Websnark

Comment from: Dave Van Domelen posted at April 17, 2005 11:58 PM

Purely on a literalist level, Quiznos locally has trouble with setting the oven too hot and the chain line too fast, so the sandwiches come out burned at the corners and cold in the middle.

Waiting for Planet Sub to finish building here in town, they do much better than either Quiznos or Subway. :)

Comment from: Joshua Holbrook posted at April 18, 2005 12:55 AM

I shy away from such things as Girlamatic, BET, etc. also, but not for the same reasons Eric does. For some reason, I feel like if I were to read something meant for women (like Woman's World--I did that a few times) than it'd be like me saying that I *am* a woman, and that wouldn't be true (and so on for similar things)... does that make sense?

Comment from: Doc posted at April 18, 2005 1:43 AM

Yeah I get this feeling a lot too, that because it is for *them* it can't be for me.

Although as far as things specific to webcomics go I agree with Ping that I can't see why it is meant to be an issue in the first place, but then I don't know if my opinion counts or not. Y'know, because I am phallicly inclined.

Being at university with a club (or group or collective or buzzword) for most minorities that are statistically relevant in our area I get tired of people telling me that x is as good as everyone else, particularly when I already agree with them, but asking them to be quiet and just get back to being as good as everyone else seems impolite somehow.

It probably just goes back to a feeling of isolation, wanting to be part of the group. Which may one day lead to the founding of the 'atheist liberal white guy' club, But I honestly have no idea what we would do.

Just before I finish my rant, I don't understand the argument that women are a minority. In Australia at least I think they edge out males by a couple of percent. I understand that they might make up a minority in certain communities (the webcomic community for example, though I'm not sure) but there seems to be a general belief that women are always the minority that doesn't really make sense.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 18, 2005 1:44 AM

I'm a woman. (Double checks her chromosomes) Yup, still a woman. I generally detest things centred on one gender or the other on principal.. am I so insecure in my feminity that I have to read webcomics just for women? Am I so insecure as web comic artist that I can't compete with men? No to both. Stick me in the mainstream and I'll fight up the stream with the boys.

I've never understood the "all girls" club mentality. I like men, I like being around them, I feel no need to exclude someone from my life based on gender.

Comment from: Shaenon posted at April 18, 2005 2:00 AM

Read your column. Huh.

I'm aware that I can repeat this until my face turns blue and it won't make a whit of difference, because it's something deeply ingrained in the psyches of many otherwise well-adjusted individuals, but what the hell...

READING SOMETHING "FOR GIRLS" WILL NOT LITERALLY CAUSE YOUR PENIS TO FALL OFF.

Really.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at April 18, 2005 2:14 AM

Nor do I claim it does, anywhere in the column. The issue has never been emasculation, spiritual or literal. Nor am I worried that people will think me less a man because I read "Li'l Mell."

The issue, at core, is that I don't feel welcome. Kelly Cooper, in a comment made on Comixpedia, points out that my reaction to Girlamatic is a similar one to many reactions women have when confronted with something "for guys." It's not that it makes them less a woman, it's that they don't feel comfortable participating.

Ping also commented, pointing out the difference between something being packaged as without animal products, versus something being packaged for Vegetarians. They're the same thing, and someone who's got health issues might be interested in investigating them, but one feels like it's for anyone, and the other feels like it's for one specific group.

I didn't expect everyone to agree with the column, but understand the nature of the discomfort. Sometimes, it honestly has nothing to do with my penis, and everything to do with presentation.

Comment from: Plaid Phantom posted at April 18, 2005 2:47 AM

I have to agree with Doc. Why do things like this *always* have to be an issue?

People are always fighting for black/female/Hispanic/Irish/Asian/people-with-rare-spleen-diseases and making sure they're not discriminated against. I want to say, "I know. Don't rub my face in it," but that feels callous. I try to treat everyone the same regardless of whether their skin is blue or not. I don't need to be preached to. Honestly, they think about it more than I have to think about it. Sometimes it's almost as if they have some sort of inferiority complex and need to prove they're equal.

Y'know, in other places, I'd have left that last part off to keep from getting flamed. Kudos to Eric for having a place where I feel comfortable posting that.

Hehe. Spleen.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 18, 2005 3:20 AM

As soon as you say something is FOR someone (other than "humans") you're excluding people and to be surprised when someone is grumpy that they're being excluded (whether intentional or not) by not being the "aim" is a bit naive..

My university has a "Woman's Centre" It's a place where women can go to be away from men. Men aren't allowed to enter, they're not allowed to talk to women entering or leaving the centre. They're not allowed to phone. If they wish to communicate with a female within they can slip a note under the door. I once said that men need a man's centre, a place to be away from women.

It was explained to me by a male friend they HAVE a man's centre. It's called "the pub" and it has nice women in it who want to be around men. They like it juuuuust fine.

Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at April 18, 2005 7:42 AM

Of the four "Modern Tales family" sites, Girlamatic is easily my favorite. I can honestly say that I haven't even had a conscious "this is for girls, right?" thought about it in over a year. I visit it because it contains a great many webcomics I like to read. Heck, I can think of at least two of its comics that are created by men (and quite a few more created by women) which don't seem to me to be targeted toward women at all.

I have watched BET, and Lifetime (and Spike TV) before. I watch none of them regularly. That's pretty much because I don't like their programming. I'll watch any one of them in a heartbeat, though, if they're airing something I enjoy.

I avoid Quizno's on the principle of hating their ads. (I don't go to Subway very often, either.)

I don't begrudge Eric his thoughts on the matter--but I cannot personally fathom them. There seems to me to be a difference of at least several miles in presentation between your Woman's World magazine and your Girlamatic. (Doesn't everyone tune out mission statements after about two days, anyway?)

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at April 18, 2005 9:10 AM

I salute you, Eric, for an honest and thoughtful column that people will undoubtedly take offense at, but which I can understand completely. I get the same sense with a number of the for-a-particular-group cable channels. (Having tried to phrase that sense for about five minutes now, I'm giving up and saying "Good job! That's a hard one to describe, and you did it well!")

I dunno. I can see the inclusion/exclusion analogy very easily--BBCAmerica, I watch all the time, and they don't bill themselves as "TV for Brits!"

Ironically, I don't get that feeling about Spike "TV for Men" though. Mostly I just feel somewhat offended on behalf of the men I know--"Sheesh! Do they really think you'd swallow this drivel just because you have a Y chromosome?" I dunno.

I do know, however, that I have mostly agreed with Ping's column as well--I've been a female webcartoonist for a coupla years now, and the matter has just plain never come up. If people aren't reading Digger, I've assumed it's because it's slow and rambling, not because the byline was female. (I could be entirely wrong, of course, but if some mysterious contingent of men have been going "URK! Wombat comics by a GIRL! Run!" they haven't sent me any e-mails.)

It'd be interesting to know how many READERS of webcomics were girls, but that's probably a harder thing to track...

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at April 18, 2005 9:31 AM

The best part about "Spike TV: TV for men" is it happened after they got the Star Trek licenses. There being a nontrivial number of female Star Trek fans (especially for TNG and DS9, both of which predated the "catsuitted hot babe with artificial breasts and the 'what is... love?'" theory of Star Trek), you have to wonder if they've ever rethought their position.

On the other hand, they finally got rid of the whole "TNN/Nashville" association....

Comment from: Wednesday posted at April 18, 2005 10:02 AM

It was explained to me by a male friend they HAVE a man's centre. It's called "the pub"

*eyeroll* It's really not the same thing. At least, if I was a guy and someone was stalking me with intent to assault, I'm quite sure that's not where I'd go.

Comment from: Meagen Image posted at April 18, 2005 10:56 AM

I agree with Ping completely. I positively *hate* the kind of feminists who try to squeeze "female issues" into every possible field.

I'm a gamer, and I'm a girl, but I don't identify myself as a "girl gamer". I'm just a gamer. I read Penny Arcade and C-A-D. I play Tomb Raider, 'cause Lara is cool and I like jumping and shooting puzzles. But my gamer-ness is not influenced in any way by my girl-ness, or vice versa.

Also, the irony in that "Harry Potter" comment subthread in the second article is immense.

Comment from: joeymanley posted at April 18, 2005 11:31 AM

Girlamatic is "for women" in the same way that Esquire is "for men." Not in the same way that "Off Our Backs" and "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto" are "for women."

Um.

And also not in the same way that Maxim is "for men."

If that makes any sense.

Thanks.

Back to work restoring my sites now ...

Joey

www.moderntales.com

Comment from: Phalanx posted at April 18, 2005 11:48 AM

Heck, I can think of at least two of its comics that are created by men (and quite a few more created by women) which don't seem to me to be targeted toward women at all.

Robert: You've hit the nail on the head there. A good portion (if not most) of GirlAMatic's stuff does not seem to be targeted at women readers at all. IMHO, They're just not specifically targeted at men. (Or if you prefer, adolescent teenage boys).

This is a good thing. In fact this is something I could really cheer for, because it really encourages emphasis on producing good work instead of cheap tantalization.

And let me get this straight: the comics in GAM are in my opinion, kickass. I'm pretty damn confident most of the stuff on GAM are comics anyone, male or female, would like.

The question here is: Why on earth is it being marketed and sold as something created by (mostly) girls and (mostly) for girls?

If you take the politics out of it, it just doesn't make very good marketing (or any other kind of) sense.

I really want to see GAM do well. That's why I can't not say anything.

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 18, 2005 12:08 PM

Typekey ate my last (really long) comic. I'll sum up.

I watch Spike TV, hate Lifetime (Isn't being a woman scary enough as it is?) read Playboy (for the articles!) hate Cosmo (and anything else that implies I need to be skinny and wear makeup) draw women that either look like I do (short, pudgy) or women that look like I want to (tall, skinny - but still no makeup).

I'm a woman in the tech field, I'm very familiar with "It's a technical issue, can't I talk to a man?"

Eric, if I were you, I'd be reading Girl-a-matic just because, dammit, nobody's going to tell me what to read. Since I'm already female, I guess I'm not reading it because, dammit, nobody's going to tell me what to read. That, and I figured if it's "for women" it must be more crap like Cosmo and Family Circle. Otherwise, why bill it like it's "for women"?

Which is ironic, 'cause it sound really good. (adds item to "to-do" list.)

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 18, 2005 12:09 PM

and when I said "comic" in the first sentence, I meant "comment". *sigh* - back to work, where hopefully, I will be coherent.

Comment from: TeleriB posted at April 18, 2005 12:17 PM

However, I think that a collective like Girlamatic makes it an issue... without necessarily doing any favors either for the people involved, or for women as a whole.

Sometimes it's just about being lonely.

I'm a woman and an engineer, working toward my PhD. Academically, I rock the house. Professionally, I'm holding my own. I ask for no special considerations. I don't need them.

But there is an immense sense of validation that comes when you can meet with other people who understand what you thought were your own unique problems - things you weren't "good enough" to handle on your own. Then you find out that, no, many other people have these same problems, same frustrations, same conflicts, same feelings. It's not just you. You're not broken. You're not inadequate. You're suddenly, gloriously, average.

Sometimes, these problems and the other people who have them fall into gender categories. And often, it is pleasant to associate with these people on a collaborative project, knowing that (for these issues and problems, at least) you will all be on the same page.

Which is not to say that all other projects should be forsaken. Nor that the collaborators will not have problems of other sorts. Nor even that everyone seeks out the kind of validation I mentioned.

But I don't think that it's a harmful thing to do.

Comment from: Shaenon posted at April 18, 2005 12:43 PM

I'm intrigued by the fact that, so far, both columns in Comixpedia's "Women" issue have questioned the very need for such an issue. I'm honestly not sure if that's because the webcomics world really is totally egalitarian, or because there *is* a need for girl-oriented material (and coverage) but it makes people uncomfortable to talk about it.

At any rate, there are reasons to do women-centric, and other -centric, sites beyond "persuing equality" or whatever. Derek Kirk Kim, for example, has a "Ragin' Asian Invasion" section on his website, linking to all the Asian-American webcartoonists he likes. I don't think that's because he has an inferiority complex about being Korean, or because Asian-Americans are underrepresented in the world of webcomics; I think it's because he's proud of his background and interested in exploring what it means. (He has an inferiority complex about everything else.)

Girlamatic has an editorial style that might be described as "postfeminist girly" -- robustly cute, flippantly romantic, witty, kinda manga. If you like that type of "girly" stuff, you come to Girlamatic. Simple as that.

It's necessarily a bad marketing move to label something girl-oriented. I've worked for Viz, one of America's two biggest manga publishers, for five years. When I started, we were the biggest. Then this company called Tokyopop came up with the idea of marketing girl-oriented manga to girls. Everyone said this was ridiculous, that girls don't read comics--okay, maybe they do in Japan, but not here. At the time, Viz had what was, in American comic-book standards, a very healthy female readership--maybe 30% girl--by publishing manga for boys that had some crossover appeal to girls. Nothing specifically for girls. That would be silly.

And that, my friends, is why Tokyopop has been steadily kicking Viz's ass for the past three years. As it turns out, lots of girls love manga that's aimed at girls. And so do a fair number of boys.

Anyway, Girlamatic does about as well as the other Modern Tales sites, often a little better (GAM and Graphic Smash tend to lead in subscription growth in any given month), so I don't think putting "girl" in the title was a bad marketing move.

And Eric? If you actually have a subscription to Girlamatic and you're not reading "Dicebox," you're clinically insane. That's all there is to it.

Comment from: jemale posted at April 18, 2005 12:58 PM

Well, the reason I, personally, joined Girlamatic wasn't because I felt threatened, discriminated, etc. and so forth nor that my comic was particularly for any sex or gender or commercial demographic. Or that I needed an extra boost or special compensation.

I just thought it'd be nice to see an anthology site where the creators roster was 16 women and 6 men instead of the usual reversed ratio. Not for the female friendly environment, but just to show that women aren't the exception to the rule.

Why does this need to be a created proportion of female to male? I just don't know, especially since there are so many great female cartoonists out there, especially on the web.

And I never got grief for being a female cartoonist. Though I have taken flak for having one of my characters not be feminine and pretty enough for some people's tastes. That I ought to give her longer hair, lipstick lips, more, um, curvature and more feminine clothes. Make of that as you will, especially when most of my readers seem to have a crush on her exactly the way she is.

Comment from: jemale posted at April 18, 2005 1:00 PM

Re: comment above, jemale = JEnn MAnley LEe

Oh, and I love Shaenon Garrity.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 18, 2005 2:50 PM

*eyeroll* It's really not the same thing. At least, if I was a guy and someone was stalking me with intent to assault, I'm quite sure that's not where I'd go.

No, but going to the police would probably be a good idea. (Which would be what the woman should be doing too..) How did "stalking" enter a conversation about places for men and women to hang out? Are you saying every single woman in the woman's centre is being stalked by a man? I happen to know otherwise when it comes to Simon Fraser University..

It'd be interesting to know how many READERS of webcomics were girls, but that's probably a harder thing to track...

Based on emails and comments in the tagboard, about 90% of my readers are male.. but then, I only have one female character out of about 10. Maybe that's saying more about me than them.. *ponder*

Comment from: Wednesday posted at April 18, 2005 3:06 PM

Shadowy: I'm saying that women's centres are useful as safe spaces in ways that pubs are not, and citing an unusual example from my own experience in order to drive the point home.

(abuses privilege to add to comment: Also, a complaint filed with police through the resources some university women's centres can offer has been known to carry greater weight than just the woman calling up on her own. You try that from the pub.)

Comment from: Phalanx posted at April 18, 2005 3:42 PM

I find it rather eerie how Eric and I almost dealt with the same issues in our column, albeit from different angles (but then again you didn't see the first draft of my article). I should mention it now that there was no idea collboration at all. I didn't see that column until it was up on the Comixpedia site this morning. Eerie.

jemale: About people wanting the heroines prettier, yeah I hear you. I've had a few people saying about Jin (my female main character) "But she's not really pretty... You should give her longer hair and longer eyelashes and have her wear a nice dress." [Insert Ping conniption fit about how that would not be Jin here]. The oddest thing about this is that those people who said this were all... girls. :? Yeah, weird, I know.

Comment from: jpcardier posted at April 18, 2005 4:32 PM

"Ironically, I don't get that feeling about Spike "TV for Men" though. Mostly I just feel somewhat offended on behalf of the men I know--"Sheesh! Do they really think you'd swallow this drivel just because you have a Y chromosome?" I dunno."

Truthfully, my wife got me into Spike, because that's where the CSI re-runs happen. I never thought you could do an entire show where the subtext of the series was unravelling the main characters enigmatic ways. Tres cool. CSI is addictive like popcorn.

Spike also runs Bond Marathons, Godfather Marathons (No commercials, Yay!), the aforementioned STTNG / STDS9, and other goodness.

Mind you, they also have plenty of blech. Like all channels, it's a mixed bag.

Finally, on the main topic: I didn't realise that there was a dearth of female webcartoonists. Their are sooooo many more than in print, which is cool. Just in my main trawl there is Maritza, Shaenon, Aeire, Ursula, Barb, hmm. Need to acquire more. Be back soon.

Seriously, I love Sequential Tart and they make very good points about the lack of female representation in print comics. But on the web I really have come across more female creators than I ever have in a comics shop. I just didn't think it was enough of an issue to create a niche. Call me blind to such problems. I'll cop to not being the most perceptive fellow in the world.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 18, 2005 5:35 PM

O_o; I was just repeating what the general consensus of the men was.. The woman's centre at SFU is a total Femi-Nazi hangout.. maybe yours isn't, but you're going waaaay beyond the scope of the conversation either way. But I'd like to think, dreamer that I am, the RCMP will take all stalker charges seriously, no matter where they're placed from. (Tho I can say I'd place them from HOME rather than some place on campus anyway.)

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at April 18, 2005 6:53 PM

Man. Some of the response to this article has made me mildly disgusted. I mean, can't guys say--I'm paraphrasing--"I don't know how I should feel about this, and I worry that I'm intruding, and that's probably not the intention, but I just want to do the right thing because I feel guilty about all the crap women have taken and I don't KNOW what the right thing is, so I stay away from it so that I can't possibly offend anybody by intruding, even though I suspect that might not be the right thing, but it's all I can think of" without somebody screaming "YOU THINK GIRLS HAVE COOTIES!?"

*sigh* Complex issues. Should probably not be simplified down to "You're just afraid that the color pink will cause your wang to fall off!" And that's about all I have to say...

Comment from: quiller posted at April 18, 2005 6:56 PM

So, I can see where Eric is coming from here, except for the whole Quiznos/Subway bit that seemed to take up the whole essay for some strange reason. (Curiously, I stopped going to Quiznos when the switched to Pepsi, and stopped going to Subway when they discontinued the sub cards, and pretty much just go to Togos (who are also Pepsi, but at least they have a big pitcher of Ice Tea and lemon slices to go with it)).

But anyways, there is something about a sense of belonging. For example, back when I used to watch TV, they had this whole Lifetime network thing. Now, if I was perusing the TV listing, and Lifetime had a movie on that I was interested in, I'd certainly go there. But if they were advertising a new original series, I'd tend to guess that I wouldn't be interested in it, and would be exposed to way too many maxipad ads anyways, and I'd look elsewhere.

So having a site call itself Girlamatic implies to me that I'm not the intended audience. It isn't like female webcomic creators need someplace separate from the rest of the web. I mean, I eventually figure out which webcomics are done by women and which by men, but that is rarely the selling point to me. (Except for the Tao of Geek which had such a great Buzzcomics tagline. "Made by a woman, so you don't have to." that I had to check it out. Plus I am a Geek, so it must be somewhat oriented towards me.) I'd certainly follow a comic I liked over to Girlamatic, but I'm no more likely to look there for new comics to read (like I need more!) than I would at Blackamatic or Hispanicamatic...

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 18, 2005 7:12 PM

You know, originally I was going to get into this discussion until I saw one particular quote:

"READING SOMETHING 'FOR GIRLS' WILL NOT LITERALLY CAUSE YOUR PENIS TO FALL OFF."

After that, I realized it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference what I said or didn't say, my Y chromosome would be used against me in a court of law.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 18, 2005 8:10 PM

I wasn't going to comment further, I was going to keep reading and keep my big mouth shut. But I apologize now because my plan has been thrown aside.

All the crap women have gone through? I'm sorry, I must have missed the downtrodden women in comics who were not allowed into communities because of their double x chromosomes. I must have missed the women who were made fun of for being female and thinking they could write comics as well as men. I must have missed the marches, the protests, the flying hissy fits for female equity in comicland.

Yes, women did not have the same rights as men through out history. In some societies women were more powerful. In some they were less. In some they controlled the government. In some they weren't allowed to vote. What this has to do with the need for a females group of web comic artists is beyond me.

Now, if you want to say a group of women just wanted to band together, share resources, ideas and fellowship, I'd give you a giant thumbs up.. but to make it a social issue is .. well, kinda laughable.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 18, 2005 8:37 PM

I wasn't taking this as social issue. With my comment, I was just trying to make the point that it didn't seem like my opinion would have been very, well, welcome.

Personally, I instinctively avoid things such as Girlmatic as I get the impression that they just wouldn't be for me, and for me to attempt to criticize that which is not for me would be somehow wrong. I also got what Eric was saying in the whole Subway/Quizno's drawn out analogy.

Yet with Shaenon's one line, it seemed like even if I would've said what I did, my intrinsic maleness would've made my suspicion suspect. Am I not reading these comics because of the reasons I stated, or is it some sort of underlying gender bias? Perhaps I am fearing for my masculinity. Perhaps women in webcomics intimidate me.

I realize I could've phrased my original post better now, but oh well. The internet is all about half-cocked debate, after all.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 18, 2005 8:44 PM

Also, by "suspicion" I meant "opinion." Geez, why do I keep transposing words mentally in my stupid posts?

Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at April 18, 2005 8:53 PM

I'm pretty sure "all the crap women have gone through" was only part of a hypothetical post-that-couldn't-be-made-without-"cooties"-response. I may have missed something, though.

Oh, and I'm not sure how one person's comment keeps one from participating in a discussion that a dozen other people have contributed to. *shrug*

Comment from: kjc posted at April 18, 2005 9:10 PM

Eric said, way up there in the sixth comment:

Kelly Cooper, in a comment made on Comixpedia, points out that my reaction to Girlamatic is a similar one to many reactions women have when confronted with something "for guys." It's not that it makes them less a woman, it's that they don't feel comfortable participating.

And, I just wanted to say, that ain't what I said, nor quite what I meant.

The world tends to be overwhelmingly masculine sometimes. When I walk around and get harassed by men, get told not to walk in the dark because I could get raped, wander past a gazillion magazines telling me I don't look good enough or smell good enough or whatever-the-hell, get a goggle-eyed stare when I explain I'm an expert in Internet Security and yes I chaired a working group by special request from the White House, go into this IT shop or another to give a presentation to twenty men and one woman, go into a law enforcement meeting where there are no women and get "little lady" references and "no offense meant" comments...

ALL OF IT is very VERY unwelcoming.

No one actually says "Hey! You! Girlie! Yer not supposed to be here!" Possibly because we've evolved as a society or possibly because I'm built like a linebacker.

But I sure don't feel welcome or represented. Some days I don't even feel REAL - like there's nothing I could do that's CORRECT and nothing about me that's RIGHT.

Which is why sometimes - SOMETIMES - it's nice to go into a space that I know is going to be a little girl-friendly.

I'm not upset or anything, btw, I just wanted to be clear.

Thanks.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at April 18, 2005 9:36 PM

I apologize for my misread, Kelly, and thank you for your clarification.

Comment from: Phil Kahn posted at April 18, 2005 9:46 PM

Most the webcomic folks I talk to/work with are female.

Comment from: jemale posted at April 18, 2005 10:11 PM

Phalanx: Yeah, the whole internal gender police thing has always had me flummoxed.

Example: I tend to go to male hairdressers as they'll cut my hair as short as I want without comments like: "honey, if I cut it *that* short, they'll think your a boy." as opposed to many (but not all) of the female hairdressers I've gone to. My response is "There's only one person (the spouse) that needs to know for sure." And I think Jin looks just lovely.

As for the rest, which I guess I must comment on: I never saw Girlamatic as a women only club, though I absolutely respect people responding to the name and various slogans in that matter.

Comment from: Joshua Holbrook posted at April 19, 2005 2:43 AM

Yeh know, I don't think I was 100% clear on my comment either (like, the second one or something). I'm not worried that Girlamatic will make my penis fall off. (By the way, that comment was probably the funniest thing I read yesterday.) What I meant was that I felt like I'd be lying. Which is weird, because I'm not actually making any statement by reading, say, "Lil' Mel", other than "I think Shaenon's funny" or whatever. Not that it matters anymore. Oh well. :P

Comment from: Doc posted at April 19, 2005 3:35 AM

Don't know if anyone is still reading this thread, but I just wanted to throw a statement out there and see what people think, this is mainly for the ladies:

I often get the impression that a lot of the pressure to try and acheive the unacheivable female ideal is put on women by other women and that men in general don't care that much (don't get me wrong, we like the pretty ladies, but we're not *that* shallow, and there is such a thing as too skinny you know).

Then I think maybe I'm just trying rationalize away my gender-based guilt or maybe I'm just oblivious to the actual state of society and want to blame it all on 'beauty' magazines.

Any thoughts?

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at April 19, 2005 6:39 AM

How did "stalking" enter a conversation about places for men and women to hang out?

To my mind, it entered here:

Men aren't allowed to enter, they're not allowed to talk to women entering or leaving the centre. They're not allowed to phone. If they wish to communicate with a female within they can slip a note under the door.

That description matches only two places in the normal world that aren't a women's bathroom: a seraglio and a shelter. The communications blackout especially brings to mind stalking.

I mean, I can't read Wednesday's mind, so I can't say for sure; but when I read your description of the "Women's Center," stalker avoidance was what it instantly suggested to me.

Comment from: TeleriB posted at April 19, 2005 1:22 PM

Hey Doc,

If you mean the unachievable female physical ideal, my gut feeling is that it comes from that monolithic boogeyman, "The Media." For whatever reasons, our pin-ups have been downsized.

Most regular guys indeed say that they'd prefer a Varga girl to Mary-Kate Olsen. This leaves me at a loss to explain the disappearance of figures like Marilyn Monroe's and the appearance of hordes of undernourished starlets. It must be making money for somebody.

The unachievable female "ideal" - strong but feminine, assertive but not aggressive, attractive but not vain, sexual only in certain approved manners, finding some balance between "being a good mother" and "doing real work" (because of course there will be children, or you are obviously selfish and too self-involved), and finding a similar balance between personal independence and commitment to a spouse - that's more from the other boogeyman, "Society."

The Media and Society are both made up of men and women. It's not productive, I think, to try and pin these memes on one side or the other.

And for the record? I acknowledge that you guys have your own Societal and Media images to live up (or down) to that are equally ill-fitting. You're supposed to be the breadwinners but not feel badly if your female SO earns more than you; supposed to be sensitive but not too sensitive because that's wimpy; be chivalrous but not make gender-based assumptions... well, heck, you know better than I do, I suppose.

Comment from: Doc posted at April 19, 2005 8:16 PM

Teleri, yeah thats true really, and pretty much what I started thinking just after I posted.

Funny how something a lot of (I'm not quite confident enough to say most) people disagree with can still be seen as the view of 'Society' at large.

Although I was mainly thinking of the Media 'rake with tits' stereotype rather than the Social super-capable yet still nurturing mother stereotype (which opens up the whole stereotyping people into expecting them to be empowered and super-capable to a point that just isn't possible which can be just as destructive as the other end of the spectrum).

As for male stereotypes, its something thats never really bothered me (probably because I fail to live up to them on every possible level) which is why (what I percieve as) the female pre-occupation with either living up to or rejecting stereotypes is something I don't quite get.

Comment from: gwalla posted at April 20, 2005 12:59 AM

Incidentally, I believe that Spike TV has announced that they are dropping the "network for men" slogan. Mainly because nobody was watching crap like Stripperella (Stan Lee, what were you thinking?).

Also, Quizno's will always be cooler than Subway because they had the Spongmonkeys. The quality of the sandwiches is irrelevant.

Oh, and I've got "If I Only Had a Brain" running through my head after reading all of the straw man arguments in this thread.

Comment from: Meagen Image posted at April 20, 2005 1:29 AM

This isn't a full-scale debate, it's just a comment thread on a blog. People are just going on semi-related tangents. You don't need to go and drag the Big List of Debate Fallacies into it.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: