NYT Rejects Comic About #Yesallwomen

[RealRT]

Really? Because I'd think that this strip was refused for being badly drawn and neither sharp with the satire, nor funny.

 

[infinity_turtles]

[snip]

I think the fact that he went to go shoot a sorority first rather than a fraternity undermines your argument.

I'd like to point out the majority of the people he killed were men and that the first people he killed were also men. Whom he stabbed to death. They weren't just in the way or anything as some(not saying you've said this), are trying to portray it as. I know a lot of people are upset that the guys who were killed are being ignored, and some people I've stumbled on have actually claimed he only killed women(which is pretty ridiculous when he killed twice as many men)

The piece of shit was fixated on women, definitely, but he resented and hated everyone. In his ideal world, I imagine he'd probably kill all men and own all women.

 

[epicdwarf]

I feel the article is a little too biased on this one. It is reality hard not to be(especially when you talk about the MRA types that do this), but they give the comic writer too much credit. It is a bit immature in general. Thats most likely why it was rejected.

 

[The Bucket]

Looks like saying a comic is too 'controversial' might be the NYTs diplomatic way of saying a comic is too rubbish to publish

 

[Frankster]

This article made me realize there needs to be a female equivalent to man-baby. Woman-baby sounds iffy.

In his ideal world, I imagine he'd probably kill all men and own all women.

As someone who read Elliots rantings in full, I can assure you you're bang on the money, there's a paragraph describing exactly that.

And whilst I don't want to dig up this ugly topic again... Let's just say if you read his rantings, you can find misogyny, misandry, rascism, classism, extreme narcissism and a number of mental disorders I'm under qualified to diagnose.

 

[Deadman]

There's a reason we as a gender have a higher pain tolerance than you...it's the only way we survive all the punching and kicking.

You realize that this has been empirically proven to be false, right? In fact, women have the higher pain tolerance, on average.

I'm not gonna comment on the rest of what you said, mostly because I agree with some parts and disagree with others, but I couldn't stop myself from pointing that much out.

From the quick research I have done. I have found nothing that states that Women have a higher pain tolerance, just that women report more pain then men on average.

If anything if that is true I would still say Men have the better fate. If it is true that women experience more pain than men on average, it would show a difference in "Design" Of each gender. Men are made to feel pain, but be able to suppress it to get stuff done. Where as it would if true show women are made to feel more pain, to get away from it, or to solve whatever is causing pain.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97662

i again state that i think gender EQUALITY is important and that the actual intention behind the campaign is fine, but like anything when it's taken to far then it gets worrisome. from what i have seen of the #yesallwomen hashtag most of the issues are true to extent (though some seem rather exaggerated in my opinion) many of the people posting this seem from what they generally post want to have a complete gender reversal with women dominating men (this is hopefully not true though) which wouldn't solve anything as it is gender equality that is needed not a reversal of gender roles, and media is not helping with achieving this both in the blatant disregard some factions have for it and the almost violent advocacy others have for it.

 

[Ninmecu]

snip

No, I don't see my losing my virginity with that girl as a notch on the bedpost or as a character sheet bit because of some fucked up social norm. I'm a Sexually Dominant being with a heavy enjoyment of Sadistic pleasures that I've shared with a handful of masochistic women. I worded it specifically in a way that would inflame the man child that did the heinous act. Fact is, I actually love(d) the woman I lost my virginity to. We were both very close and are still rather close friends. I won't touch the sorority bit, because another poster answered it better than I can. As for being a MRA, I suppose I would be in that camp. I believe in Equality, I know it will never exist and we will never attain it, but I support true balance. Why do I think this comic represents me? Because I'm against a lot of the rather hardcore extremist viewpoints that were attributed to the hash tag from the get go. It made me mad that there are people that are willing to hold such close minded and broad sweeping opinions on an entire subset of people based on something they have no control over.


And for the record, no, I don't feel guilty referring to her in an objectified manner. No, it doesn't have anything to do with societal norms or some SJW inspired crusade that I'm railing against, it has everything to do with the fact that she enjoyed being objectified. She got a thrill out of being seen as a toy for someone elses pleasure, she thrived on being subjugated sexually. But that's the line that existed for both of us, it was purely sexual. Just like with my current girlfriend, what happens when we get horny is not how we view each other at all other hours of the day. 'Sides, it wasn't the first time I had sex, first time I had sex was when she asked me what cum was, and the less you know about that the better.

 

[oldtaku]

Panel six with the rape is almost certainly what got it rejected.

But c'mon, I write better scripts with my sphincter.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Jeez, atleast when Critical Miss decides to get all controversial it atleast tries to be funny, this was kinda just shit.

I do think the reactionary "but we men have it bad to" is kinda dumb at its most extreme levels, but also agree that feminist campaigns should make the distinction between "misogynists exist and can be pretty bad" and "all men are literally concious oppressors".

 

[Charli]

Oh, come on.

They'll run the cartoons of Glenn McCoy -- without being forced to, even -- but they won't run this?

That's what I was thinking. This was pretty on the nose. Alot of men crying about something they didn't like hearing yet weren't affected by at all. Just simply taking offence by virtue of being a man.

Something males in my life tend to be quite openly critical of women for doing similarly.

 

[grigjd3]

First, I am a complete feminist that people accuse of attempting to be a "white knight". That said, I completely agree with the editors in this case. This is a sensitive issue that requires a careful understanding of the situation. The response of the comic is to ridicule and needlessly group people who may not have anything in common barring a lack of understanding that women face a fundamentally different world than men. Yes, that is a huge issue with men these days but is anything accomplished by painting them as babies? That's just name calling and you call someone a name only when you want them to stop listening.

This comic has a point to make, but it almost makes the opposite point. If the very best argument that one can come up with that a behavior is wrong is to say that only babies behave like that, then you've already lost me. If, on the other hand, you point out that this behavior reflects a lack of perspective, that by saying, "#Yesallwomen being on facebook and twitter is unfair to men" that you have clearly missed the fact that all mean, purely by the virtue of being male, have a distinct advantage in a huge number of settings in our society, then you'd have my attention.

Rather than putting up an equally infantile response to infantile behavior, one could use a far more powerful argument in, say juxtaposition. Show a guy complaining that we have reverse sexism and then point out the portion of congress that is female. Show a guy complaining about male being emasculated and then point out that this is the first year ever that women were even allowed on the world's most premier golf club. This would be a far more powerful argument and you could entirely avoid the needless name calling. Rather than attacking the person (or, honestly, the strawman that they created), point out the absurdity of the comment.

This comic was terribly put together. It feels like a knee-jerk reaction and honestly, is beneath the quality I should be able to expect from the New York Times. The editors are completely right in this case. This is a sensitive issue and it should be dealt with in an adult manner - and I say that while completely in support of the feminist movement.

 

[klaynexas3]

I think it's sad when you make WGDF appear subtle and discrete by comparison. There is no redeeming value of the comic itself. I understand the meaning behind the campaign and most feminist campaigns, but this isn't trying to spark discussion, it isn't trying to make people look within themselves, its only purpose of being created was to piss people off. It's trolling, only that feels like an insult to the people that work hard to craft perfect creations for the sole purpose of angering the internet, while this looks like someone made it on their toilet one morning five minutes after they were supposed to submit it.

 

[Baresark]

It literally just trolls men. It's not intelligent, it's very verbose without saying anything that can't be handled in a 140 characters or less (get it, because it's a Twitter thing!).

I don't care, that whole hashtag business is/was ridiculous. It's full of women hating men in general, white knights, and a bunch of stupid guys whining about their hurt feelings. There I just trolled everone on both sides.

I don't know what I find more distasteful. The accusation that all men are responsible for what one mentally disturbed individual did (all men are grouped together by the vast majority of the posts), the whiny hateful disturbing responses by men who responded to it (clearly, not all men, but a whole lot), or that the hashtag gets coopted by everyone with a gripe. It was about something specific, yet it's no holds barred. It reminds me of the whole Occupy Wallstreet movement. It was eventually just people standing around "protesting" Wallstreet for things that don't make sense.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

This thing is about as sharp as a bowling ball and looks like something a six year old drew. It's not funny in the slightest, and the way it goes about trying to make it's 'point' is incredibly juvenile. Good on the NYT for having some standards.

 

[Kameburger]

I never thought' I'd type these words...

'I agree with the NEw York Times'

I had to type that sentence five times before my auto correct realized I was actually typing it and not making a mistake.

Lol this about sums up my thoughts on the matter as well.

It's not a particularly creative comic, much better suited to the likes of the internet rather then on the pages of something that grown-ups read. But as much as I can sympathize with the sentiment, this is a grown-up nuanced conversation that needs to happen, and this comic is becoming the thing it is parodying, by spurring on this kind of fight rather then making an intellectual commentary on it.

As with BigTuk, I never thought I'd say this but I think the New York Times has higher standards then this.

 

[Vegosiux]

Hey, I'd ban that from my newspaper too. I'd run a strict "No ham-fisting from a soapbox" policy, after all. But I suppose we live in times when a bunch of people think "Fighting the good fight" means you automatically don't have to put any effort into anything, and you can cry oppression every time you're found wanting; and the same bunch also has a platform to reach the entire world in minutes with it.

Seriously, the WDGF comics are tame and classy in comparison.

PS: I don't actually ever read NYT, so I've got no clue what kind of comics they do run, mind.

 

[Queen Michael]

Oh, come on.

They'll run the cartoons of Glenn McCoy -- without being forced to, even -- but they won't run this?

That's what I was thinking. This was pretty on the nose. Alot of men crying about something they didn't like hearing yet weren't affected by at all. Just simply taking offence by virtue of being a man.

Something males in my life tend to be quite openly critical of women for doing similarly.

It's a good idea to always replace "males" with "men" whenever it works.

 

[Yakostovian]

There's a reason we as a gender have a higher pain tolerance than you...it's the only way we survive all the punching and kicking.

You realize that this has been empirically proven to be false, right? In fact, women have the higher pain tolerance, on average.

I'm not gonna comment on the rest of what you said, mostly because I agree with some parts and disagree with others, but I couldn't stop myself from pointing that much out.

Do you realize that pain is relative, and thus pain tolerance cannot be empirically tested at all?

 

[Charli]

Oh, come on.

They'll run the cartoons of Glenn McCoy -- without being forced to, even -- but they won't run this?

That's what I was thinking. This was pretty on the nose. Alot of men crying about something they didn't like hearing yet weren't affected by at all. Just simply taking offence by virtue of being a man.

Something males in my life tend to be quite openly critical of women for doing similarly.

It's a good idea to always replace "males" with "men" whenever it works.

Maybe I'm missing the mark here but I said males in the second sentence because I have younger siblings and cousins who are already beginning their 'lol women r so emoshunal and silly lal' phases. I was merely encompassing all of that as it pertains to my personal experience.

'The males in my life'.

However I cannot assume online either so maybe I should have said males in both of them. It's an assumption to think that most people online are adults. But I tend to dismiss the raging opinions of those who've not left puberty yet, I've said enough stupid things at that age to let it go.

Wasn't sure what you meant or what you were implying I had tripped on.