplice in the crime. Click through 100 random copies of xkcd. The long-hair/no-hair gender marking is a fairly consistent feature of the strip, and it seems a pretty weak rebuttal to say only that “this is not invariably so.” In addition, a great many strips play out a similar dramatic relationship between the long-hair/no-hair couple. Why not trash Munroe for being “wrong on the internet” and replicating the gendered iconography and storyline many times over?

Of course, you could challenge Douthat’s reading of the emotional tenor of the off-panel words? How does he know they are not expressions of concern, as opposed to irritation? But that doesn’t have the same kick.

So I suggest the following. Pause and consider the gendered and sexist implications of using “douchebag” as an insult.

Women. Not even wrong. Or something equally sexist. But then again, I might be wrong. Is Belle of the non-masculine gender? Given that fact many homosexual couples enagage in healthy masculine/feminine roles, does “my husband” indicate a definitive gender of both parties? Inquiring sexist minds want to know.

From that post you have no idea what political policies I endorse, nor what political parties I have voted for, or political movements I have been involved in.

if they’re anything other than rightwing and dipshitty, you might have a bit of an image problem.

(separately, why Basic Instinct particularly? “Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot!” was out at around the same time, and arguably gives a more rounded and favourable portrayal of its female characters. Did racism come to an end the following weekend with the closing credits of “White Men Can’t Jump”?)

what’s the point of jock bowden? he’s all over half a dozen threads recently, aggressively sneering at everyone while awarding himself medals for not bothering to be informed about his topics of obsession — except as a compendium of uninformed blowhard cliche, his contributions have been null

There are four – maybe more – possible combinations of the sex of two people, even if they happen to share a bed(room). Even if undrawn hair may without transgression be taken to indicate *, that still doesn’t mean the other voice is a wife or even a female, nor a sexual/romantic partner. So there’s a lot of presumption to be avoided if you want to be utterly unprejudiced.

Still, Andy McNab @1,6: you might be better off sticking to the Daily Mail comments where your brand of pub-sage orthodox-heterodox posturing is admired as hard-, rather than dick-, headed.

_* I’ve started using those as #concept-quotes# (and those are #baptism-quotes#).

It’s hard to know what Jock is going on about, but it is still pretty weak tea to call sexism here. Sure, there are other possible interpretations of the comic. But Ross undoubtedly has hit on the most likely one. And what patriarchical norm is this reinforcing? That there are many straight couples out there? That sometimes the female partner desires the male partner in bed? If this is sexist than any story which assigns gender, however innocuosly, when it is not strictly necessary is sexist. Seems a tad extreme.

It’s not hard to know what Jock is on about: Jock is on about Jock.

Other than that, I side with mpowell: a tad extreme. (and if in the excerpt genders were switched and all – would that have been any better? the scene is undertermined – any gender combination would probably fit some stereotype)

I always thought that the Xkcd figures are vaguely autobiographical, there is a hairless sick figure who seems to be sort of persona of the author (unlike the guy with the hat for example, or Ron Paul), the long- haired figure who is smarter than the I person is the author’s grilfriend, and comics like these seem to be “things that often happen to me” stories.

Jock: [interesting handle, compensating a bit? or was high school football the peak of his life?] “From that post you have no idea what political policies I endorse, nor what political parties I have voted for, or political movements I have been involved in.”

dsquared: “if they’re anything other than rightwing and dipshitty, you might have a bit of an image problem.”

Daniel, if I live in England for a few years, will I get a level in witty comebacks? I was trying to come up with something before I read yours, and didn’t have anything funny enough to post.

Actually the comic, and Douthat’s interpretation, could be sexist in its derogatory depiction of males as emotionally detached partners in an intimate relationship.

But really. Belle Waring has made an insult, not an argument. Whether, behind the insult, there was some reasoned analysis has yet to be demonstrated.

Hmm. I’m wondering if this post hasn’t transgressed a few boundaries on its way towards a transformative termeneutics of Douthat’s sexism.

So close, John, and you have to go spoil it with a tryp..typh..tyop…spelling mistake. The internet’s a bitch [in a completely non-sexist way, of course.]

Yeah, I should have just toughed it out with “termeneutics”: the interpretation of terms!

The offscreen character is female because this is an exchange between the reoccuring main characters of the strip. It is also imputed that the offscreen character is irritated, but there is no clue that this is the case apart from the prejudices of those making that reading of the strip, there are certainly perfectly feasible other readings of the mood of the offscreen character.

Yeah, I agree Douthat’s assumption was inoccuous. Much ado about not much here.

Douthat is factually incorrect when claiming it is his wife talking
or fictionally incorrect?

Look at this comment thread – no comments from Belle. Now look at any of John’s comment threads and the way he responds compulsively to wayward comments. Can’t you imagine this cartoon playing out in their household for real?

Douthat has one valid point

He may be wrong in all of his other assumptions, but of course the stick figure at the computer is a guy. People not affected by testosterone poisoning would not embark on the mad project of refuting everyone on the Internet who is wrong, or at least wouldn’t be able to formulate so clearly what they are doing and still go on doing it.

Belle, don’t you have anything better to do? There are many good reasons to call Douthat sexist, but this is not one of them. XKCD always uses an unmarked stick figure to represent the male character and a stick figure with long hair to represent his girl friend. I am sure if you asked Randal he would tell you that he did this to make it easy to distinguish his characters. Not because he is a sexist “douchbag”. Sheesh

JoB re actual applied sexism.

Gee, I hope not. I think Belle’s real point was that the cartoon, in her interpretation, was making fun of a HUMAN trait – that either men OR women could get so caught up in a flame war that they would rather respond to some unknown crackpot than accept an obviously delightful invitation from their partner to come to bed.

Ok, this thread is officially insane. Belle’s complaint was not that Douthat had made the assumption that the character off-screen was female (although you would need to be more aware of the internal dynamics of xkcd than he seems to be to make that assumption – people are right that this is probably an exchange between the default characters – m/f, but does Douthat even know that there are such?) Belle’s complaint was the assumption that the person off-screen, whom he assumed to be female even though they might be male, divine, demonic or a talking horse, was irritated. Which is a sexist cliche. That is all.

(Personally, when I first saw the damn cartoon I assumed she was horny.)

Chris, she also complains that Douthat assumes the in-panel stick figure is a man; in light of that, it seems natural to infer that the previous complaint wasn’t just about the “irritated wife” cliché, but the implicit (and at least arguably unjustified) assumption that it would be a woman calling him to bed.

” It’s true that xkcd often depicts female stick figures as having longer hair, but this is not invariably so.”

Really? I can’t think of any strips that have an unambiguously female character without longer hair—can you find any? See, for example, the preceding comic to the “someone is wrong on the Internet” one: http://xkcd.com/385/ . Notice that the female character has long hair.

Anyway, I like chris y (45)’s comment.

for this thread, this might be useful
http://viv.id.au/blog/20070414.431/anti-feminist-bingo-a-master-class-in-sexual-entitlement/

Douthat’s insertion of the term “wife” is doubly annoying.

“How, might I ask did Douthat know that the voice in question is that of an irritated wife? And what marks the stick figure as that of a man? Oh, right, the unmarked is always male, right? It’s true that xkcd often depicts female stick figures as having longer hair, but this is not invariably so. Verdict: douchebag.”

In the context of the other xkcd comics the stick figure is not only ‘a’ man, but in fact that male character who is the subject of most of the comics. It has nothing to do with the unmarked being male, and everything to do with the context of this particular comic strip. In that context, the voice offscreen is almost certainly the main character’s girlfriend, a person who has her own history (sometimes chiding the main character for being too nerdy as in this frame). Douthat describing the girlfriend as the nerd’s wife doesn’t seem enough for him to be called a douchebag.

Full disclosure, I am a nerd.

mds @53 – isn’t it mainly a prostitution thing? Though that would I suppose make it all the more phallocratic.

When the revolution comes, people who don’t read xkcd religiously will be the first one sent to re-education camps on the Charles.

Pause and consider the gendered and sexist implications of using “douchebag” as an insult.

It is possible that Belle was alluding to the semi-famous site “Hot Chicks with Douchebags.”

Douches and douchebags are a misogynist and, fortunately, mostly antiquated tradition. Hence, they make lovely insults – sexism is the butt of the slur, not women.

Look at a picture of a douchebag sometime and you’ll see just how lovely.

I am still searching for the piece, but I clearly recall reading something by Munroe where he bemoans his own inability to come up with a truly ungendered stick figure, and more or less apologises for the whole hair/no-hair thing.

Barry

What is really interesting is that:

1. You would be so petty as to try and demean me – rather than my post – by focusing on my “handle”.

2. That you would think my “handle” is an ‘over compensation’, though for what who knows.

3. That you would be so provincial and ethnocentric in your reflexive associaltion of my “handle” to American high school cliques.

4. Not that you should be expected to know, but I was born in Scotland, and my father’s family is from Derbyshire, which is England.

5. God, do you need to live in England for a few years, or at least get out more.

6. You need to sort out your politics.

7. It is clear you are one of the two percent. ;)

As you were.

If there is any sexism in this cartoon, it is of the typical misandrist strain. The male is presented as an adolescent – still toy-focused, with a hint of Asperger’s, for which he compensates through late night, stereotypically male, competitive blog flame wars. The underdevelopment of his figure suggests he blogs anonomynously. The emasculation is completed by the privileged voice of his female partner; a privilege amplified by her not even needing any visual presence or depiction for the whipping to be so thorough and complete.

Jeez, haven’t any of you taken Gender Studies courses?

Shock News! Male comment thread at Crooked Timber decides (a) no sexism here, move along now and (b) doesn’t Belle have anything better to do than complain about common or garden non-sexism. Rinse. Repeat.

Shock News! Male comment thread at Crooked Timber decides (a) no sexism here, move along now and (b) doesn’t Belle have anything better to do than complain about common or garden non-sexism. Rinse. Repeat.

If this is the sort of battle that is left over sexism, then I think we can all say “Great job. Sexism is basically solved, and everyone can move onto more important things.”

Jock, if you say “Jeez” one more time you might self-destruct.

“If this is the sort of battle that is left over sexism, then I think we can all say “Great job. Sexism is basically solved, and everyone can move onto more important things.”

I’m going to make the understatement of the day and say “no”.

*Apologies if “cobag” is misconstrued as derogatory to colostomy recipients.

I’m trying to find out if the creator of xkcd shaves his head or not

He doesn’t.

Meanwhile, I’m trying to find out if the creator of xkcd shaves his head or not

Why would a balding/nearly bald guy have to shave his head? (Or were you trying to find a picture of him, to see that he is indeed balding? Check the @Google)

Also, +1 what mds said (for several reasons, including making the exact point that should be made about why this thread exists, and introducing the novel practice of shucking a footnote into the next comment down)

The xkcd analysis-of-inference is kind of fun. From this comic alone it seems reasonable to surmise that “no drawn hair” = “balding or short hair”. Yes, most males in our society/societies tend to wear shorter hair than most females, and so we can make inferences about xkcd characters using that fact. But is the person saying “At last!” male or female? I have no clue. Impossible to tell.

And in this comic a male character (albeit an android) has hair drawn on. As does a character in this comic. We can infer from that character’s behavior and appearance, together with social norms we’re familiar with, maleness — perhaps that’s a reasonable inference. Also see this comic, in which a known-to-be-male character has hair. Why does he have hair drawn in? Well, it’s not exactly short hair…

Pop quiz I: Is the character in this comic who says “damn” male or female?

Pop quiz II: Were all the arrested parties in the Pirate Bay scandal male? Did they all have short hair?

Also, a thread about sexism and xkcd that doesn’t link to this gem is an automatic travesty.

And any thread about hair-drawn-on-xkcd-characters can’t possibly be complete without a link to this comic.

And, um, did nobody realize the “main female character” Megan is literally married to someone else?

As for the eternal Is the author of xkcd sexist or is he trying to explore the contours of sexism in our society or both debate, I suggest reading this blog post by the author, specifically the book recommendation.

OK, that’s all.

Making accusations of any form of discrimination towards media produced in a society where said discrimination exists is like shooting fish in a barrel. Why does he always use a heterosexual couple to talk about “relationships”? Because when people read about a heterosexual relationship, it’s a “relationship joke”, but when they read about a homosexual couple, it’s a “gay joke”. Men on the internet are people in the internet, while women on the internet are women on the internet. Dominant groups in a society are set as the default. He didn’t make it that way, but it’s still the situation in which he is creating.

@Salient:

This isn’t meant to be a snarky comeback, I just am too lazy to search strips: Could you reference another comic that uses the name “Megan” for the recurring girlfriend? I’d always assumed that was just some other girl.

Finally, it’s quite en vogue for balding men to go full shave these days.

Shock News! Male comment thread at Crooked Timber decides (a) no sexism here, move along now and (b) doesn’t Belle have anything better to do than complain about common or garden non-sexism. Rinse. Repeat.

In other words, “Male opinion on issues relating to sexism is worthless if it isn’t in agreement with mine”? Quite a convenient rhetorical contraption.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I haven’t expressed any opinion on whether I see sexism in this particular case. I am commenting on a recurring theme in CT comments threads that I have observed. Your criticism of a non-existent “rhetorical contraption” provides you with a good excuse to exhibit those characteristics I pointed out though.

While we’re considering whether Munroe is doing sexist things with his comics, here’s a wonderful strip that I’ve posted in response to at least ten jerks.

Are we? I am fairly sure the OP was about Douthat inserting it into his interpretation of an xkcd cartoon, and not the original cartoon.

I’m going to make the understatement of the day and say “no”.

That is why my comment was phrased as a hypothetical.

Male comment thread at Crooked Timber decides (a) no sexism here, move along now

I don’t think we’ve decided that at all.

Meanwhile, Salient (who I assume is male) points us to Munroe’s blog, which documents this remarkable and depressing case of sexism.

Somewhere in the thread, someone said xkcd had sexist portrayals of its characters. It may have actually been just one person, but when I wrote my earlier post, I thought multiple people had suggested it. Obviously the strip that I linked to had what you might call a pronounced ‘proto-feminist’ sensibility.

Douchebag? Really? Over a slightly-inaccurate retelling of an xkcd cartoon? Bit of a hair trigger you’ve got on the douche-gun, don’t you think?

94 – now thàt was arousing – investigating underwear, & yep, testosterone poisoning firmly in place ;-)

90-92 – on to something there, hope I didn’t do it but could well have done it so: good point!