This comic has been making the rounds because it’s pretty cute and makes a good point. However, some people noticed something in it. If you’ll take a look at the original comic, you may notice that one bunny (the irrational one) has on a dress and has pink speech bubbles, while the other (rational) bunny has on pants and has blue speech bubbles. I’m pretty sure most people in the western world can agree that these are fairly clear indicators of gender (not that they should be, just that they are in our culture). But apparently they’re not clear enough for a lot of people in this thread from Pharyngula, including PZ himself. As PZ Myers puts it:
Of all the…dear god, they are cute little toy bunnies. I refuse to consider their sex until they are stripped, flipped over, and I get to poke around with a teeny-tiny toy speculum.
That’s perfectly reasonable. I know that when I see a person in female clothes (in a way that indicates that’s what they normally wear, or they’re not cross dressing for fun) I ask that person to show me their genitalia before I accept that s/he’s female [/snark]. But how about we keep this in terms of toys: gender among dolls is generally indicated by clothing (e.g. female = dresses and pink; male = pants and blue); toy makers usually don’t like to make miniature genitalia on their children’s toys.
So, after everyone had moved beyond debating weather or not these bunnies have genders, we move on to the next annoying argument: Well, maybe the artist just picked gender at random (it’s a 50/50 chance, hurr durr derp). First of all, even if they did pick at random, that doesn’t mean that subconscious sexism didn’t play a role in the choice. Secondly, there’s no reason one had to be male and one had to be female. Both could have been male, or both could have been female. Or they could have had no gender identification at all: no clothes and different color bubbles would be easy enough. But apparently that would take out all the “visually interesting elements“.
Now, some of you might be wondering why I’m concerned about the reaction of people on the internet (SIWOTI syndrome?). Well, the problem lies in the fact that some of these arguments were made by PZ Myers, owner of Pharyngula and a feminist to boot, not some random MRA troll. I don’t want you all to be getting too up in arms about my criticism of PZ, though. I agree with PZ most of the time and I love Pharyngula (I spend way too much time there!). But no one is above this kind of criticism (or any kind of reasonable criticism). But I certainly wouldn’t want this to turn into an Elevatorgate situation. However, it shouldn’t. It was revealed that the artist who created this comic is a sexist ass! And PZ changed his mind about it when this new evidence came to light (because that’s what awesome people do).
This whole thing just goes to show that even feminists can miss sexism sometimes.
I’d like to end this post on something that a commenter said over there that I thought summed this up pretty well:
Nude adorable toy bunnies, green/yellow/purple/peach speech bubbles, and we’d have all agreed on a cute comic being pretty excellent.
Sexism is why we can’t have nice things.
On first reading I didn’t even notice the bunnies had genders. I accept that their speech bubbles were colour coded. I was just being a bit dense.
I’m saddened to learn it actually was intentionally sexist.
You used my quote, and this was the best thing to wake up to.
Your comment made my day. “Sexism is why we can’t have nice things.”=Brilliant, it’s such a versatile statement.
I’m working on an expanded post on the subject, I can link you to it when I finish.
That would be great!
He didn’t change his mind very much.
As of this moment, he’s still blaming the commenter who said “Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself. Because that would truly suck.”
Yeah, I saw that. I really don’t know why he’s blaming that commenter.
Btw, don’t use a fake email address. You got caught in my spam filter.
My husband and I have been discussing this for two days now. We agree that the sexism in the cartoon is important. As a Female Atheist who lives in Utah (a sexually stifling state) I find Pharyngeal to be a nice escape from all the biases I face daily. Even my Atheist friends say sexist things and get up in arms when I call them out on it.
Until we create a culture where people can complain, note, express exhaustion of, and be disappointed by examples of biases we are continuing a culture of isms. I fell in love with my husband because he has never told me to get over or let go of offensive stereotyping or gender discrimination. In my book that defines him as a feminist.
I don’t dwell on the sexist things that happen daily but perhaps that is because I have a sympathetic ear. PZ should have acknowledged the possibility of sexism in the cartoon created a separate page for that discussion and then let it be known he wanted to discusses the religious question the cartoon raised. Telling marginalized class to forget about an example of bias and pick there battles differently is patronizing.
No this stupid puzzle is not important and if its “sexist” only in the most minor and vague way possible in your interpretation, not everyone has to see it that way. I suppose we all do have to see it your way or we are sexist. You have taken the personal is political to an even further extreme. Why is the supposedly female bunny dumb for asking what the male bunny is doing? You know whats a big deal the war in Afghanistan. Or if we must focus on feminism ie white womens problems how bout that women still getting paid less thing. In addition to this just being too trivial to matter systemic oppression is more important than individual prejudices.
“Well, maybe the artist just picked gender at random (it’s a 50/50 chance, hurr durr derp). First of all, even if they did pick at random, that doesn’t mean that subconscious sexism didn’t play a role in the choice. Secondly, there’s no reason one had to be male and one had to be female. Both could have been male, or both could have been female. Or they could have had no gender identification at all: no clothes and different color bubbles would be easy enough. ”
1. assuming the bunnies would have gender and one was the original puzzler, there is a 1/4 chance that it came down as it did (MM,FF,MF,FM=4 permutations). Is this what you are upset about, something that would happen 1/4 of the time under moderate conditions?
2. why did one bunny not being aware of what exactly the other was doing overall indicate that that bunny was irrational or somehow less than?
3. this is so ridiculous and this is why radical feminists that find offense at the wind blowing are not taken seriously and actively hurt your cause, you cry wolf so often that when something is important no one believes you
4. I’m sure me even criticizing you or your ideas will be spun into evidence of you being correct all along! (why only in a patriarchy would a blah blah blah blah) that is how unfalsifiable positions works