Episode 123: “Creepy” is Not a Politically Specific Term
on November 1, 2011
and modified on June 29, 2018.
This strip is stepping out of the continuity for a moment, to comment on something that’s been bothering me. Don’t worry, we’ll be back to unicorns and Apple computers in the next edition.
Discussion (17) ¬
I love the “ripped from the headlines” strips best!!
I’m watching the video you speak of and creepy it is!
I don’t understand. Why is finding intelligent women attractive pervy?
Sure you understand. It’s the difference between finding certain people attractive, and making an internet video about it.
Also, as intelligent as the women in that video may be, they weren’t selected for their minds.
I disagree with both your points. First, people have been making art about beautiful women since art was invented. Second, If you think about it, I’m sure you’ll agree that the women were chosen for both their beauty and they’re politics. I think your definition of pervert is extreme and oversimplified.
On a separate note, keep up the good work on your comic.
Once again, distinctions are important. Making art about beautiful women is a lovely thing. Making art about women who are speaking out about an important subject, but which focuses on their physical beauty as much as their ideas, is not the same thing. It’s condescending, and it’s shallow where it claims not to be. And the long, lingering shots of women’s individual body parts are indeed a pit pervy.
Naturally the women were chosen for their politics – they’re at Occupy Wall Street. By definition they’ve been chosen for their politics. But it’s not a coincidence that of all the brilliant women populating Occupy Wall Street, the ones featured happen to be youthful and slender, with big eyes and clear skin.
I think that if a woman shows up at a protest to speak her mind, her ideas should be listened to, not her physical beauty judged. I think her face and body should not be put on display on the internet for other people to admire or criticize. I think if a woman is expressing a political view in public, she should be allowed the reasonable assumption that her image won’t be publicized for the explicit purpose of letting others admire (judge) her beauty.
Even though we disagree, I welcome the conversation, and I’m pleased that you’re enjoying my comics.
Fair enough, but the beauty of art is that it’s complicated and affects us both logically, and emotionally. Great art is undeniable. And your reaction to the video and site is undeniable, I think.
That’s one way of looking at it. We could say that anything which elicits an emotional reaction is art — great art even. We could say that. I probably wouldn’t though.
*their
OMG… that video… is both awful and hilarious. The music makes it so much sleazier.
So true!
There’s a fine line distinguishing celebrating a woman’s beauty and exploiting it. You found it and made it funny. Good job.
I felt i needed to see the video before commenting. So I searched youtube, and a very close match came up “hot chicks in occupy wallstreet protest” no exact matches came up.
and if this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w-uvwpl_GM
is what you have a problem with. I can’t disagree with you more. Unless you find dance, joy, and beauty to be sexist.
Seriously. IF, in fact, that is the video you are referring to- the only objection I can find is if you find it objectionable for someone to find someone else attractive, and to celebrate the physical beauty.
There is no sleeze in that video. I went in looking for sleeze. so I assume I have the wrong video.
But each of the “girls of Occupy . .” video I came across was a copy of the same. I’ll assume that this merely means that taste has lasting power, that tasteless can at most be a flash in the pan.
Yes, that video is exploitive and sexist. It’s most exploitive in its name, which is so typical for YouTube, where a video of someone operating a can opener will get hits if labelled “hot babes with tuna”. OTOH, almost all media is easily misused, misunderstood, and exploited for low or nefarious purposes.
Occupy Oakland has the hottest dudes.
Well-groomed facial hair and a whiff of sage….ah yes.
Ah, yes, “how can it be sleazy? It’s supportive of them!”
At best, giving the absolute maximum benefit of the doubt, it’s a kind of argument from authority (if beautiful people say it, it MUST be true!) At worst, it’s just a flimsy excuse to film attractive women. If you want to film attractive women, just do it, there’s plenty of that around, don’t try to paint it as a documentary or as art.
I’m not eating this biscuit and drinking this cola because of the healthful effects of their secret ingredients, I’m doing it because I enjoy the flavours and I’m a slave to my sweet tooth. You (the film-maker, not whoever’s reading this comment) aren’t filming these “hot chicks” because they’re intelligent and politically active, you’re filming because you think they’re hot. That’s fine… bit creepy, but fine, just don’t pretend it’s high art or a political statement because both of those take more work than lingering close ups and cheesy music. If it’s about politics, great, but why focus on women? If it’s about how (or if) women’s political motivations differ significantly from men’s, fine, but why focus on the beautiful ones?
Mind you, the first speaker degraded herself far more in my eyes than the film-maker did; “I’m an astrologer… blah” or, to put it another way, “hi, I fail at the most basic level of skeptical thought.” Oh well. I guess we’re all judgemental assholes on some level. (But at least my level is the right one, dangnabbit!)
In other words, rargh.