In Defense of Jezebel's Disney Dick Pics

"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
08/19/2014 at 23:14 • Filed to: None

I don't know if Jezebel' s !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was a smash hit with its intended audience, given that I'm not 100% of Jezebel's regular readership. I do know that some readers seem to find both the pics and perhaps the very concept a bit too much on the disturbing side. Me, personally, I don't find any offense at it at all. Yes, I did read and scrolled through the entire thing. No, my eyes didn't melt out of my sockets. Nor was I really compelled to click on it because it was obviously "clickbait-y." I read the article because I thought the headline seemed legitimately interesting, if not a little on the weird side (then again a good headline always is). It was a cute article about someone's interpretation of Disney princes nude - and that was pretty much it. It was kind of a quaint article and I can't say I regret scrolling through it. Some readers seemed to have a bit of a strong reaction to it, to the point where I feel justified in outlining a few thoughts on why I think it's appropriate FP material.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Nobody Said FP Material Had to be Work-Safe

Maybe we're a bit spoiled on Jalopnik because it's not every day NSFW material shows up on the front page, and when it does, we get ample warning that our work filters won't be too happy about the content inside with either a cleaned-up or censored pic or some other replacement to serve as the topshot with a great big jump in between. The Jezebel article doesn't exactly have an explicit NSFW header - but c'mon, it more or less tells you right in the title regardless. I have to admit, maybe that big, burly pube-nest on that massive acreage barrel chest Gaston is sporting there is a bit disturbing, but it's not like it shows up on the little headline carousel anyway.

At the very least it certainly makes for a dramatic topshot.

It's Gender-Flipped from What Other Gawker Blogs Have Done

I'd argue !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

Disney Princesses (or reinterpretations of them) are a semi-regular news feature on iO9 , whenever someone comes up with yet another reinterpretation of them (which apparently is pretty often). As Tracie Egan Morrissey points out, the Princes don't get much attention, so when they do, it's something worth Jezebel picking up on.

It's legitimate to Jezebel's Mission Statement

The examination of that gender representation discrepancy and what it reflects is precisely what Jezebel was set up to deliver along with what the nature of that portrayal is and what it's aiming to do. It may sound like a lot of redundancy is in that statement, but each and every thing I listed is a distinct form - not just what kind of cultural norms are reflected on the art, but what the art reflects back on those cultural norms.

It Got the Conversation Going

Of course it's hard to judge how art is meant to reflect back on culture without a dialogue going, and I'd say, it definitely achieved that. Yes, you can have useful, intellectual discussion about the size of Gaston's penis and what it reflects. It's actually quite multi-tiered: how people see men who try to overcompensate by acting like boneheaded, testosterone-overfueled bros; what kind of messages that kind of character traditionally represents and what it represents in today's culture; how changing attitudes about men and women have shaped and reshaped external appearance and perception, and etc.

That's exactly the goal of what Jezebel is trying to do not only with Disney Dick Pics but with everything else it's trying to do. Not everything their contributors write has to be agreed upon, but everything their contributors write has at least a pool of readers who agree with it, who find important discussion within it, and why it matters to them and effects their lives. Disney Dick Pics does bring some interesting discussion to the table, while being at least a little lighthearted at the same time.

DISCUSSION (100)

Tom McParland > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:16

this should be cross-posted to GT...a nicely written post.

Dusty Ventures > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:23

I agree with Tom, very well written. A thoughtful, intelligent, persuasive explanation of your views. I wish more people would give their perspective in such a way, instead of the typical "the loudest, angriest person is right" mentality.

GhostZ > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:23

It's weird, disturbing, obviously a form of pornography, but even I have to admit it's better than the usual.

If there were more "pushing the boundaries of the male and female body image" stuff and less "angry women bitching about problems that don't exist or they refuse to solve" I would probably read more of their articles.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:23

I don't think the problem is the post. Rather, the timing, right after all of this rape.gif stuff that happened. I think that's what has got most people ticked off and uneasy; that right after The majority of the gif problem has died down, this "dick post" comes up not even a week after it began. I did cringe at the thought of some of the post, but it didn't really bother me as much as some other people have suggested.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:24

To be completely honest this is not the appropriate time to be posting this, not that it ever was, but they just about chose the worst time possible to make a post like this. We just altered the entire viewing experience of the gawker-sphere because of what is happening on Jezebel, out of respect for them, and this is what they go and do. If the tables were turned it would be Patriarchy this and rape culture that.

thebigbossyboss > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:25

I did not click either article, because I did not want to see naked cartoon people.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/19/2014 at 23:29

Yes. Exactly, this. Timing is, and was everything, and it was horribly off in this situation.

FlimFlamMan > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:38

I don't pay much attention to Jezebel (which explains why I haven't seen any of said rape.gifs), but will occasionally fall for the click bait that scrolls the rec area. I thought it was kinda funny and I wasn't offended at all either. Rather clever piece, actually. Yet... I can certainly understand it upsetting others.

Regards,

Donkey

Manuél Ferrari > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:43

I hadn't clicked on it until now. I see nothing wrong with it. Did they get in trouble for it?

crown victor victoria > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:54

Nice to see someone with an intelligent response to this and preferable to yet another "disney dick freak-out post"

Jacques L' Autre > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/19/2014 at 23:58

Lest we forget.

http://jalopnik.com/5708691/steve-…

CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist) > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/20/2014 at 00:04

Tom, thanks for the excellent read.

FriskyDingo > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/20/2014 at 00:11

I find it funny so soon after rape gifs, this.

Gamecat235 > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/20/2014 at 00:25

2.2m and counting page hits can't be wrong.

This post was great. Thank you.

King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/20/2014 at 00:32

I...can't even find a way to appropriately express my views on any of this without questioning my own intentions. This is the great conundrum of a man even attempting to discuss topics relating to feminism.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/20/2014 at 09:26

One of the best parts about Oppo is our ability to have a voice.

While we both know I disagree with your opinion on this matter, I respect that you have a nicely written article and I'm glad we both had room to voice our opinions.

pauljones > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/20/2014 at 09:48

This. Right here. This is what we're looking for more of on Oppositelock.

Thoughtful, intelligent, reflective, and respectful. This is how opinions should be shared, and this is how posts ought to be.

I can't star this post enough.

Arrivederci > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/20/2014 at 10:04

I thought it was fine as well, somewhat humorous. The only problem I have is I could see them getting their collective panties in a wad if another predominantly male blog composed a bunch of nudes of Disney princesses, analyzing their pubes, vaginas and breasts.

Sir Halffast > Dusty Ventures
08/20/2014 at 12:54

Bingo.

Curt Styler > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/20/2014 at 13:08

I still think it's pretty wrong. Here's the thing. If it were just shirtless, then ok. Princes on stripper poles or even Magic Mike style, fine. But penises? REALLY? Can you begin to imagine the backlash if there were an article about topless Disney princesses? Or heaven forbid who had the best vagina? The comment section would have crashed the whole Gawker complex and the internet would have exploded. Honestly I think any of these topics would be inappropriate for these sites. Maybe I'm just too used to Jalopnik where things are a bit more focused. I'll just stick to the automotive section from now on.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/21/2014 at 12:14

But that's the point . Comparing the objectification of male bodies to the violation (or even just the objectification) of female bodies is false equivalence at it's finest. One is considered acceptable, even funny. The other is "gross" and "offensive." We are expected to put up with the male gaze (including rape gifs) but when confronted with the female gaze everybody flips their shit. That's the real problem here. Just like there is no reverse racism, their is no reverse rape culture or matriarchy.

I have a great give to use here and I'm annoyed I can't.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > GhostZ
08/21/2014 at 12:22

Why is it weird, disturbing, or pornography?

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Curt Styler
08/21/2014 at 12:24

There is no such thing as reverse patriarchy.

Objectification of the female form is considered acceptable, but female sexuality is mocked and oppressed. The male gaze is catered to while the female is derided.

Especially given that there have been posts comparing princess breasts/asses and oh, by the way almost all of the Disney princesses are underage while none of the princes are...yeah, your point does not fly.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Arrivederci
08/21/2014 at 12:25

Comparing the objectification of women with the objectification of men is false equivalence and does not bolster your argument.

Gonzo the Something > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/21/2014 at 12:25

The Gaston one *really* bothered me, because the only narrative out there for less endowed guys is the "overcompensating jerk" one. (The "steroid" comments were simply ridiculous.)

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > FriskyDingo
08/21/2014 at 12:26

Because gore porn is the same thing as cartoon dicks?

SimplyResistible > Curt Styler
08/21/2014 at 12:27

I'm not prepared to say it was wrong and I wasn't particularly offended, but I'm not sure I'd make the claim that twerking princesses is worse (rape imagery, yes).

Arrivederci > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 12:32

How so? They claim to dislike the objectification of women, but then do so to cartoon variants of men. My supposition was that they would not react well to men doing the same thing to cartoon variants of women. Do you disagree and think they would deem it marvelous as they did when lauding the article and images on Jezebel?

BasicName > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 12:33

I'm flabbergasted people think that a drawing of a cartoon penis is anything close to the same ball park as the rape gifs.

BasicName > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/21/2014 at 12:40

This was a good read! I must admit some crazy confusion as to why people are upset about this. As you said, princesses have been done a million times over. I saw nude princesses way back in high school. Are we freaking out because dicks? Because now dudes have to deal with being confronted with the female gaze? Ahh, rhetorical questions.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Arrivederci
08/21/2014 at 12:43

I think that comparing the (culturally acceptable, catered to, and lauded) male objectification of women that's lasted for hundreds of thousands of years to the (infrequent and immediately shut down in part because of some puritanical belief that women are or should not be sexual) female objectification of men is ridiculous.

Much like reverse racism. It is impossible for an oppressed minority (like women) to be institutionally bigoted against the majority in power. Female sexuality is derided and unacceptable, but male sexuality is something to be celebrated in our culture. I can't find a single article on Oppo objecting to the two Disney princess articles linked to in the piece above.

Not to mention the fact that canonically almost every Disney princess is underage while the princes are not.

ellejay > K-Roll-PorscheTamer
08/21/2014 at 12:46

Being non-consensually assailed with violent, graphic imagery of rape porn is not even close to the same thing as voluntarily looking at porn that appeals to you.

Anybody who thinks it's hypocritical for us to hate rape and like sex isn't very good at thinking.

from tracie on the article.

hating rape and rapists has nothing to do with liking sex and penises. neither of those things has anything to do with how our culture perceives and understands masculinity in relation to penis size.

Arrivederci > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 12:52

Can you not answer the question which was in my original statement? Do you think the ladies on Jezebel would be equally receiving of a male blog doing the same thing to Disney princesses. Yes or no?

ellejay > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/21/2014 at 12:53

because of what is happening on Jezebel

well, what happened to the rest of GM, really. if it was because of what happened on jezebel, these changes would have happened months ago instead of hours after other sites had it happen to them.

ellejay > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 12:55

because penis.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Arrivederci
08/21/2014 at 12:57

I did answer your question, because you are trying to box me in with a strawman argument that is inappropriate and sexist.

I know for a fact that Jezebel has objected to the sexualization of underage cartoon characters because of the larger context of patriarchy and rape culture that it represents. While their own commentary on the objectification of bodies is classified as lewd or crass and unacceptable because it's women talking about dicks, look at the number of tits in your face the next time you walk past a rack of magazines (pun not intended but thankfully funny).

But hey, by cornering the argument and draping it in false equivalency, you win! Go you! Bullying people out of reasonable opinions. Have a cookie.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > ellejay
08/21/2014 at 12:58

YUP.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/21/2014 at 12:58

As a lady and a newish visitor to Oppo, I wan to say thanks to you for this. The comments are devolving into a cesspool (sadly) but I think you made a lot of great points. Kudos!

I'd include an awesome gif if I was allowed.

NULL789 > K-Roll-PorscheTamer
08/21/2014 at 13:06

You cannot compare consensual commiserating of CARTOON PENIS, to violent sex and gore images that were forced upon readers and authors. Try again.

Bronze Sebs Fever > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/21/2014 at 13:07

Well said. Especially that it was legitimate to Jez's mission statement. The post completely fit in with their Disney Princess worship while working on the representation discrepancy. It was not surprising in the least. And while I'm a woman I'm neither a hardcore fan or Jez or the Disney Princess Phenomena so I'm not defending for the sake of defending.

But the responses about the timing being off due the rape gifs thing has launched me into that mode of stroking my chin and making conclusions about the menz; the same mode that aggravates women commenters when men do it to them, so apologies. I'm not going to go full Jezzie and declare that if one thinks that rape and sexy parts are the same (they really aren't) then one is part of the problem, because I think it's coming from a more empathetic place, and stems from the objectification issue and not rape issue: correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my hypothesis:

There is a constant bombardment of women's anatomy used as titillation and making products seem more attractive and so on. The men see how objectification hurts women by reading Jezebel. This gets melded into the idea that since a woman's breasts are served up for consumption it's victimizing and therefore they shouldn't be seen at all. (Mix in something about american brand of prudery in there too.) But penises (penii?) in mass media is never a problem. So thoughts get crossed and the penis becomes somewhat of a cause of rape and not just a tool for it. So seeing cartoon penises objectified so soon after the rape gifs means glorifying the abuser, and the men here aren't having it. This is what I'm gleaning from the responses.

Whereas I think we shouldn't shame anatomy (breasts don't always equal objectification, penises don't always represent abuse) it's the thinking behind objectification that's the problem, and I see zero correlation between a prince penis and a rape gif. And to Jez's credit, the intentions behind objectification has probably been their number one issue they've addressed since they started, because it is is a huge problem but it's also low-hanging fruit with regards to feminism. And they've addressed rape too, but that's not been as easy. But I mean it's been discussed at length over the years, so seeing the wires get crossed by non-regular readers is throwing me for a loop. That is, if I'm even on the right track, which I might not be at all.

Dusty Ventures > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 13:12

You should visit more often. There's usually less arguing and more appreciation of gorgeous automotive bodies. Plus Oppo needs more Batman avatar ;)

NULL789 > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/21/2014 at 13:12

We live in a society that celebrates male gaze (the objectifying of women, male nudity as funny). So when women express their gaze no matter how silly (ITS CARTOONS) it might be men don't get to say "REVERSE SEXISM"

Repeat after me. The oppressed cannot oppress the oppressors nor is their job to take the feelings of the oppressor into account.

Arrivederci > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 13:13

How am I bullying? I don't want to make assumptions about someone I don't know, but I think you need to relax! I said the original article didn't bother me, but I found it humorous that they wouldn't appreciate it if the shoe were on the other foot. Regarding your racism statement, since it's okay for Jezebel to objectify men, is it okay for black people to be racist towards white?

NULL789 > GhostZ
08/21/2014 at 13:14

If you think that pictures of cartoon dick is weird disturbing or porno, you need to evaluate your definitions of those words.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Dusty Ventures
08/21/2014 at 13:16

I'm a two-wheel kinda gal myself, so I think I'll stick around and see what there is to see. Besides, I want more people to geek out about Speed Week with. I'm the only person I know who's been to Bonneville and I feel like that needs to change.

TO THE BATCYCLE.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Arrivederci
08/21/2014 at 13:17

Black people can't be racist towards white people, and women can't be sexist towards men. That's how power dynamics work. Thus is the crux of our disagreement.

Gamecat235 > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/21/2014 at 13:20

If anyone has any feedback for me specifically (I did share the post, after all), either in response to me sharing it, as my capacity as a moderator on Oppositelock, or just as gamecat, please let me know.

catslightly > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 13:21

I know I probably just blew up your notifications by starring all of your comments in this post, but I just had to thank you for coming in and voicing what so many of us are too frustrated/exhausted to.

Dusty Ventures > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 13:21

I made a stop in Bonneville on the way home from a race in Nevada. Sadly it wasn't speed week, and my car wasn't entirely put together after losing a wheel in the race so I couldn't do a "just for fun" run, but it was definitely worth a stop. Took some photos, licked the salt (grabbed a few pieces to take home), ate dinner on the flats, and just absorbed the energy of decades of fast. Even though it wasn't speed week there were about a dozen race rigs camped out, waiting for morning so they could make some untimed runs. It was fantastic. I really need to go back for Speed Week.

Arrivederci > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 13:23

I know you're too intelligent to actually believe that.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Dusty Ventures
08/21/2014 at 13:24

...Oppo meet up in 2015? Maybe I can go bully Clement Salvadori and tease him about losing to my mom again.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > catslightly
08/21/2014 at 13:24

I'll keep running into walls as long as my skull can take the hit. ;)

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Arrivederci
08/21/2014 at 13:27

Racism and sexism are institutional and systematic things. Personal bigotry is different. A woman may be bigoted against men, but she is not sexist because she is not in power and thus is not capable of creating a social structure in which he is oppressed. The same is true of people of color: a black person may be individually bigoted, but racism requires oppression. Individuals cannot create oppression.

NULL789 > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/21/2014 at 13:28

Shared this to GT. Good write up. Hope some people in the comments can learn something

Ladyology > Gonzo the Something
08/21/2014 at 13:33

Well, the joke is that, misogynist dickbag that the character is, he's abused steroids too much to have much going on in his trousers. This is parody based on stereotype.

In truth, study after study shows that women with partners who have below average penis sizes report statistically significantly higher rates of sexual satisfaction. Those men try harder, and their sexual partners really appreciate it. Most adult women know that. This was a play on stereotypes intended to parody oversexualization of Disney princesses. It was tongue in cheek.

downwiththissortofthing > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/21/2014 at 13:35

Maybe I'm being over-sensitive to a racial element here, but the only thing that bothered me about the post is that they gave detailed descriptions (3-4 lines) about the logic behind each dick EXCEPT Prince Naveen's. He had, like, 1.5 lines that basically said, "it's long." Oh and "friendly pubes" (?).

At least the other two POCs got a bit more effort?

Ladyology > BasicName
08/21/2014 at 13:35

Men are very uncomfortable with the female gaze. If they weren't, we'd see more cock and ass in the movies. Drool. I seriously want to see Chris Pratt's cock.

Arthur Salvadoor > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 13:35

"Not to mention the fact that canonically almost every Disney princess is underage while the princes are not."

So...it's ok to sexualize pedophiles? That seems an odd thing to claim.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Gamecat235
08/21/2014 at 13:37

You have, by the way, confirmed my belief that the sub-Kinja mods are all lovely human beings so *high five* for that.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Arthur Salvadoor
08/21/2014 at 13:38

Hey look, a strawman!

Dangit, I have so many gifs that would be good to use here.

Arthur Salvadoor > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/21/2014 at 13:39

My only issue was with comments like this from the author:

"Yes, we will do that on the same day that anyone gives a shit about what you think."

I've kind of come to expect better from the staff on this network :(

Balmut > Ladyology
08/21/2014 at 13:42

Well there is footage of it from Parks and Rec, but you'll probably have to bribe someone to get a look at it...

Ladyology > Balmut
08/21/2014 at 13:50

Blarg. I don't have that kind of money.

BasicName > Ladyology
08/21/2014 at 13:51

Yeah I would be down with that.

Arthur Salvadoor > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 13:52

I wasn't making an argument, I was asking you a question.

Gonzo the Something > Ladyology
08/21/2014 at 13:52

The trouble with that is that steroids didn't exist in the time of B& the B. (Also, it doesn't really make men who are naturally that way feel very good)

As well, for every time I hear "size doesn't matter" there are always people who call that a lie. And, well, the comments on the article kind of belie that.

Gamecat235 > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 13:53

Thank you!

http://media.tumblr.com/c6fc66f9dbfb76…

(this is totally me right now, except more bald, with facial hair, and 20+ years older... and male =).

antitqt > Gamecat235
08/21/2014 at 13:54

As you (Gamecat235) requested comment (to Jezebel's recent Disney article), I present my previous response to LadyGrinningSoul:

You were disgusted because it WAS disgusting!
And disturbing...and totally unnecessary!
Also, not fun nor funny!
I disliked it (a lot)!

I dislike it still..and thank you Gamecat235 for the OPPOrtunity to say this twice!

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Gamecat235
08/21/2014 at 13:55

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lneruwM…

Me...but brunette with glasses. And would rather be on a motorcycle right now. xD

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Arthur Salvadoor
08/21/2014 at 13:57

Asking questions like that, particularly on such a charged subject, rarely comes without any ulterior motives. I would say never, but a cartoon mouse taught me not to.

Ladyology > Gonzo the Something
08/21/2014 at 13:59

I agree that there is a historical inaccuracy in the depiction. I think it should be clear to most readers that it is a play on modern tropes, not a historical commentary of larger men.

The actual data indicate that few women are size queens, and consistently, women with smaller partners report higher rates of sexual satisfaction. It is important that there are stereotypes and there are data. I hope that men who happen to be below average know that. I'm not a busty woman, and I've discovered that most men give zero fucks, and there's actually a cohort that do not like breasts much or who strongly prefer smaller, perky tits. There are all kinds out there.

mxyzptlk > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 14:00

I have less of a problem with the pictures (no problem at all, actually) than I do with the writer's response, where she told everyone to basically go to hell if they didn't like it. Fine, but then maybe that post is better-placed somewhere like Fleshbot, rather than on a site that campaigns against objectification — because what their response suggests is they're not against objectification in itself, necessarily, only objectification of women. If it's them doing the objectification, then objectification is fine, because y'know, history. What, after 1000 years of female objectification of men, then all objectification will be wrong?

So either objectification is wrong or it isn't, just like either racism is wrong or it isn't. Example: A comedian can be superficially racist when they're actually ironically puncturing the way racism works in order to critque or deflate it, like Dave Chappelle or Stephen Colbert. When comedians just repeat racists statements, their position as comedian doesn't protect them or make those statements less racist — like Carlos Mencia or Michael Richards.

If Jezebel wants to have their cake and eat it too, cool — but then they owe the readers more of an explanation than their "sorrynotsorry" middle finger. That's the Mencia or Richards reaction. They didn't offer the critique of objectification — and there's one there to be had. For a blog that positions itself as a smart response to sexism, why emulate the thing they criticize? There were better ways of handling that.

Arthur Salvadoor > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 14:04

Honestly, you pointed out an age difference I'd never really noticed/thought about before and that's where my mind went. Sorry if I led you to think there was anything else to it.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > mxyzptlk
08/21/2014 at 14:04

Look, the writer's reaction is one thing, and a completely different subject. I wasn't a fan of the writer's response, either.

But guess what? Commentary on objectification from the perspective of an oppressed minority (women), which is what that post was, is a totally valid thing . There is no comparison between the objectification of men and the objectification of women. Women who walk around naked in response to objectification are no more or less valid than women who talk about cartoon characters' dicks in response to objectification. But yet...people don't bitch and moan nearly as much about the former.

No one is investigating the fact that most of the people responding negatively to that piece are men. There are plenty of women saying "not my sense of humor" or "not may taste" or "I didn't enjoy it." But the people who are blasting it are almost exclusively men, and I think that's rooted in a profound sense of discomfort in being the subject of objectification for once.

It's like that great definition of homophobia: straight men are scared of "the gays" because they're afraid of being treated like they treat women.

ellejay > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 14:05

lol he wants you to relax. Pipe down, lititle lady, let me tell you have sexism works!

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 14:07

I can guarantee that there would be a shit storm is there was an article about naked Disney princess posted on Jalopnik. Not that there would be in the first place. Also, your expected to deal with rape gifs? I guess that Gawker didnt change the entire commenting system, its just a coincidence that pictures are disabled. And I didnt say there was reverse rape culture or what ever the hell the matriarchy is, but you generally dont succeed in life by stooping down to the level of those you believe are wrong or ignorant.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Arthur Salvadoor
08/21/2014 at 14:08

Your mind went to accusing a group of women of sexualizing full grown men instead of wondering why Disney (an international company worth billions) would spend decades sexualizing underage girls and giving them those grown men as romantic interests. I just want to point that out.

HermioneStranger > NULL789
08/21/2014 at 14:10

I dunno that this reliance on justifying every bad thing and strategical fuck-up feminists do with "the oppressed cannot oppress their oppressors" is really helping. It comes off to a lot of people as just trying really hard to find some loophole for why it's not ok when someone treats you poorly, but is ok when you treat them poorly. It makes me want to send people back to kindergarten, so that we can go over things like "two wrongs don't make a right" until people actually get it. There are times when it is relevant, but honestly, is defending some extra-clickbaity Jezebel post with cartoon depictions of Disney dudes' dicks really one of them? I think not. It's so easy to just not make that post.

Gonzo the Something > Ladyology
08/21/2014 at 14:11

forgive my digression here.

I do think there's a difference between penis size and breast size, in that many of the women I've heard say that they *need* a bigger dick to be satisfied. Small breasts is kind of an aesthetic thing.

I realize that it was mainly a way to trash Gaston, but... Why can't small dicks be considered visually pleasing?

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/21/2014 at 14:13

Gawker only changed the commenting system after the Jez staff outed their inaction and the gifs spread to other sites. Jez was dealing with the problem for MONTHS but no one cared until it started impacting someone other than the womenz.

And there has been shitstorms on Jez when women are objectified because it's in the larger context of rape culture and the abuse of women...which has no corollary for men.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > NULL789
08/21/2014 at 14:13

Maybe my overall disinterest in pornography has clouded my judgement in the importance of these pictures and their societal impact. I'll have to look into that.

And no, I will not repeat after you, but thanks for working so hard make the most condescending sentence that you could. I'm sure you have changed the course of future human interaction by your use of it. Congrats on your victory!

anomby2 > K-Roll-PorscheTamer
08/21/2014 at 14:14

Just out of curiosity, where did you stand on the fact that deadspin made a post about a video of a man having sex with a snake?

yamahog > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 14:14

Wooo fellow two-wheeled gal!

ellejay > mxyzptlk
08/21/2014 at 14:15

You don't think Chapelle has people coming up to him, all offended by his act, who he unceremoniously tells to fuck off?

The author knew that some people would see penises and lose their shit. That's the way the world works. She knew there would be people saying "but if we're all equal, why can't show princess vaginas?" as if we lived in a world where we were actually treated equal.

The fact is, a lot of people of all genders don't want to believe that women's bodies and sexuality are looked at and treated differently than their male counterparts. We know it's true because we live it, but seeing it played out is different. These authors/women authors in general know that they can do no right, so part of their readership will simply have to fuck off.

yamahog > King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider
08/21/2014 at 14:16

At least you're aware of it and questioning, rather than resorting to the knee-jerk. More people should learn to do that with their biases.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 14:17

If there is no corollary for men why are you attempting to debate with a male over his opinion, on the off topic forum, of a different website? Sounds like a fruitless endeavor from the start.

ellejay > Ladyology
08/21/2014 at 14:17

Maybe if we pool our piggybanks?

NULL789 > mxyzptlk
08/21/2014 at 14:17

Its not objectification because the power dynamics in objectifying women are not there for men. Period.

k2b: da man trynta steal mah bloggy!!!!!!! > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/21/2014 at 14:20

Very well-stated. I honestly didn't even care about the post until I had to deal with the call-out shenanigans and an invitation to pile on and shame the author. The notion that there was any hypocrisy in it really drives home how problematic people's feelings about sexual agency still are. Hell, I was even hesitant to star this post as I don't want that noise brewing over again, but you damn well deserve it.

I do have mixed feelings about the way authors and some of the Jez posse respond to those who are yet ignorant. I get that it can be frustrating and exasperating to deal with n00bs when you're entrenched in the Deep Knowledge, but it might not be entirely fair to expect everyone who visits a public site to be up to speed on the latest theory, and I have seen instances of berating happen to clueless but otherwise well-meaning people. And as far as the more hostile instigators, belligerence on top of belligerence with no hope of anyone learning anything does not help. But it's a big crowd and just like all the other spaces, there will be some who enjoy the fight for its own sake more than others. It's too bad so many people define the site and its intentions by that type of experience alone.

NULL789 > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/21/2014 at 14:20

Thank you. I practiced a lot.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > anomby2
08/21/2014 at 14:20

I never saw such a post, because I don't go to deadspin ever.

Ladyology > Gonzo the Something
08/21/2014 at 14:20

First, I think it's important that this is cultural. In Ancient Greece and Rome, large dicks were seen as comical, ridiculous.

I agree that the analogy was not a perfect one. I apologize if that made it insensitive. Women may claim they "need" a larger dick, but the truth as described by the data is different. And women may make different claims to one another than they do in controlled scientific studies. There's a cultural preference that does not necessarily reflect a real, sexual preference. Women seem to prefer an average penis all other things equal, and then the women whose partners actually have smaller penises report the highest rates of satisfaction, as I've said here many times now. It is believed that those male partners work harder to please their female partners. Logically, a woman should seek a smaller partner who will ensure her pleasure and focus on the non-penetrative acts that are more likely to result in female orgasm.

And I'm sure you'd find many, many men who say that large tits were not just an aesthetic preference but a necessity. I don't get it myself, and I come from a family of men who prefer petite women with small tits and have been overheard telling each other "anything more than a handful is too much." So I don't get it either. But to each his own!

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
08/21/2014 at 14:21

Because you clearly need to be educated on the topic of sexism and oppression. It may surprise you, but the brain is not located in the penis.

Also, I've been lurking on Oppo for a while. I don't know why you seem to think that I'm not "from around here" or whatever.

Spasoje > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 14:22

Except he's right.

Arthur Salvadoor > C. Rhodes (croguesberg)
08/21/2014 at 14:22

Urm, you were sexualizing full grown men (and there's nothing wrong with that). I don't think that's ever been in question.

Ladyology > ellejay
08/21/2014 at 14:23

Yes please. Jezebel blew money humiliating Lena Dunham for no reason. Can we buy Chris Pratt's dick instead?

anomby2 > K-Roll-PorscheTamer
08/21/2014 at 14:24

Ah OK. I find listening this whole thing very interesting because, in the throws of dealing with the rape gifs, Biddle wrote a graphic piece about the video, with screen shot, and included a link to bestiality porn. By all rights that should be a way bigger discussion point. I'm curious to hear how people who are rallying against cartoon penises (you're not rallying, per se, but you were the first "this was not right" in the comments) are responding to posting a video of a man violating an animal.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > HermioneStranger
08/21/2014 at 14:24

In this particular instance, that phrase is coming up again and again because men on Oppo and ODeck and other subkinjas were calling for the writers on Jez to "be better than men" and "not sink to this level."

More than that, I think the "I don't have to be nice in order to be right, and telling me that you won't listen if I'm not polite is bullcrap" is a useful thing. There is no need for women, POC, PWD, or LGBTQ to smile and nod and say "Well actually" when a solid "No, fuck that" is called for.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Arthur Salvadoor
08/21/2014 at 14:26

Well a) I wasn't doing anything since I didn't write the piece or particularly enjoy it. But b) finding fault THAT rather than the industry that sexualizes underage girls and is at the root cause of a lot of sexism in our culture is a big problem.

C. Rhodes (croguesberg) > Spasoje
08/21/2014 at 14:26

Please do explain.