Comments on: Utterly Gratuitous Sexism, Anyone?

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:32:19 +0000

Comment 65, Point 4: So it’s not “jock” as in an American subscriber to the cult of athleticism but “Jock” as in Jocky Wilson? All right then.

By: JoB

JoB — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:19:33 +0000

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!

By: Martha Bridegam

Martha Bridegam — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:57:45 +0000

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.

Oh yeah? (Contemplates last ten years of flame wars. Investigates contents of underwear… Hm…) Someone is distinctly wrong on the Internet.

By: TW Andrews

TW Andrews — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:40:49 +0000

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?

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:34:47 +0000

Salient @90 is correct—I know I’ve been guilty of this myself.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:50:42 +0000

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.

By: Salient

Salient — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:57:07 +0000

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

We = you and I haven’t, true, but don’t forget about the Jock fellow upthread (for example). I’d agree with Katherine’s point about CT threads when sexism’s mentioned in the OP, and I don’t think she intended to sweep up every last post in her comment.

More disturbingly, I’ve noticed the threads with the most full-on challenges to the original post’s right to exist, like “why did you post this?” or “this whole post is wrong-headed,” tend to be original posts written by the female CT contributors. The question of “how is this worth writing about / how can you justify posting this / this whole post is unfair” seems to come up much much much more often when the post-writer is female. To me this illustrates a nuanced, unconscious, and pervasive sexism—after all, it’s not always the same culprits making such accusation—and it’s depressing and maddening to see evidence of it in the CT commenter community.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:50:31 +0000

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.

By: Salient

Salient — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:47:06 +0000

There's also this not particularly coherent comic, which apparently riffs on the Megan-as-recurrent-character meme. (Also, after random flip-throughs while procrastinating/avoiding exam-writing duties, I hypothesize it would be possible and not completely unenlightening to find xkcd posts that at least loosely address the issues raised in every CT post going back for at least the past week or so.)

By: Stuart

Stuart — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:42:32 +0000

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.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:25:57 +0000

Well, that attempt at formatting went wrong – the first two paragraphs a supposed to be in itallics, with the first being my comment and the second being a response from “chrisare” to mine.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:24:44 +0000

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.

By: Salient

Salient — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:08:24 +0000

Could you reference another comic that uses the name “Megan” for the recurring girlfriend? Can do.

By: Mike C

Mike C — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:02:29 +0000

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.

By: Salient

Salient — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:57:43 +0000

Gah. While my comment awaits moderation for immoderately many links, let me pre-emptively acknowledge that lemuel has pre-emptively corrected me; Randall is not bald(ing). But he does have very short hair!