NYT Rejects Comic About #Yesallwomen

[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.

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.

Well, my point was that it's kind of dehumanizing. "Males" is how they talk about animals on nature shows.

 

[Vareoth]

Wow, that is a bit childish...

I mean, I get the point. I just wish it was presented to me with a bit more coherency and wit rather than this tripe.

In other news: lol @ # activism.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Egh. Terrible artwork aside (which may or may not be intentional), I can see why this got rejected. It's not clever, it's not witty, and it tackles the issue with all the grace of an elephant.

Basically this completely.

The comic has absolutely no merit outside of the political statement. It's not funny. It's not clever. It's not well drawn. And even the point it makes is blunt and extremely simplistic.

If anything, it hurts the case of YesAllWomen and makes the opposition seem positively brilliant in comparison.

I'm all for calling out reactionary bullshit, but do it well or don't do it at all.

 

[Fox12]

I think the editor was just trying to be nice, and reject them for reasons other than "it's crap."

"I'm so mad I made a wee wee in my diaper."

I was unaware that Adam Sandler wrote comics for the NYT.

 

[RJ 17]

Pfffft, David just wishes he could have come up with something as amazing as White Guy Defense Force! This is just way too heavy-handed if you ask me. There are far better ways to illustrate the ignorance of morons with the mindset of the two presented in the comic.

Oh, and we should go ahead and boycott the NYT because they're obviously against being against people are against women and feminism!

 

[VVThoughtBox]

I'm going to have to side with the New York Times on this one. The comic isn't funny, well thought out, or informative. It's terribly drawn and horrendously written. This comic is something that I expect from tumblr, not a newspaper like the New York Times.

 

[Burnouts3s3]

I've been... hesitant to jump on #YesAllWomen, myself. It seems like a really good cause and it's bringing discussion about something that should be discussed.

But, I'm not sure if I agree with the finer details of the message or the idea that Elliot Rodger's misogyny was a result of cultural backwards-thinking and that lead him to shoot people (I've seen the Youtube videos and part of his manifesto. I'm still not convinced that he wasn't mentally disturbed and we can blame all of this on misogyny).

I do think that awareness about violence against women should be acknowledged and done about it, but I'm not sure how we can tackle it in the mainstream media or even how mainstream media should tackle it. I think however bad things were, it's getting better (very slowly, I might add) and ultimately, we will fix this problem, but this will take years, if not decades to, as Moviebob put it, wash out of the cultural psyche.

Then again, speaking as a male myself (with all of my male privilege and what not), I'm concerned about what this painting everything in absolutes thinking may cause in the long run. It has very good intentions but I worry (again, just a personal, might not even be true worry) that someone's going to misinterpret this and just start drawing lines in the sand.

 

[superguin200]

Ugh.
I could go on about how the comic goes on for too long and how it's not really that funny, but I'm not going to do that.
Instead I'm going to write a rant.

I'm getting sick of these people on the internet that call themselves feminists. I'm a feminist. I don't yell at people on the internet for that, I don't go out and protest in the streets, I just believe that all people should have equal rights, and I'm fairly sure a lot of people here agree.
The general problem with the internet's perception of feminism is this overflow of loud, annoying, obnoxious people who shove their opinions in everyone else's face. One could argue that that's normal for the internet, and they would be right. It's the sheer number and scale of these annoying social justice bloggers and the like that's what makes them truly annoying. Consider this for a moment: has a social justice post, or one of these webcomics for example, ever actually changed your mind about anything? No? I thought not.
The fact is, feminists on the internet are taking the wrong approach and assuming everyone that isn't an active feminist is automatically anti-feminism and thinks that women are unequal to men, and that's just not true! And even if they were anti-women, nobody's long-winded angry posts are going to make them budge an inch in terms of their opinions; in fact it's probably just going to cement their opinions even more.

I know I'm being incredibly hypocritical, but I just needed to get that out of my system and this seemed like a good place to do it.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I actually do find the comic funny, just not for the reason intended. It's a perfect caricature of why attempts at discussion can fall to pieces: because this is how people that want to have a discussion see disagreement and rebuttal.It's not that any of them are wrong per se, but when you want to discuss things, and all you can do is riddicule those that disagree with you, you come off childish.

Just because I'm not saying what you want me to doesn't mean I'm not listening.

 

[DonTsetsi]

Ugh.
I could go on about how the comic goes on for too long and how it's not really that funny, but I'm not going to do that.
Instead I'm going to write a rant.

I'm getting sick of these people on the internet that call themselves feminists. I'm a feminist. I don't yell at people on the internet for that, I don't go out and protest in the streets, I just believe that all people should have equal rights, and I'm fairly sure a lot of people here agree.
The general problem with the internet's perception of feminism is this overflow of loud, annoying, obnoxious people who shove their opinions in everyone else's face. One could argue that that's normal for the internet, and they would be right. It's the sheer number and scale of these annoying social justice bloggers and the like that's what makes them truly annoying. Consider this for a moment: has a social justice post, or one of these webcomics for example, ever actually changed your mind about anything? No? I thought not.
The fact is, feminists on the internet are taking the wrong approach and assuming everyone that isn't an active feminist is automatically anti-feminism and thinks that women are unequal to men, and that's just not true! And even if they were anti-women, nobody's long-winded angry posts are going to make them budge an inch in terms of their opinions; in fact it's probably just going to cement their opinions even more.

I know I'm being incredibly hypocritical, but I just needed to get that out of my system and this seemed like a good place to do it.

I don't think there would be such a backlash if the uninformed opinions of the internet SJW weren't the same as those of a lot of government-funded institutions. The fact that state-funded DV shelters accept only women while DV is nowhere near a gendered crime is just one reason actual MRAs (the ones doing actual activism) always try to disprove internet feminists. Others include gender bias in divorce courts, sentencing, handling of rape allegations and many others. Whenever MRAs try to do something, feminists try to stop them by using biased data, which is often just plain wrong.

 

[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.

Well, my point was that it's kind of dehumanizing. "Males" is how they talk about animals on nature shows.

It's not exactly used to cause offence. People refer to me as 'a female' frequently.

It's a fact, you are male. It's a sterile word as far as I am concerned. I am a female. Yes, okay, if you want to interject anything further about me other than a indisputable descriptor word than I'll have no choice but to agree. When I call you a bubbling fanny discharge, you have my permission to call me out...but for referring to men and boys as male?

It was an all encompassing description to circle 'the boys and men', that I know, into a single word.

I can't control what you find offensive or dehumanizing as you say, but okay. That is your view, that was not my intent.

 

[Korolev]

You know what? This comic isn't funny - it isn't funny because that's a fairly accurate depiction of most "MRAs". Except for the fact that they have the bodies of babies, that's literally what a lot of them say. I mean, I know the comic is supposed to be funny by exaggerating what MRA people say, but it's not an exaggeration - that's LITERALLY how they behave, that's literally how they feel, that's literally what they say to each other.

This comic isn't funny. It's tragic.

 

[Cecilo]

You know what? This comic isn't funny - it isn't funny because that's a fairly accurate depiction of most "MRAs". Except for the fact that they have the bodies of babies, that's literally what a lot of them say. I mean, I know the comic is supposed to be funny by exaggerating what MRA people say, but it's not an exaggeration - that's LITERALLY how they behave, that's literally how they feel, that's literally what they say to each other.

This comic isn't funny. It's tragic.

Except that isn't true. At all. The MRAs you see on the internet, the vocal ones, are as bad as the vocal feminists in Tumblr, who call for the mass murder of all men. MRAs who actually you know, do things, like try to lobby, and get politicians to listen to them, hold rallies and the like, just want our problems looked at, rather than waiting for Feminists to determine it is "Our turn" To have our problems fixed, which as far as I am concerned, could very well never come, because there is never an end to problems, because we are human and we aren't perfect.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Egh. Terrible artwork aside (which may or may not be intentional), I can see why this got rejected. It's not clever, it's not witty, and it tackles the issue with all the grace of an elephant. Never mind that it is an issue I really don't think even needs to be addressed in a periodical.

I am with you more than 900%. Sometimes people who spend a lot of time on the internet forget that other people don't... And those people that don't get there news from sources such as NYT that can be slightly higher brow. I am glad that comic didn't make it to print because it comes across terrible. To an average onlooker, particularily one not au fait with poor attempts at sarcasm, this comic just comes across as part of the problem itself instead of raising awareness.

I, for one, don't like internet campaigns. They tend to go too far, and without the human contact side, and the lack of opposition, they have a tendency to be a little extreme and void of facts. That saying, however, I like the sentiment behind this one. It highlights a problem that in my sheltered lifestyle I have been ignorant of in the Western World, and some of the stories are disgusting. If it has the legs to slightly shape societal views on mysogyny then I think poorly written and poorly timed attempts at jokes in widely liked periodicals should definitely be blocked.

 

[Saltyk]

Egh. Terrible artwork aside (which may or may not be intentional), I can see why this got rejected. It's not clever, it's not witty, and it tackles the issue with all the grace of an elephant. Never mind that it is an issue I really don't think even needs to be addressed in a periodical.

Totally agree. I wasn't even really offended by the comic as it was just too awful to rank offense. What's more, without the explanation of what it was about, it really just came across as being really hateful of men. Something like this works as a webcomic because you can expect that your audience is a bit more aware of internet trends, and even if they aren't, you can write up a quick post about it. Without that context, it does come across as man hating. Even with the context, it still kinda does, which I feel is sort of hypocritical.

As for the killer, he hated everyone. He hated people for being women and rejecting him. He hated men for being more successful than him with women. He hated black men for being more successful with women than him (because black people are inferior and ugly and other racist drivel). He hated his mom for not marrying a rich man. He hated his dad for not being rich. He hated that he wasn't rich and hated that and blamed others for that fact. This guy had some serious issues and believed himself to be the center of the world much like a toddler. It's not that he hated women.

He hated everyone that wasn't him and could find a reason to hate you given even a little time.

That being said, I understand the campaign. He sort of embodied the worst of what men could be. Especially in terms of feeling entitled to a "beautiful girlfriend".

 

[Achelexus]

Jesus christ, twitter is terrible, a place for spoiled white women to whine about how hard their life is, there's nothing wrong with mocking them.

 

[Karloff]

I'm surprised nobody else here seems to be wondering whether recent events at the Times has more to do with this than the quality of the comic's art.

Not that long ago the Times fired executive editor Jill Abramson, the first woman to hold that position, for reasons which, even now, many outside the paper are claiming are misogynist. Certainly her firing came as a hell of a shock for most of the people working for the Times, who had no idea there was a problem until she was out the door. Given that, I can well understand why the Times' editors might get a bit twitchy about a comic which, while it isn't addressing precisely the same issue, is close enough to it that the Times' readership - particularly its subscribers - would make an instant connection.

For those of you wondering about Abramson:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/15/heres-what-people-are-saying-about-the-firing-of-new-york-times-jill-abramson/?tid=pm_national_pop

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/business/media/times-co-chief-addresses-executive-editors-firing.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/business/media/after-firing-from-times-jill-abramson-talks-about-resilience.html?_r=0

 

[Cowabungaa]

I wonder how many more years will have gone by before people finally stop caring about what stupid people say on the most stupid medium in existence.

Never, it'll only increase the more the internet will get integrated into our lives. Which will happen.

And it makes sense, it's one of the biggest and definitely the most global communication platform we have. Nowhere else is it easier for a Dutch person like me knowing what's being said or done in the US right at this moment. It's one helluva thing.