This was reblogged from me and I was reminded that it exists.
Okay but the creator of Dilbert once compared women asking for pay equal to men in the workplace is like children asking for candy so
Scott Adams… Kind of a dick.
Christ, it’s like reading the square root of every shitty straw man comic. Like you can just feel the lazy smarm oozing from each panel as Adams whines about how offended he is that other people are ever allowed to be offended.
And yeah, gotta just love that Scott Adams fella right there; the guy who, when he came under fire for being the most blatantly misogynistic asshole in the world, (“the reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone.”) had one extremely vocal and kiss-ass defender of his backwards attitude who later turned out to be… himself, using a fake name. To the surprise of no one.
That character in the last comic up there may have learned to debate on the internet, but clearly Scott Adams wasn’t even able to make it that far.
"Which. You know what? In what universe is it okay to use your very large platform to encourage your followers to harass someone? Adria Richards and Anita Sarkeesian are only two of the most recent and prominent examples of the effects that online harassment can have. There is a long and sad history online of women being harassed for DARING to commit the CRIME of HAVING OPINIONS WHILE FEMALE.
And for people who’d say “well they didn’t actually tell their fans to harass you”? BULLSHIT. They made posts in which they called me things like “laughable”, “embarrassing”, and “smug”, then continued to encourage the anger in the thread that resulted. Nor did they make any attempts to dissuade potential harassers, or tell people who made threatening comments to back off. These are grown-ass-men who pointed their very large audiences at me and told them what a terrible person I was on the internet because they want me to shut the fuck up."
Anna Kreider, Regarding Entirely Predictable Backlash
Ever heard of the Wheaton Defense, creators? It’s linking something you disagree with with disparaging commentary (not actual discourse or thought out opinions) knowing your fanbase will pile on and attack this person while blindly supporting your opinion. Forcing the dissenter by sheer numbers and harassment of your much larger following to shut up without ever having to acknowledge they may have made some valid points or engage in actual discourse with the dissenter. Don’t do that. Please. You don’t have to agree with them. You really don’t. — But as the person in a position of greater power, you have the responsibility to not be the asshat that sicks your legion on someone less famous than you. You can ignore them if you don’t wish to engage. You can say hey, I don’t agree with this interpretation because X and Y. You should not link your legion of followers to them only saying the less famous person is “arrogant” or “stupid” for having a dissenting opinion and that means they should have their right to opinion/talk revoked. Because hey, your legion will go about attempting to enforce that wish.
As osheamobile said in a twitter conversation earlier this month (because he has good opinions and I generally like them):
One of these days I’m going to write a primer on “How To Be A Celebrity On The Internet”. A chapter in the book “How To Be A Celebrity On The Internet”: Actions Have Consequences (OR, you have rabid fans, try to remember this). That chapter will be about 80% of the book and will consist of the sentence “PEOPLE THINK DEFENDING YOU IS COOL” over and over again. Also known as the Wheaton Defense. There will be a subchapter called “AND STOP ENCOURAGING THEM TO DO SO”, also known as the Penny Arcade Corollary. The closing bit of that chapter will be subtitled “Please try to tell your fans not to react like this”, as per the Cleolinda Jones Act. So titled because cleolinda will, every so often, sit her readers down and say “Look, we do not do this and this is why.”
sometime I just think about how easy it would be to market superheroes toward little girls and I am filled with rage
like do these people not realize how fucking easy this shit would be
there’s the dazzler she’s like a popstar and a superhero do you know how many 4-12 year old girls would dig that shit
there’s the wasp and her superpowers are seriously like zapping jerks, flying, and being cuter than everybody else. also she’s a famous fashion designer. and she’s better than you. (like she shrinks and stuff too but mainly her power is being better than you)
she-hulk is like this nerdy chick with the power to get bigger and greener and be spontaneously tougher than everybody in the vicinity like I don’t even know a little girl who wouldn’t slit someone’s throat for the ability to be stronger than all the boys when they pissed her off
little girl likes magic? scarlet witch
little girl likes science? invisible woman
little girl likes spies? black widow
little girl likes aliens? karolina dean
little girl likes bionic arms? misty knight
little girl likes flying horses? wow. guess who has one of those? valkyrie. valkyrie does.
My point is that’s it’s so fucking easy so chop-chop, Marvel, get on it. Seriously, I went ten years of my life thinking superheroes were boys. That’s ten years of you not profiting off of my inability to refrain from buying even the crappiest merchandise you offer if it has a character I love on it. Little girls are an enormous market; they will buy all your shit if you just suggest to them that maybe they’d like to.
or you could just keep on not profiting when you could be making money selling literally any object that has enough space to plaster a female superhero’s face on it. that’s cool too.
Part of what’s going on, I think, is that one of the things they are offering to their boy customers is assured masculinity. But under our system of “subtractive masculinity”, something is only *truly* masculine if it doesn’t overlap with girls (or women). So if they deliberately sell to girls, they are breaking their agreement with the boy customers, the agreement that these things will enhance their masculinity.
But I suspect the more important thing is that they, the men who make these decisions, have also bought into the Law of Subtractive Masculinity. Or what I call The Anxiety of the Shopkeeper: customers have power, customers command (with their money), sellers have to understand how customers think. So for a man to sell things to women automatically undermines the gender hierarchy, it makes him mockable. Better to sell fewer things but not get laughed at.