The comic would have been better if you just showed Powergirl breaking his camera or punching him or something. Not needing to be 'saved'. That does defeat the whole feminist message if you ask me. I've seen women get awesomely brutal at conventions when they're being harassed. They aren't shy little flowers.
There is no feminist message in this comic. The message is that people should stand up for someone who is being harassed, that it's common decency to do so.
Your comment subscribes to ultra political correctness. If the woman doesn't retaliate immediately in a snappy manner to the derogatory remark, that female portrayal is sexist and backwards. Heaven help us if someone stretch their legs a bit and creates a piece that doesn't make all female characters badass. It's almost like people are different or something.
Well at least you actually attempted to present a case this time.
I'm the last person to be ultra politically correct. However I can't help but see a cognitive dissonance from these people proclaiming no matter how sexually suggestive a woman's costume is, a man never has a right to photograph her against her will. (Which is actually not true, it's considered freedom of press that you can photograph anything that occurs a in public space.) There's also a cognitive dissonance from Dobson claiming that 'damsels in distress' are overused and that it's okay to request variety. Yet when I request variety, after he made two comics that essentially display women the same way, (blushing and shy) that's not reasonable? Practically everyone who responded to this and Dobson himself appear to only be applying social justice where it pleases them, with no regard for ethical consistency. I find that reasoning to be flawed.
I'm disappointed you see both women as "shy and weak."
In the first comic she is protecting her body from harassment. She has a red face because she is angry at the situation. She is not blushing out of shyness, she is trying to use her body language to prevent further harassment.
In the second comic the woman is cut off mid sentence and verbally put down. She blushes here but that's not due to shyness, its due to embarrassment for being put down so rudely. And in the next panel it's pretty clear she knows her stuff and isn't the ignorant fake geek the guy thought she is, an even knows more than "me."
Both instances are of men taking advantage of women and treating them badly, but to assume that a woman's ONlY course of action is to beat them up implies that a woman is only strong if she uses physical violence. Which is just wrong. There are a lot of ways women (and men) can be strong without resorting to violence. I would suggest to you that enduring sexist crap like that is a strength in and of itself.
At any rate, I'm growing tired of people blowing these comics so damn out of proportion. I made 2 comics tha tackle similar issues. Wow. Heaven forbid out of the plethora of other comics I've done.
I also find it curious that a comic with a character defending a woman is considered feminist propaganda, while also the idea of a woman beating the crap out of a dude would ALSO be considered feminist propaganda. It's like there's no way to avoid it when you deliberately TRY to pigeon hole it in.
Yeah I get all of that but it doesn't change my opinion that you wrote these scenarios badly and you should aim for more variety considering how strongly you advocated it when Anita Sarkeesian suggested it.
Lastly, I never said a woman's only course of action is to beat them up but the only option you're portraying is for some guy who totally isn't you to somehow avenge or console them. It's not that you made two comics that deal with similar issues, it's that you made them practically the same.
Yeah a female character beating up a dude WOULD be considered feminist propaganda, but it's not that I have a problem with feminist propaganda, it's that I have a problem with flawed feminist propaganda and self-contradictory feminist propaganda and hypocritical feminist propaganda, and that's what I consider this to be.
I am sorry that it's frustrating to you but that's just how it is. You are a very opinionated person, and you WANT to be that way, and when you expose your opinions, there are going to be people that contest them because they have their opinions, and they want to be opinionated too. It's like you want to just be able to say whatever you want and avoid the consequences or something. No matter what you think, ever, at all, about anything, there will ALWAYS be someone who disagrees. When you're famous, or infamous, the percentage of people who disagree will always get proportionately higher. If you want to be known for putting your opinion out there, you should expect people to constantly have a counter-opinion to everything you make. It's not just because people are deliberately trying to contradict you just for the sake of it.
So you're ignoring all the other comics that portray bolder women out of... what? Convenience?
Men do not have the right to photograph women, or anyone, against their will. In the legal world, that is referred to as harassment.
The rule of having fans is to not give a fuck about said fans, especially the ones who offer idea for comics. Fans are whiny annoying dipshits who will never be satisfied with any concession you make. The sooner you shut them out, the happier you'll be. Your opinion is not so lofty that it will influence Dobson to change his work.
That's not true, actually. People have a right to take photographs in public places, whether it's of people or places or whatever. It's called freedom of press.
Now, you could argue that it's unethical or uncourteous, which in the context of this comic I agree it is, since I definitely think you need to ask a cosplayer before taking his/her picture, but taking a picture of a person in a public place is not a violation of rights.
If this situation happened in real life, the more logical course of action would be notifying security and they'll take it from there. If there's enough evidence that the guy is making people feel uncomfortable, they can kick him out, but it's like he'll go to jail or anything (the comic even addresses this), because he didn't break the law or violate any rights.
When picture-taking actually becomes harassment would be taking pictures of someone within private property, like going into a person's yard and taking pictures of him inside his house without consent. Now THAT'S a violation of rights, and even a reaction of physical violence (like the Bear does in the comic) could be justified self-defense, since you don't know if the photographer is some kind of psycho or not.
I understand the point the comic is trying to make, but let's not confuse terms here. There's quite a line between what's a violation of rights and what isn't.
Just so you know, while it might seem like it's illegal to take pictures of someone inside their house on private property without their consent, that's not actually illegal either and is still protected under freedom of press. What they would charge you for in that situation is 'tresspassing'. Although if you were able to do it without entering their property it wouldn't be that either. It's pretty interesting!
He only said it once, so it's not "repeated". And a passing remark like that does not constitute violation of rights either.
My initial response to you was regarding your claim that what the guy did was a "violation of rights", implying that what he did broke the law. He didn't. What he did was morally wrong and unethical, as I said earlier, but there are lots of things that are considered morally wrong and unethical that aren't punished by law. This is one of them.
And yes, men do have the right to photograph women, men, or anything else regardless of consent. As do women. Everyone does. That alone is not considered harassment. You should look it up. It isn't very polite, granted, but it's perfectly legal. Like I just said, it's protected under the first amendment.
If you think fans are whiny annoying dipshits then I'm glad you don't have any. I consider my fans to be my very livelyhood and I appreciate each of them immensely because they're the ones giving me money and a purpose to my career. I never said my opinion was the end all, I just made a SUGGESTION. Dobson can do whatever he wants and I can suggest whatever I want and you can tell me you don't like it all you want and isn't it awesome how everyone can just... do that?
Any comic involving Persistent Pam, or any comic involving Brentalfloss' female neighbor.
The first amendment does not protect you from harassment charges, and if you continue to photograph someone against their wishes, invading their privacy to do so, then what you're doing is absolutely illegal.
You're not thinking of fans, you're thinking of critics. Critics will offer you a piece of their mind and tell you what needs changing and what's good. A fan is a mindless beast that will eat up everything you put out like a starving dog. Those fans are usually the people who leave single sentence comments saying how much their mind was blown by whatever art you just produced.
It's not the same situation as women responding to 'sexual harassment' there fore I don't find the them comparable.
If you are perceived as harassing someone, you can indeed be charged with harassment. However, simply photographing someone against their will, even repeatedly, is not an illegal invasion of privacy. What is portrayed in this comic is completely legal. If it showed the man following her around all day and verbally abusing her, those actions would be considered harassment. Photographing her would have nothing to do with it. You can photograph whatever you want whenever you want and that's freedom of press. If you happen to be breaking other laws in the process, you will be charged for those laws, but not for the photography itself.
So I'm a critic, not a fan, does that mean my opinion is therefore valid? According to your logic. Critics aren't known for being the financial support for an endeavor, fans are. Fans are your audience. For you to call every fan in the history of anything 'whiny annoying dipshits' is stupid, inconsiderate, immature, and flat out inaccurate. To even call a majority of them such a thing is no better. Even to just address the small portion of an audience that behaves badly that way is narrow-minded. What the hell is wrong with you?
The man in this comic is verbally harassing her. It's that simple.
Fans are the ones who mindless follow, dishing out unjust praise and buying into whatever concept the subject of their fanning puts out. Fans may be your audience, but they're a bunch of easily impressionable twats, and you should give as few fucks about them as possible. The only people you should pay attention to are the critics, since they are the ones who will offer valid advice.
That is not verbal harassment. Making a single passing sexual comment is NOT harassment. Harassment legally requires repetition, and threat. This strip displays neither.
So you're saying that if someone is a fan of something, automatically they never question it, all their praise is unjust, they're gullible, and they're characteristically twats. Wow, that's incredibly shitty of you. God forbid people who exist have a personality and an intellect and also enjoy another person's creative works a lot.
Lastly, as I just said, I AM A CRITIC. I am clearly criticizing this strip, and I do that often. I am a critic, so therefore, your entire complaint about 'FANS' is fucking irrelevant to me, on top of being completely unjustified and illogical.
Sexual harassment as defined by US law states and I quote "The incident may be one time occurrence but more often it has a type of repetitiveness."
This is a depiction of sexual harassment. Do not try to semantically wheedle its intentions. It is clearly sexual harassment and repetition (while is sometimes required) is not an absolute golden rule or necessity to define it as such.
No it is not legally sexual harassment if a man makes a single comment to a woman at a convention and takes a photo. I'm sorry, it's just not. Impolite, yes. Inappropriate, perhaps. Harassment? No. Even if the person isn't following and stalking and doing this repeatedly, they still have to be persistent to some degree or it isn't harassment. That ONE TIME OCCURRENCE means that at one time, a guy bothered this girl incessantly during this particular time. It does not mean he said ONE THING to her that was inappropriate and therefore he's legally harassing her, that would be absurd.
I really don't give a crap about the semantics of it all. Despite there only being one line of dialogue in the cartoon, the intention by me, the artist, was to depict a form of sexual harassment. You can debate legalities all you want, but the end of the day is this comic is designed to evoke a specific example of sexual harassment that typically goes on at conventions. I don't need to write extra panels to indicate that it's a more than one time occurrence here just to satisfy your lust for legal specifics.
There isn't any debating about that, that's what it is. That was my intention. That's what EVERYONE understands is taking place.
I was previously addressing this AS being a comic about sexual harassment because I KNOW that's your intention. I'm sorry that I think you portrayed it badly, but I do. I've given you detailed reasons about why that is, and it's fine that you want to disagree with me about it, but that's just how it is. And if your little buddy there hadn't been making blatantly idiotic statements at me I would have dropped it after your response, but having someone tell ME a provably untrue statement, (photography is allowed in literally any circumstance at all ever, sorry, it just is) and then randomly start talking about how horrible and stupid fans are is something I feel compelled to respond to.
And I'm assuming the harassment continued beyond that single line and the single picture that was taken during our snapshot of the strip.
You may be a critic, but you're not criticizing the strip. You're taking your own ultra-feminist ideas and forcing them into a situation in which they do not fit.
That would only apply if this was a feminist propaganda message and not one about common decency expected of all people. If harassment of men at the hands of women was a problem of epidemic proportions at comic conventions I would have used a man as the example.
Besides, assuming that a man stepping in to confront an asshole implies that the woman is "weak" or "in need of saving" is kinda a sexist belief too. Unless a woman actively punches a guy in the face she MUST be weak, no?
This doesn't seem like it's about common decency expected of people. It looks like it's about you (or 'not you') rescuing/white knighting women. Also, for the record, as a man, I have been harassed by women at cons. But for some reason that's just 'okay'. I had some creepy barely-legal girl follow me around all fucking day at AMKE, continuously hitting on me even after I told her I had a BOYFRIEND. She even goes 'so are you bi, or just gay? Would you ever be attracted to a girl?' It doesn't fucking matter because I'm already dating someone.
Lastly, I don't think the assumption is 'a woman is weak for having a man step in'. This woman you drew doesn't actually exist. You invented a woman who IS weak and needs a man to save her. And this is after promoting all those damsel in distress videos that blatantly condemn any female character that needs rescuing. Your other comic on this topic is the same exact thing. You only show women reacting to perverts by blushing furiously and getting all sheepish.
First of all, your situation is unacceptable. She was clearly in the wrong and should've been put in her place for harassing you. I'm sorry that happened but that still doesn't mean that it happens to men more frequently than it does to women. You're an exception to a rather powerful statistic, sadly.
Second, do not think for a moment that just because I promoted the "damsel in distress" videos means that I 100% hate the trope and refuse to use it ever. That video, and my opinions on it, were about criticizing an over used trope and wanting variety. It is not condemning the trope or saying you can't still appreciate the trope. I really really wish people could get this point through their heads.
I'll grant you that it may very well happen to women more, but I don't know for sure that's the case. There may be a higher percentage of women affected, but it might be because there are fewer women at these cons. I'd like to know if someone took the actual average numbers of women who get harassed and men who get harassed and compared them or not, because I've seen it happen often from both sides. Believe it or not, but nerdy girls can often be just as inappropriate and perverted as nerdy guys. I've seen girls glomp boys they didn't know, I've seen girls hugging boys they didn't know, I saw a girl try to lead a guy around on a chain that was part of his costume without permission, ect. Just as Jhonen Vasquez for starters, women harass him at cons A LOT. I'm just curious about the statistics here.
So anyway, I GET what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that I want variety from YOU in the form of these comics. Like I said, the other one you posted was basically the same. I am simply suggesting you do one that does NOT depict women that way. If it had only been this single one, I probably wouldn't have said anything. You can't criticize the overuse of a trope and the overuse it yourself, that's hypocritical.
Sta.sh
Devious Comments
So yes, you're wrong.
I'm the last person to be ultra politically correct. However I can't help but see a cognitive dissonance from these people proclaiming no matter how sexually suggestive a woman's costume is, a man never has a right to photograph her against her will. (Which is actually not true, it's considered freedom of press that you can photograph anything that occurs a in public space.) There's also a cognitive dissonance from Dobson claiming that 'damsels in distress' are overused and that it's okay to request variety. Yet when I request variety, after he made two comics that essentially display women the same way, (blushing and shy) that's not reasonable? Practically everyone who responded to this and Dobson himself appear to only be applying social justice where it pleases them, with no regard for ethical consistency. I find that reasoning to be flawed.
Therefore, you are wrong.
In the first comic she is protecting her body from harassment. She has a red face because she is angry at the situation. She is not blushing out of shyness, she is trying to use her body language to prevent further harassment.
In the second comic the woman is cut off mid sentence and verbally put down. She blushes here but that's not due to shyness, its due to embarrassment for being put down so rudely. And in the next panel it's pretty clear she knows her stuff and isn't the ignorant fake geek the guy thought she is, an even knows more than "me."
Both instances are of men taking advantage of women and treating them badly, but to assume that a woman's ONlY course of action is to beat them up implies that a woman is only strong if she uses physical violence. Which is just wrong. There are a lot of ways women (and men) can be strong without resorting to violence. I would suggest to you that enduring sexist crap like that is a strength in and of itself.
At any rate, I'm growing tired of people blowing these comics so damn out of proportion. I made 2 comics tha tackle similar issues. Wow. Heaven forbid out of the plethora of other comics I've done.
I also find it curious that a comic with a character defending a woman is considered feminist propaganda, while also the idea of a woman beating the crap out of a dude would ALSO be considered feminist propaganda. It's like there's no way to avoid it when you deliberately TRY to pigeon hole it in.
Lastly, I never said a woman's only course of action is to beat them up but the only option you're portraying is for some guy who totally isn't you to somehow avenge or console them. It's not that you made two comics that deal with similar issues, it's that you made them practically the same.
Yeah a female character beating up a dude WOULD be considered feminist propaganda, but it's not that I have a problem with feminist propaganda, it's that I have a problem with flawed feminist propaganda and self-contradictory feminist propaganda and hypocritical feminist propaganda, and that's what I consider this to be.
I am sorry that it's frustrating to you but that's just how it is. You are a very opinionated person, and you WANT to be that way, and when you expose your opinions, there are going to be people that contest them because they have their opinions, and they want to be opinionated too. It's like you want to just be able to say whatever you want and avoid the consequences or something. No matter what you think, ever, at all, about anything, there will ALWAYS be someone who disagrees. When you're famous, or infamous, the percentage of people who disagree will always get proportionately higher. If you want to be known for putting your opinion out there, you should expect people to constantly have a counter-opinion to everything you make. It's not just because people are deliberately trying to contradict you just for the sake of it.
Men do not have the right to photograph women, or anyone, against their will. In the legal world, that is referred to as harassment.
The rule of having fans is to not give a fuck about said fans, especially the ones who offer idea for comics. Fans are whiny annoying dipshits who will never be satisfied with any concession you make. The sooner you shut them out, the happier you'll be. Your opinion is not so lofty that it will influence Dobson to change his work.
Now, you could argue that it's unethical or uncourteous, which in the context of this comic I agree it is, since I definitely think you need to ask a cosplayer before taking his/her picture, but taking a picture of a person in a public place is not a violation of rights.
If this situation happened in real life, the more logical course of action would be notifying security and they'll take it from there. If there's enough evidence that the guy is making people feel uncomfortable, they can kick him out, but it's like he'll go to jail or anything (the comic even addresses this), because he didn't break the law or violate any rights.
When picture-taking actually becomes harassment would be taking pictures of someone within private property, like going into a person's yard and taking pictures of him inside his house without consent. Now THAT'S a violation of rights, and even a reaction of physical violence (like the Bear does in the comic) could be justified self-defense, since you don't know if the photographer is some kind of psycho or not.
I understand the point the comic is trying to make, but let's not confuse terms here. There's quite a line between what's a violation of rights and what isn't.
But otherwise, yes, you are entirely correct.
My initial response to you was regarding your claim that what the guy did was a "violation of rights", implying that what he did broke the law. He didn't. What he did was morally wrong and unethical, as I said earlier, but there are lots of things that are considered morally wrong and unethical that aren't punished by law. This is one of them.
That kind of harassment is illegal.
The Bear's reaction doesn't mean anything. If it continued, it would have been shown in the comic, but it wasn't, therefore it didn't happen.
It wasn't shown because the comic is three panels long. The attack wasn't shown, so it must not have taken place.
I stand by my initial statement.
See where this is going?
Dobson's bear getting up is indicative of continued harassment, the same way the dialogue is indicative of a fight.
And yes, men do have the right to photograph women, men, or anything else regardless of consent. As do women. Everyone does. That alone is not considered harassment. You should look it up. It isn't very polite, granted, but it's perfectly legal. Like I just said, it's protected under the first amendment.
If you think fans are whiny annoying dipshits then I'm glad you don't have any. I consider my fans to be my very livelyhood and I appreciate each of them immensely because they're the ones giving me money and a purpose to my career. I never said my opinion was the end all, I just made a SUGGESTION. Dobson can do whatever he wants and I can suggest whatever I want and you can tell me you don't like it all you want and isn't it awesome how everyone can just... do that?
tompreston.deviantart.com/art/…
Any comic involving Persistent Pam, or any comic involving Brentalfloss' female neighbor.
The first amendment does not protect you from harassment charges, and if you continue to photograph someone against their wishes, invading their privacy to do so, then what you're doing is absolutely illegal.
You're not thinking of fans, you're thinking of critics. Critics will offer you a piece of their mind and tell you what needs changing and what's good. A fan is a mindless beast that will eat up everything you put out like a starving dog. Those fans are usually the people who leave single sentence comments saying how much their mind was blown by whatever art you just produced.
So yes, whiny annoying dipshits.
If you are perceived as harassing someone, you can indeed be charged with harassment. However, simply photographing someone against their will, even repeatedly, is not an illegal invasion of privacy. What is portrayed in this comic is completely legal. If it showed the man following her around all day and verbally abusing her, those actions would be considered harassment. Photographing her would have nothing to do with it. You can photograph whatever you want whenever you want and that's freedom of press. If you happen to be breaking other laws in the process, you will be charged for those laws, but not for the photography itself.
So I'm a critic, not a fan, does that mean my opinion is therefore valid? According to your logic.
Critics aren't known for being the financial support for an endeavor, fans are. Fans are your audience. For you to call every fan in the history of anything 'whiny annoying dipshits' is stupid, inconsiderate, immature, and flat out inaccurate. To even call a majority of them such a thing is no better. Even to just address the small portion of an audience that behaves badly that way is narrow-minded. What the hell is wrong with you?
Fans are the ones who mindless follow, dishing out unjust praise and buying into whatever concept the subject of their fanning puts out. Fans may be your audience, but they're a bunch of easily impressionable twats, and you should give as few fucks about them as possible. The only people you should pay attention to are the critics, since they are the ones who will offer valid advice.
What the hell is wrong with you?
So you're saying that if someone is a fan of something, automatically they never question it, all their praise is unjust, they're gullible, and they're characteristically twats. Wow, that's incredibly shitty of you. God forbid people who exist have a personality and an intellect and also enjoy another person's creative works a lot.
Lastly, as I just said, I AM A CRITIC. I am clearly criticizing this strip, and I do that often. I am a critic, so therefore, your entire complaint about 'FANS' is fucking irrelevant to me, on top of being completely unjustified and illogical.
This is a depiction of sexual harassment. Do not try to semantically wheedle its intentions. It is clearly sexual harassment and repetition (while is sometimes required) is not an absolute golden rule or necessity to define it as such.
Just... Stop it already, please.
There isn't any debating about that, that's what it is. That was my intention. That's what EVERYONE understands is taking place.
So again... stop it.
You may be a critic, but you're not criticizing the strip. You're taking your own ultra-feminist ideas and forcing them into a situation in which they do not fit.
Besides, assuming that a man stepping in to confront an asshole implies that the woman is "weak" or "in need of saving" is kinda a sexist belief too. Unless a woman actively punches a guy in the face she MUST be weak, no?
Lastly, I don't think the assumption is 'a woman is weak for having a man step in'. This woman you drew doesn't actually exist. You invented a woman who IS weak and needs a man to save her. And this is after promoting all those damsel in distress videos that blatantly condemn any female character that needs rescuing. Your other comic on this topic is the same exact thing. You only show women reacting to perverts by blushing furiously and getting all sheepish.
Second, do not think for a moment that just because I promoted the "damsel in distress" videos means that I 100% hate the trope and refuse to use it ever. That video, and my opinions on it, were about criticizing an over used trope and wanting variety. It is not condemning the trope or saying you can't still appreciate the trope. I really really wish people could get this point through their heads.
So anyway, I GET what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that I want variety from YOU in the form of these comics. Like I said, the other one you posted was basically the same. I am simply suggesting you do one that does NOT depict women that way. If it had only been this single one, I probably wouldn't have said anything. You can't criticize the overuse of a trope and the overuse it yourself, that's hypocritical.