I read it as she’s working against her own intentions, but whatever. I’ve seen women flirt like this, so the pushback and consistent lack of variety in the comments I see on these scenarios in comics always blows my mind.
Honestly, the bothering to call him a pervert is more attention than he deserves from her, and only his companion’s anger likely to actually bother him, but I’ve seen this done both “hey lady, your guy sucks” and “hey lady, your guy says I look better than you”, nevermind the occassional bar unicorn, but bars are their own alternate dimension I’m no good at navigating.
On the other hand, TIL Gaze-in-passing is “negative attention”. Taking it verbal like-so is escalation, and just as likely, if not more-so, to be meant to make his companion insecure as have anything to do with actually chastizing him. Y’all are at least as gross as the incels for assuming this is about shaming her for how she’s dressed.
Last thought: needs another frame so we can see where the other lady’s eyes were when her-and-dude were walking by, and the expression on her face. Dollars-to-donuts, its the same face as is now directed at the man, directed at MC.
I initially read it and it went over my head because she absolutely has a right to dress the way she wants AND to call people out if their staring makes her uncomfortable.
Even if she were topless that’s not consent and doesn’t give people the right to make her feel leared at.
But the audience you’re calling incels are correctly angry because the comic is specifically designed to make her intentions seem at odds with the outcome.
Here is the misogynist view point: ahh she is dressing up sexy FOR PEOPLE TO LEER AT HER, in this view you’re assuming “ahh yeah, she wants it, she wants my attention/mistreatment” <---- even if that mistreatment is as small as leering or unwanted attention.
But what I think you’re overlooking is: People AREN’T complaining about her behavior, they’re complaining about the AUTHOR of the comic setting her (a flag for all women) AND US, the audience up to “read in” the idea that she wants the attention. Wants “perverts” to look.
This is because it’s a drawing of a woman. It’s woman as signifier or a flag of someone elses message. The author’s message is basically “Bitches be that way”
I implore you to understand this though: Real women, and lots of other types of people, sometimes just like to dress sexy. Sure some percent like attention or are challenging the world… But that’s for them to know. The wider set, is UNKNOWABLE. So really hear this: Lots of women do the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR as in the comic FOR THEMSELVES. Because THEY have a complex relationship to their bodies and want to feel freer.
Sometimes they’re even trying to say “hey my body is just a body, can we stop being horny over something I live with everyday and don’t want to always be read as ‘sex object’” see how this reading gives women (even made up and imaginary/drawn ones) full agency and respect? Sometimes women feel snotty, or gross, or are lesbians, or they’re having their periods, or they want to feel free, or they themselves want to feel sexy to themselves, or they only want the kindest of attention and to feel they can be appreciated without being made to feel leared at by men they consider old enough to be their dads (eg. Inappropriate).
…and that’s their legitimate right.
So that’s why, some comic book guy being like “look at thjs dumb bitch, she fucking wants it and now she’s fucking complaining - irony bro” is a really problematic take.
It’s an UNDERSTANDABLE take, it’s given, it’s a simplified take. As explained earlier it’s a take where the authors is flattening possibilities for women to sex-object. But it should be understood as misogynist.
You don’t want that take because a de-authored view of women, or simplifying them in misogynist ways, is a real turn off. It brings “The Ick” so easily… And it makes you interact with that half of the population so poorly because they’re primarily an object, dim witted and asking for sleazy attention. That’s not good for anyone.
Women want agency and the right to have their complexity respected. It’s not you that’s the problem, you’ve just accurately interpreted the AUTHORS message. The problem is that, that message is already prevelant enough in society to do real damage to how women are treated… And to make the excuses used by the people who do the mistreatment.
Disagreeing with the author’s take, is the honourable thing to do here. But you have to see what they’re doing and what’s being robbed from you, the reader: a more complex view of women, and encouraging them to be themselves freely. That is the only path anywhere good from here. 👍
I read it as she’s working against her own intentions, but whatever. I’ve seen women flirt like this, so the pushback and consistent lack of variety in the comments I see on these scenarios in comics always blows my mind.
Honestly, the bothering to call him a pervert is more attention than he deserves from her, and only his companion’s anger likely to actually bother him, but I’ve seen this done both “hey lady, your guy sucks” and “hey lady, your guy says I look better than you”, nevermind the occassional bar unicorn, but bars are their own alternate dimension I’m no good at navigating.
On the other hand, TIL Gaze-in-passing is “negative attention”. Taking it verbal like-so is escalation, and just as likely, if not more-so, to be meant to make his companion insecure as have anything to do with actually chastizing him. Y’all are at least as gross as the incels for assuming this is about shaming her for how she’s dressed.
Last thought: needs another frame so we can see where the other lady’s eyes were when her-and-dude were walking by, and the expression on her face. Dollars-to-donuts, its the same face as is now directed at the man, directed at MC.
I initially read it and it went over my head because she absolutely has a right to dress the way she wants AND to call people out if their staring makes her uncomfortable.
Even if she were topless that’s not consent and doesn’t give people the right to make her feel leared at.
But the audience you’re calling incels are correctly angry because the comic is specifically designed to make her intentions seem at odds with the outcome.
Here is the misogynist view point: ahh she is dressing up sexy FOR PEOPLE TO LEER AT HER, in this view you’re assuming “ahh yeah, she wants it, she wants my attention/mistreatment” <---- even if that mistreatment is as small as leering or unwanted attention.
But what I think you’re overlooking is: People AREN’T complaining about her behavior, they’re complaining about the AUTHOR of the comic setting her (a flag for all women) AND US, the audience up to “read in” the idea that she wants the attention. Wants “perverts” to look.
This is because it’s a drawing of a woman. It’s woman as signifier or a flag of someone elses message. The author’s message is basically “Bitches be that way”
I implore you to understand this though: Real women, and lots of other types of people, sometimes just like to dress sexy. Sure some percent like attention or are challenging the world… But that’s for them to know. The wider set, is UNKNOWABLE. So really hear this: Lots of women do the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR as in the comic FOR THEMSELVES. Because THEY have a complex relationship to their bodies and want to feel freer.
Sometimes they’re even trying to say “hey my body is just a body, can we stop being horny over something I live with everyday and don’t want to always be read as ‘sex object’” see how this reading gives women (even made up and imaginary/drawn ones) full agency and respect? Sometimes women feel snotty, or gross, or are lesbians, or they’re having their periods, or they want to feel free, or they themselves want to feel sexy to themselves, or they only want the kindest of attention and to feel they can be appreciated without being made to feel leared at by men they consider old enough to be their dads (eg. Inappropriate).
…and that’s their legitimate right.
So that’s why, some comic book guy being like “look at thjs dumb bitch, she fucking wants it and now she’s fucking complaining - irony bro” is a really problematic take.
It’s an UNDERSTANDABLE take, it’s given, it’s a simplified take. As explained earlier it’s a take where the authors is flattening possibilities for women to sex-object. But it should be understood as misogynist.
You don’t want that take because a de-authored view of women, or simplifying them in misogynist ways, is a real turn off. It brings “The Ick” so easily… And it makes you interact with that half of the population so poorly because they’re primarily an object, dim witted and asking for sleazy attention. That’s not good for anyone.
Women want agency and the right to have their complexity respected. It’s not you that’s the problem, you’ve just accurately interpreted the AUTHORS message. The problem is that, that message is already prevelant enough in society to do real damage to how women are treated… And to make the excuses used by the people who do the mistreatment.
Disagreeing with the author’s take, is the honourable thing to do here. But you have to see what they’re doing and what’s being robbed from you, the reader: a more complex view of women, and encouraging them to be themselves freely. That is the only path anywhere good from here. 👍