scans_daily: Gabby's Playhouse: Discussing Sexism on the Internet

KILLJOY CANUCK (

mad) wrote in

scans_daily,
@ 2010-10-29 02:40 pm UTC

Entry tags:

medium: webcomic, trigger warning: misogyny/sexism

Gabby's Playhouse: Discussing Sexism on the Internet

So, recently Kate Beaton made some comments on Twitter about how sometimes guys that like her work will respond with comments she finds creepy/uncomfortable/offensive.

Gabby's Playhouse then did a webcomic entitled "How Every Single Discussion About Sexism and Woman-Type Stuff on the Internet (and real life) Has Ever Happened And Ever Will Happen, Always, Forever, Until the Earth Finally Falls Into The Sun. (Or until the patriarchy is finally dismantled.)"

Comic by Gabbysplayhouse.com

[Source.]

I don't quite get that last panel, but the rest of it is kinda recognizable.

(Read 416 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

	Ahem: halialkers 2010-10-29 08:52 pm UTC (link)
	And my apology to the community for my near/actually (depends on how strictly one defines the term) derailing comment. The comic actually has been validated and I helped contribute to that and so I offer a Mea Culpa Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa and thank the mods for freezing the thread as I requested. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 4 comments) (Show 4 comments)

Re: Ahem:

kingrockwell
2010-10-29 11:11 pm UTC (link)

"The comic actually has been validated and I helped contribute to that"

I'm kinda hoping this is just poorly worded because it comes off entirely too self-congratulatory. The comic would be perfectly valid without your contribution. I just don't know what this comment even means.

As for freezing the thread, we did that because the thread was derailing. We hadn't even realize you'd requested we do so when we froze it and that had no effect on our decision there.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

Re: Ahem:

halialkers
2010-10-30 12:43 am UTC (link)

It was poorly worded. it was an attempt to prevent further wank. Congraulating myself on starting it is er......not my thing. I'd assumed that the request to lock the thread had been the motivator and it wasn't. My apologies for this particular statement, it seems I'm having a bit of problems with clarity.

I was attempting to apologize for starting unnecessary wank and had figured that my statement that I wished the thread closed having realized that I'd started that had something to do with the closing. I do not consider it a laudatory thing. What I meant by "has been validated" is that it made a point that men tend to defend indefensible sexist statements and then I went ahead and defended an indefensible sexist statement in a knee-jerk reaction. I meant that my reaction helped actually prove the point that men do not react well to being called out.

Essentially it made a point about how men react poorly to being called out and then I went and reacted poorly based on a superficial reading and started an unnecessary brouhaha, showing that the comic was in fact correct as a predictor of how men reacted to these discussions.

Last edited 2010-10-30 12:47 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

	Re: Ahem: kingrockwell 2010-10-30 01:16 am UTC (link)
	Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you for the clarification. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	Re: Ahem: halialkers 2010-10-30 01:17 am UTC (link)
	No problem. It was very badly worded and for that I apologize. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

(Read 416 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)