Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Shortly After Monday Misogyny

From the Imageboards (all captured in this handy post through quote boxes, in response to a female fan coming in to tell the Writer (of this column) where to get off.

Fan #1: Um, maybe I missed it buried in all that sarcasm, but what the hell are you talking about, and what does it have to do with Erik's column this week? If there was a point to this post, it sailed right over my head.....

Writer: What do you mean? She (if she is a "she"--kind of difficult to tell via a computer) illustrated beautifully my point about "hearing" only bits of a message and taking isolated comments out of context. The point WAS missed because the point didn't fill her agenda, which was to pick a fight over a point that I didn't make.

Fan #2: She is a she, trust me....

Fan #3: Seeing how the gf always does the same, yeah I trust ye

25 comments:

  1. Having read the original column, someone's missing the point here, but it's not you.

    Sheesh.

    What I really like is the "subtle" implication that you might be lying.

    if she is a "she"--kind of difficult to tell via a computer)

    This is man who can't take someone challenging his opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, someone suggested he was just trying to anger me into posting a picture.

    And you know how that would go: I'd post a picture, and they would say I'm lying and just posted a random picture of some girl and that they have no way of knowing that the picture's real. Meanwhile, someone takes the pictures and photoshops it so that I have PL-sized breasts or something, and those butts all get a big laugh while I am mortified.

    *rolls eyes*

    ReplyDelete
  3. You know, I'd be willing to accept that what you (and, like, a bunch of other people including me) took out of Larsen's column isn't what he meant. However, intent is only half of the equation. If a significant portion of his readers took something from his message -- as was the case here -- then perhaps he should try to understand why rather than attacking those who criticized him.

    I mean, if Anne Rice can't get away with that bullshit, then a little nobody like him sure can't either. (I will never cease to enjoy digging at Anne Rice for her Amazon.com temper tantrum).

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The point WAS missed because the point didn't fill her agenda, which was to pick a fight over a point that I didn't make."

    The prosecution rests, Larsen.

    You cannot write an entire column about people taking things out of context, then complain when someone seizes on a point you DO make (whether you realized it or not).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm confused. Larson's original post was long and rambling, but I didn't really see anything there that fitted your response. The previous column, where he bangs on about how DD's are an under-represented minority, perhaps, but he seemed to be making an effort to dig himself out of that hole in this one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The ol' "doubt the identity of the poster" is a bloody weak debating tactic, and it's disappointing coming from someone like Larsen who claims to love a good debate.

    I get to a point with certain people who love controversy where I just write them off. When I can see that they can dish it out, but not take it ... I'm done.

    I'm done with Larsen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. See the one thing Larsen is missing is John Byrnes adorable "crazy old man" power. You can shrug off byrne because he's a crazy old man.

    Larsen isn't

    Sorry just thinking about the differences between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anyone who's ever read an issue of Savage Dragon shouldn't be surprised by any of this. There's an issue where it's implied the Dragon intends to date rape a drunk and unconscious woman. Gleefully implied.

    Fan #3: Seeing how the gf always does the same, yeah I trust ye

    All women are alike! The genes for being rational are in the Y chromosome! Go read Archie and leave our books alone! Make me a chicken pot pie!! It's sad that being so far from the mainstream public eye, comics have become a haven for such conservative and prejudiced ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Larsen is "willing to concede that [he] could be wrong"...unless anyone ever challenges him. It's telling that he characterizes his critics as hysterical censors, and likely liars, who take his innocent words out of context to fit their wicked agendas. Further, he suggests that anyone with enough time on their hands to engage the arguments in his columns is probably mentally ill and simply gets off on online fighting (as opposed to actually believing what they're saying.) These are all signs of a lazy thinker--which was apparent from the column that started all of this, not to mention almost every column he's ever typed for CBR.

    I thought Larsen was merely a meathead, but with each successive post on this subject he reveals himself further as a flat-out creep.

    Unfortunately, there are too many self-satisfied guys like him in comics (and everywhere else, frankly) who think of themselves as honest, free-thinking mavericks when they're just cads.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have to admit, I didn't see what you guys were complaining about (granted, I did mostly skim it). Whay I saw was that he was complaining that artists shouldn't be censored by a "vocal minority" (but the way some male comic fans act would surely make female fans a minority--why would we want to hang out with losers?), but at the same time, there should be more diversity. Huh.

    Although his hysterical jabs at you would certainly imply that he's angry about being called on his sexism. And is Savage Dragon the one with that bald Nazi badguy? There was some Wizard special that they were handing out on Free Comic Book Day that included the funniest moments in comics. One of them was from some comic, where it showed the various ways the badguy was beat up, including getting his leg and unmentionables eaten by cannibals and crawling through the desert. Haha. Funny. Talk about lowest common denominator humor.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, you are talking about PREACHER, which is written by Garth Ennis.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for correcting me.

    Maybe the rest of Preacher is funny?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "It's funny to see what gets people all riled up." - Erik Larsen

    I think we've found the reason he writes the column.

    You know, if Larsen is actually playing the fool, just to see if he can get the "monkeys" (and anyone else easily riled up) to dance, he just might be the smartest man on the planet...

    Or, at least the FUNNIEST. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I still want to know who this vocal anti-breast minority is. He doesn't provide any examples, and while I only read a couple of blogs that address the issue of cheesecake in comics, but they don't make the claims he says he's reacting against.

    It makes it seem like he's pounding a strawman.

    As for Preacher, it's kind of funny. The reason the cannibal thing is funny is because the guy who got eaten had been continually beaten on for pretty much the entire run of the book. It's a Wile E. Coyote thing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Also, it's kind of not funny to see what gets people riled up.

    There can be an art to it, but most of the time it amounts to proving the obvious.

    If you act like a dick people will get mad. It's not really that impressive a discovery.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "If you act like a dick people will get mad. It's not really that impressive a discovery."

    I don't think it's the reaction itself, that Larsen is interested in. More like knowing what buttons/topics will set people off.

    Yeah, being a dick gets people mad. But what topic will get them mad the most and fastest? THAT'S the adventure he seeks to discover. He's like the "Indiana Jones" of jerks. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. If anyone can tell me why people like being "controversial", I'd be most grateful.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "If anyone can tell me why people like being "controversial", I'd be most grateful."

    For the same reasons babies cry and 6 year olds pee in the sink: they want attention, and they don't care if it's negative attention.

    When an artist believes in something, and expresses it despite the standard societal norms, and ends up offending most people, that's brave. They may be hated or mocked for their work, but there is also praise for their fearlessness in putting it out there.

    When an artist says something intentionally, he is not expressing his deeply held beliefs as much as hoping to offend and be called brave for the offense.

    It's the same mentality behind internet trolls and flamers. As long as someone is yelling at them, arguing with them, or reacting to them in anyway, it means someone, somewhere is at least paying attention to them.

    They don't need to be loved, or admired, or even engaged in a debate of equally valid viewpoints. They just don't want to be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yeah, I agree it's pretty much an attention thing. But, there's also the seeming unfettered joy some folks get in "getting someone's goat", as well.

    It's almost like a game to them, to see how far they can push you, until you crack. They don't really care about getting attention so much, as just sort of "winding a person up and letting them go." It's kind of a sick little thrill for them.

    Now, which of these is the case with Larsen, I can't say.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm convinced it's almost a defining trait of social primates, the not uncommon desire to provoke and pester troopmates or whatever small defenseless creature's handy.

    Carl Sagan recounts a story of two chimps who teamed up to torment a chicken, one holding out a palmful of food, the other a length of coat-hanger wire behind his back to poke at the chicken when it approached. The chicken didn't catch on very fast--the chimps repeatedly lured the poor thing in.

    To no apparent end other than the chance to harass the animal.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ...because it's apparently musing, I neglected to add.

    ReplyDelete
  22. That sick little thrill is Ragnells world indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just to head off any potential misunderstandings, I was not drawing any analogies to any parties with the Sagan anecdote. Rather I was just chiming in on steven & meeley's comments; any specific applicability is largely tangential. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "If you act like a dick people will get mad. It's not really that impressive a discovery."

    Maybe it is to Erik Larsen, who sounds like he needs to get his head out of his ass.

    (And I say this after rereading the column. Insert eyeroll here.)

    ReplyDelete