Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[The Giant]

It's not as if your male characters don't become universally despised and have people actively wishing for their deaths.

Not like Miko. Nothing ever like Miko. The mere mention of her name would summon a flamestorm for years after her death. People don't like Belkar, but you can have a conversation about him without it devolving into a flurry of quote-hate. The reason we have half of the rules about flaming and moral justification threads on this board are because of Miko threads.

It's really a hit-and-miss thing. Just kind of unfortunate that you made both the lawful-to-the-point-of-insanity paladin and pacifist-in-totally-the-wrong-setting female.

Well, it comes down to the fact that there's not much room for additional non-antagonists to be delved into beyond the most cursory level unless they have a unique viewpoint that deserves exploration. Six main characters plus a cast of villains is already a lot to juggle. It's basically conservation of characters; there would be no point to adding the character at all, gender aside, unless I was going to put them in some sort of friendly-fire conflict with the protagonists. Hinjo doesn't have much in the way of strong idealogical views that conflict with the OOTS, and as a result, there's not much reason to spend time on him.

[Leirus]

Lol, not at all! I hated Miko, that is true, but she was a great character. She was not "evil" just because, you got to show how her mind worked, and her circumstances did not help at all, poor thing. And the second she was dead people started to speculate when would she come back. I felt pity for her when redemption was negated to her.

Celia is a different issue. Of course a pacifist character would be hated with a passion by an audience who has a good chunk of players. She is like an NPC who will not shut up when you defend her from monsters! And the "hate" started when she was forced into an adverturing life, which I thought it was sort of the point, and it had nothing to do with her gender (I think).

But look at Therkla. I appreciated the way in which she treated to not betray Kubota nor Elan till the end. She was a genuinely nice character. Look at Lien. I know I cannot be the only one waiting for a bonus comic of "Lien and O'Chul smashing heads". Look at Tsukiko.

And Haley is great. I will defend her and her portrayal with the fury of then thousand suns. Does not mean everyone is going to like her. Some people does not like chocolate.

Not like Miko. Nothing ever like Miko. The mere mention of her name would summon a flamestorm for years after her death. People don't like Belkar, but you can have a conversation about him without it devolving into a flurry of quote-hate. The reason we have half of the rules about flaming and moral justification threads on this board are because of Miko threads.

And is that not great? You created a character who can summon flamestorms years after her death! How is that not a good thing?.

[blauregen]

Like, queer people are expected to be able to identify with straight cis characters all the time but the reverse is never true and pretty much always labelled niche media. Like, I don't think ignoring society that someone who's straight has any more difficulty identifying with a queer character than the reverse.

I don't know. Boy meets Girl is something you get from earliest childhood, from fairy tales to soap operas and real life. You will hardly find gay people, who find anything remarkable in this regard. And so most don't have strong feelings about it.

On the other hand, I had several discussions in the past with (predominantly male) straight people about the inclusion of gay people into media that boiled down to the fact that two kissing men make them uncomfortable. They simply short-circuit from kissing to bed and go 'eeeeww' ( less so with kissing women apparently).

Sure, it is a silly reaction, and I usually answer that desensitization-therapy is pretty successful in dealing with irrational emotional responses to stimuli, but I am pretty sure it would make identification for them difficult. It is also grounded in society, but as a spontaneous reaction, it is likely difficult to ignore.

I think it is still a few centuries until this problem dies out.

[Sunken Valley]

1.) At one point in the past, I did a very short-lived comic for Wizards of the Coast called "Five Foot Steps."
.

That comic was great. Why did it ever stop?

I totally cop to having Smurfetted that one, even if V reads as female to you

Implying he doesn't read as female to you. Thanks again.

It could be worse, you are trying to address it. You're not like Stephen Moffat who denies his work is sexist even though every woman in his fictional work follows a reocurring pattern (that all women really want is children and/or the dependance of a man). Also, don't forget many of the greatest works film and literature have many less females than your work. Star Wars. Lawrence of Arabia. Godfather. Batman films. 12 Angry Men. Harry Potter. LOTR. Akira Kurosawa films. Babylon 5 (maybe)?

And at least your fans aren't accusing you of being racist for killing the dark-skinned OOTS members first.

Edit: I always assumed Miko was made to be deliberately obnoxious and annoying. She was a LG antagonist first, female second (which was important for Roy's character development).

[Leirus]

I dunno, for me a character who elicits such a strong answer is always a good made one (I mean, if it is not an offensive one). Who would not slap Joffrey Baratheon, hard?

[Astrella]

I don't know. Boy meets Girl is something you get from earliest childhood, from fairy tales to soap operas and real life. You will hardly find gay people, who find anything remarkable in this regard. And so most don't have strong feelings about it.

On the other hand, I had several discussions in the past with (predominantly male) straight people about the inclusion of gay people into media that boiled down to the fact that two kissing men make them uncomfortable. They simply short-circuit from kissing to bed and go 'eeeeww' ( less so with kissing women apparently).

Sure, it is a silly reaction, and I usually answer that desensitization-therapy is pretty successful in dealing with irrational emotional responses to stimuli, but I am pretty sure it would make identification for them difficult. It is also grounded in society, but as a spontaneous reaction, it is likely difficult to ignore.

I think it is still a few centuries until this problem dies out.

Well, yes, that's why I said ignoring society. What I meant was that I don't there are non-cultural reasons at play for difficulty to emphatize and such.

And actually portraying queer relationships as nothing out of the ordinary from a young age just like we do with straight relationships would reduce all of that. The awkwardness is only there because it's created after all.

[Themrys]

Two events that have likely shaped my history on this issue:

1.) At one point in the past, I did a very short-lived comic for Wizards of the Coast called "Five Foot Steps." Unlike OOTS, it took place in the real world, among a group of D&D players. The cast consisted of two white men, two white females, a black man, and a brown-skinned man with non-specified ethnicity (who happened to also be in a wheelchair). Almost the exact same breakdown as the Order, if you happen to read V as female. Only one character, one of the white men, had any portion of their sexuality discussed during the comic's five-page run (and he was straight).

The reaction, universally, was that the cast was ham-handedly diverse; that obviously, Wizards had forced me to include people of color and the differently-abled because they were a huge corporation and had to be politically correct. This was not true—they gave me no input whatsoever on the content of the strip. But the very existence of a group of D&D players with three races in it was enough to confuse people.

That made me angry and annoyed, and I resolved to bring even greater racial balance to OOTS from that point on, just to prove the point. Unfortunately, I didn't have such a learning experience with LGBT inclusion. In fact, I had almost the opposite...

Shocking. It must be very disappointing to have people think one would not include differently coloured people and disabled people unless forced to do so.

Is there any reason why you refer to the female characters as "females", while referring to the male characters as "men"? You might want to change that, as some people think it's sexist.


@blauregen: So what? Let them have difficulties with identification.
As a straight woman, I could go "ewww, gay cooties!" every time the narrator describes a woman in sexual terms, or swoons for a woman, or kisses a woman, and so on and so forth.
However, I don't, and I expect the same from men.

Edit:

Actually, I like Miko, and don't get why people hate her so much. Sure, she did something evil, but so does Redcloak, not to mention Xykon. And Tarquin. And Malack.

And Miko didn't even want to do something evil, so ...

[SowZ]

The truth is, I thought I had included female characters. Not in the initial group of six—I totally cop to having Smurfetted that one, even if V reads as female to you—but in the time since. I never crunched the numbers. I was under the impression—literally until this thread—that I had done a good job including female characters.

Plus, what I knew was that the first significant major character that I introduced after the first 50 strips was Miko—a major, complex character who had a lot of energy devoted to her and was the first non-OOTS member to be featured on the cover of one of the books. And the reaction was that she was universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

Then, when I had an opportunity, I decided to give one of my existing minor female characters more spotlight time. When Roy was dead, Celia came in to provide another female voice and prove that Haley wasn't speaking for all women. And the reaction was that she became universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

So, yeah. It's not unreasonable for me to have concluded at that point that I was not cut out to write female characters beyond the most cursory surface treatment, other than Haley herself. And as we've seen on this thread, my portrayal of her has still gotten crap.

Oh, that's not what I meant, sorry. I always felt that you had done a good job representing women, too. There are plenty of women, good people and bad people, hardcore and normal. I like Haley, Lien, and plenty of others. I never would have guessed the disparity was this much either, honestly. I still think the comic has a number of good women in it.

My point was that if you don't like writing gay characters because you find it difficult to relate, does that mean it is easier for you to relate to female characters than gay ones? Totally not an attack, by the way, just curious about your process and why one would be more challenging than the other.

[sam79]

And the reaction was that she [Miko] was universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

I wasn't around when the Miko strips were first published, so I missed the whole flame war thing. But I found her to be a great character, and one who remained at least somewhat sympathetic right up to her Fall (and I'd even have cut her a bit of slack for that, had she surrendered her sword to Hinjo). Not wanting to start a Miko debate, just sayin' that "universally despised" is an exagerration.

Then, when I had an opportunity, I decided to give one of my existing minor female characters more spotlight time. When Roy was dead, Celia came in to provide another female voice and prove that Haley wasn't speaking for all women. And the reaction was that she became universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

I was around for this one. I never understood the hatedom towards Celia, and still don't. My only criticism of her characterisation is that her ignorance of How Mortals Work was a little forced at times Again, not wanting to derail the thread, just wanting to say that the hatred of Celia was not shared by all.

[jere7my]

Unfortunately, this sentiment is a straight line back to non-inclusion. It's too easy for an author to say, "Someone is always going to get offended, so no need to include black/gay/disabled people!" I think trying to not offend people is a worthwhile goal. Unless they get offended by less-than-optimum D&D tactics, in which case to hell with them.

If you're in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, it is better and braver to be damned for doing.

[Themrys]

Plus, what I knew was that the first significant major character that I introduced after the first 50 strips was Miko—a major, complex character who had a lot of energy devoted to her and was the first non-OOTS member to be featured on the cover of one of the books. And the reaction was that she was universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

Not your fault.
There are lots of people who hold women to higher standards than men, and thus despise female characters for things for which they wouldn't despise male characters (as much).
It's not that you've written her wrong, it's just that a real woman who behaves like her - which is entirely possible - would be hated just as much, and called "hysterical" and whatever, while a man probably would get away with it better. People wouldn't like him, but they wouldn't make sexist implications about why he is that way.


You only need to worry about not portraying female characters realistically when people call you sexist. If they just unreflectedly hate the character, they're probably just sexist themselves.


@SowZ: Woman are 50% of the population. It is impossible for a man to not know any women - unless his mother died early and he was raised in a monastery- while it is possible to not know any gay people very good (or not know any gay people you know are gay).
Also, I imagine it's easier to ask mommy about what it's like to be a woman and how that would affect your behaviour as a lawful stupid paladin than it is to ask a friend about her or his sexuality.

[blauregen]

Well, yes, that's why I said ignoring society. What I meant was that I don't there are non-cultural reasons at play for difficulty to emphatize and such.

True, but my point is, that they can't ignore it that easily. If they didn't lie to me about their reactions, then it is at least a conscious effort for them. Not that I plan to accomodate their sensitivities in this area, but I can see why they have difficulties.

And actually portraying queer relationships as nothing out of the ordinary from a young age just like we do with straight relationships would reduce all of that. The awkwardness is only there because it's created after all.

I wholeheartedly agree.

@blauregen: So what? Let them have difficulties with identification.
As a straight woman, I could go "ewww, gay cooties!" every time the narrator describes a woman in sexual terms, or swoons for a woman, or kisses a woman, and so on and so forth.
However, I don't, and I expect the same from men.

You could? I would have said that for most straight people habituation has reduced reactions to heterosexual narration that doesn't meet their preferences, to something close to 'meh?' But okay, thank you for correcting this.

[The Giant]

That comic was great. Why did it ever stop?

It was very time-consuming to produce without the proper tools, since I didn't own a tablet at the time. I kept falling behind, and then the newsletter that it appeared in was canceled. I decided to let it go and focus on OOTS.

Is there any reason why you refer to the female characters as "females", while referring to the male characters as "men"? You might want to change that, as some people think it's sexist.

No reason beyond the fact that I didn't notice I had done it. I'm writing in one window and finishing the comic in another, so forgive me the lack of parallelism. I should have said "males," not "men," anyway, since three of the male characters were in their late teens.*

*All except for the aforementioned wheelchair-bound player, who I had plans to reveal was an Afghanistan vet going back to college to get his degree...I always wondered what WOTC would have said about that.

[AngryHobbit]

The truth is, I thought I had included female characters. Not in the initial group of six—I totally cop to having Smurfetted that one, even if V reads as female to you—but in the time since. I never crunched the numbers. I was under the impression—literally until this thread—that I had done a good job including female characters.

Plus, what I knew was that the first significant major character that I introduced after the first 50 strips was Miko—a major, complex character who had a lot of energy devoted to her and was the first non-OOTS member to be featured on the cover of one of the books. And the reaction was that she was universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

Then, when I had an opportunity, I decided to give one of my existing minor female characters more spotlight time. When Roy was dead, Celia came in to provide another female voice and prove that Haley wasn't speaking for all women. And the reaction was that she became universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

So, yeah. It's not unreasonable for me to have concluded at that point that I was not cut out to write female characters beyond the most cursory surface treatment, other than Haley herself. And as we've seen on this thread, my portrayal of her has still gotten crap.

Making female characters likable to majority is hard, especially since there is lot of hypocrisy with what's acceptable and what's not for male and female characters.

For example:
Breaking Bad - Compare Skyler and Walt. Everyone hates Skyler, although Walt is a drug dealer, psychopath and control freak who poisoned (at least it's heavily implied) a child to manipulate his partner into helping his rival. Whatever flaws Skyler has, Walt is that up to eleven. And everyone likes him!
Berserk - There's a not so small group of fans who are justifying actions of a guy who sold souls of his whole regiment to become a demon, leaving only 3 survivors. He also raped the only female character to the point of insanity, which a lot of people hate. Her only flaws are the she is acting tough, and is a little bit of a alpha bitch (well, was before she went insane), but she is not that bad, nor is she a Mary Sue.
And worst of all, those people also claim she liked being raped!

[Shadowknight12]

To the two or three people making biologically deterministic arguments:

Let's take it to PMs and keep it away from the thread.

Re; above. I think it's because minority characters tend to stick out more? Like, a character being straight for example tends to be seen as default so we don't attach as much mental space to that as a character being queer. Same with male vs. female characters.

Yeah, this is what I've been saying from the start too. Marginalised groups (or anything that deviates from what is considered the "default" of society) are constantly demanded a reason to exist.

So, yeah. It's not unreasonable for me to have concluded at that point that I was not cut out to write female characters beyond the most cursory surface treatment, other than Haley herself. And as we've seen on this thread, my portrayal of her has still gotten crap.

The thing is, while I understand the Catch-22 of your situation, it's also a Catch-22 for us. We have to accept erasure ("because at least we weren't awful stereotypes") or poor representations ("because at least we are shown to exist"), and we still have to be exceedingly mindful of whatever criticism we make, or else we're accused of being perpetually unhappy, hypersensitive and overreacting, which leads most of us to bite our tongues and make do with the table scraps we get thrown our way.

And whenever we raise the issue of representation, the flamestorms start a-brewin', most of it coming from privileged groups who don't understand what I explained in the paragraph above, and who think we want to censure and content-control.

It's kind of tricky to educate writers and bring our hopes and dreams to them under that climate. It's like trying to give a stranger your baby, but before doing so, you have to navigate a minefield.

Also, I fully agree with Themrys, Miko and Celia were not your fault. They were entirely the result of a fanbase who holds women to much higher standards than others and (this is important) has an incredible reluctance to see women as proper antagonists. You lampshaded this very thing with the MitD after Tsukiko's death. Nobody cared about her. She was an antagonist in name only. Miko and Celia? They weren't considered antagonists (and I use antagonist to mean "forces that oppose the protagonists", not "villains").

Celia took so much hatred because her actions were perceived as unnecessary. She wasn't seen as a force of antagonism the way Kubota or Tarquin were, she was seen as a constant obstacle that got Haley into trouble (despite the fact that Belkar has done far, far, far worse, and used to be one of the main antagonistic forces in the comic before he had his fake character development. Or Elan, who was a very close match for Celia's "airheaded decision-making"), and people wanted her out of the narrative because they refused to see her as a viable antagonistic force. She was not given the respect that a man in her role would have garnered.

Miko? This one doesn't have as much sexism as Celia's. Here the main "problem" is that you dared to question the sanctity of the paladin. You dared to portray a paladin going stone-cold mad and subsequently Falling, in the world of D&D. You touched a lot of nerves with that, and I think it was absolutely awesome. I firmly believe that if Miko had been a man, you would have had at least 50% of the trouble you had with her, if not 70% or so. The rest is most definitely sexism, for most of the same reasons cited above with Celia.

@SowZ: Woman are 50% of the population. It is impossible for a man to not know any women - unless his mother died early and he was raised in a monastery- while it is possible to not know any gay people very good (or not know any gay people you know are gay).

Hey. Hi.

Since we are all being polite in this thread, minding our words and arguments and whatnot, could I ask you to please stop making the argument that some marginalised groups innately or naturally deserve more inclusion or representation than others? Because you're repeatedly coming off as somewhat homophobic. I am as much of a supporter of women being represented and empowered in the media as you, and yet I somehow manage to make my arguments without the implications you repeatedly make.

Thanks.

[The Giant]

It's kind of tricky to educate writers and bring our hopes and dreams to them under that climate. It's like trying to give a stranger your baby, but before doing so, you have to navigate a minefield.

Well, thanks for making the effort anyway. I want to assure you that any and all of my explanations on this thread are intended as after-the-fact analysis of my previous decisions, not as excuses. I'm not saying in any way that any of my decisions have been correct, merely that I can track why I made them at the time.

[Shadowknight12]

Well, thanks for making the effort anyway. I want to assure you that any and all of my explanations on this thread are intended as after-the-fact analysis of my previous decisions, not as excuses. I'm not saying in any way that any of my decisions have been correct, merely that I can track why I made them at the time.

Oh, no, not you! Trust me, you're leagues and miles above your colleagues. Just, you know, in general. What I meant was, don't take it personally if some of us have negative reactions (like that fan you met at the con, the one who brought up the Belt thing), because we take a lot of flak for voicing our opinions, no matter how demurely and politely (though most of the time from rabid fanbases, not from creators), and that really tends to wear on you after a while.

I myself once sent an email to a blog I deeply admired, to attempt to gain some insight/resolve some questions on racial matters for a fantasy novel I was writing, but apparently my email, no matter how politely and respectfully phrased, was too hopeless for the blog authors to reply.

We just gotta remember that people have baggage and they don't mean to lash out at you, specifically. Maybe the fan you met at the con wasn't taking issue with you, maybe it was a cummulation of seeing, time and again, their transexuality being used for cheap (and sometimes offensive) comedy, without balancing that with a serious and kind representation.

I have no issue with the decisions you've made, I don't hold you responsible for "not doing enough" because I don't have any right to do that. On the contrary, I appreciate the good things you did do. Just wanted to make sure you didn't take away a purely negative impression from this thread, and instead took away positive stuff.

[WoLong]

Actually, I like Miko, and don't get why people hate her so much. Sure, she did something evil, but so does Redcloak, not to mention Xykon. And Tarquin. And Malack. .

Miko was bossy in a very superior manner, as was Celia. That's why they weren't liked. The naive, bossy woman is a bit of a negative female sterotype, and Celia and Miko fit that pretty well. Haley is neither naive, nor particularly bossy. No minor female character (as far as I'm aware) reinforced this sterotype, but two of major three female characters did to some degree. This doesn't mean the comic is sexist (because it's mostly only Miko and Celia that exhibit these traits), but they both needed to provide conflict, and they were both female, so that's apparently how that came about.

This kind of attitude generally comes from feeling morally superior. Women are less inclined to arrogance than men, so this sterotype probably isn't caused by adult women. However, young girls seem to test out bossiness (possibly emulating their mothers), and that's probably where this sterotype comes from. Many people may have experienced a bossy sister, or bossy girl in elementary school, and that would explain the strong negative reaction to it.

[Themrys]

You could? I would have said that for most straight people habituation has reduced reactions to heterosexual narration that doesn't meet their preferences, to something close to 'meh?' But okay, thank you for correcting this.

Well, I said I theoretically could, not that I feel any desire to do so. As a woman, I'm so often required to put myself in the shoes of a heterosexual man that I'm used to it. Hopefully I wouldn't consider female bodies disgusting even if this wasn't the case, but I cannot know that.

Men often actually DO call most depictions of sexy men "homoerotic" even if there is just one man on the picture. They don't even assume that the viewer could be a woman.

@Shadowknight12:
I refuse to share the opinion that women are a minority. It just is not the case, even though male-dominated media make it seem so.
And I hate it when someone talks about "women and other minorities"
It's not the same thing.

@WoLong:

Bossy ... yes, that makes sense. She doesn't behave as is expected from a woman.

Of course one might solve the problem by having only good, intelligent, capable female characters, but that would reinforce the double standard, so I don't think it would be a good solution.

I'm quite happy that the Giant doesn't seem to hate Miko nearly as much as the readers do.

[Raineh Daze]

Miko was bossy in a very superior manner, as was Celia. That's why they weren't liked. The naieve, bossy woman is a bit of a negative female sterotype, and Celia and Miko fit that pretty well. Haley is neither naieve, nor particularly bossy. No minor female character (as far as I'm aware) reinforced this sterotype, but two of major three female characters did to some degree. This doesn't mean the comic is sexist (because it's mostly only Miko and Celia that exhibit these traits), but they both needed to provide conflict, and they were both female, so that's apparently how that came about.

Miko is hardly naive. Celia, yes (it was kind of her whole schtick), but Miko?

[sam79]

Miko is hardly naive. Celia, yes (it was kind of her whole schtick), but Miko?

Naive in the sense that she lacked some social skills perhaps? Didn;t really know how to interact with people as equals/peers? But yeah, its not quite the same thing.

[Astrella]

True, but my point is, that they can't ignore it that easily. If they didn't lie to me about their reactions, then it is at least a conscious effort for them. Not that I plan to accomodate their sensitivities in this area, but I can see why they have difficulties.

Oh, I know. It's something I try to deconstruct in myself as much as possible. There's a lot of problematic stuff that society perpetuates and it's something a try to be aware of in myself as much.

@Shadowknight12:
I refuse to share the opinion that women are a minority. It just is not the case, even though male-dominated media make it seem so.
And I hate it when someone talks about "women and other minorities"
It's not the same thing.

Oh, could you explain a bit more? (I do agree that lumping all minorities like that together isn't really productive since the issues they face vary quite a bit.)

[Shadowknight12]

@Shadowknight12:
I refuse to share the opinion that women are a minority. It just is not the case, even though male-dominated media make it seem so.
And I hate it when someone talks about "women and other minorities"
It's not the same thing.

The proper term is marginalised group. I don't think I have ever used the word minority in this whole thread (and if I have, I apologise. Point out the post to me and I will rectify that immediately). A marginalised group need not be a minority. Women are marginalised in society by the patriarchy. That makes them a marginalised group, just like racial, ethnic and LGBTQ+ minorities.

Your repeated assertions that "it's completely illogical for a writer to underrepresent women because they make up 50% of the population", while implying that it's not as bad if other marginalised groups get underrepresented because they're minorities, is deeply offensive. We're all in this together. Feminism is one of the major proponents of racial activism and LGBTQ+ activism, and the same goes for the other two groups towards feminism and each other.

I would really appreciate it if you could make your arguments in favour of women being represented, empowered and included, without throwing others under the bus in the process. Thank you.

[WoLong]

Miko is hardly naive. Celia, yes (it was kind of her whole schtick), but Miko?

Miko experienced a typical sheltered religious life. There are various examples of her naivete, such as the lay on hands joke.

[Raineh Daze]

Miko experienced a typical sheltered religious life. There are various examples of her naivete, such as the lay on hands joke.

... said naivete in no way links to her bossiness, then, so it isn't relevant to the above point.

[hamishspence]

While some people disliked both Miko & Celia, I vaguely recall there being people who were far more sympathetic toward one or the other.

Me, for example (toward Celia, in this case).

And just because a character's unsympathetic to some- doesn't mean they were badly written- I thought Miko was very well written.

[WoLong]

Making female characters likable to majority is hard, especially since there is lot of hypocrisy with what's acceptable and what's not for male and female characters.

For example:
Breaking Bad - Compare Skyler and Walt. Everyone hates Skyler, although Walt is a drug dealer, psychopath and control freak who poisoned (at least it's heavily implied) a child to manipulate his partner into helping his rival. Whatever flaws Skyler has, Walt is that up to eleven. And everyone likes him!

People like villains all the time. Skyler was bossy.

[Grey Watcher]

...

As a thought experiment: if (say) Hinjo or O-Chul had been given a one-panel reference to having a boyfriend, I don't think you would have had many folks leaping down your throat about misrepresenting gay experience. I could be wrong, but that's my intuition.

Heh, I've actually been operating under the assumption that Hinjo is gay since reading one of the bonus strips in Don't Split the Party. Something about his reaction to Lien describing her husband read, to me, as him being kind of turned on by it.

[Carry2]

To the two or three people making biologically deterministic arguments...

If you'll agree not to argue that biology is irrelevant, by all means. But you can't invoke statement X to support your position and then shunt away refutations to X as being off-topic.

...The rest is most definitely sexism, for most of the same reasons cited above with Celia.

I'm skeptical about this. After the strip where O-Chul chided Haley for failing to take the imminent invasion of AC seriously, he also took significant flack from the audience for daring to question an OOTSer's judgement. I think this has less to do with sexism and more to do with vicarious granfalloonery.

Not like Miko. Nothing ever like Miko. The mere mention of her name would summon a flamestorm for years after her death. People don't like Belkar, but you can have a conversation about him without it devolving into a flurry of quote-hate. The reason we have half of the rules about flaming and moral justification threads on this board are because of Miko threads.

Then, when I had an opportunity, I decided to give one of my existing minor female characters more spotlight time. When Roy was dead, Celia came in to provide another female voice and prove that Haley wasn't speaking for all women. And the reaction was that she became universally despised and people actively wished for her death.

Well, not universally despised. If they had been, those threads would have been a lot shorter.

[Shadowknight12]

Heh, I've actually been operating under the assumption that Hinjo is gay since reading one of the bonus strips in Don't Split the Party. Something about his reaction to Lien describing her husband read, to me, as him being kind of turned on by it.

Could I get a general description of his reaction? Or the dialogue? Not enough to break the board rules, of course, but just enough to get a gist of the idea? I am very interested in this, and I admit I've always had a soft spot for Hinjo (and Argent), so I'd be absolutely thrilled if there was something that at least vaguely supported my fanboyish headcanon on him.

If you'll agree not to argue that biology is irrelevant, by all means. But you can't invoke statement X to support your position and then shunt away refutations to X as being off-topic.

Take it to PMs.

Thank you.

I'm skeptical about this. After the strip where O-Chul chided Haley for failing to take the imminent invasion of AC seriously, he also took significant flack from the audience for daring to question an OOTSer's judgement. I think this has less to do with sexism and more to do with vicarious granfalloonery.

There's an instance of that, obviously, but Elan and Belkar have been strong antagonistic forces for the rest of the OotS, and we've also seen V flying off her rocker and antagonising Durkon and Elan during the whole Kubotagate affair (or Elan and Durkon antagonising V, depending on what side you take).

And somehow I doubt that sort of thing racked up much racket.