Thank you Rich

[veti]

Tolkien did. Frodo was queer to fellow hobbits, and so on. And in one Monty Python sketch, the whelk is described pejoratively as gay and as a queer crustacean or something like that.

In Tolkien's day, 'queer' was basically a synonym for 'strange, weird'. It's not until the 1960s that the sexual meaning started to displace the older usage. Monty Python (early 70s? - I don't know the sketch you're talking about) would have been playing on what was still, at that time, a dual meaning.

And I, for one, am less comfortable with "OOTS as a Didactic Medium Aiming to Reinforce Acceptable Norms". Seriously, if Haley is self-consciously meant to be a role model for empowered women, then she has bigger problems than slut-shaming.

OK, it's Rich's comic, and if he thinks he has to do that - that's his call, obviously. But I don't have to agree with him.

[Megsie]

Seriously, if Haley is self-consciously meant to be a role model for empowered women, then she has bigger problems than slut-shaming.

Nearly all of which have been and/or are being addressed through character growth, which is why Haley realizing how unfortunate her choices toward other women are NOW feels organic.

That said, I suspect readers are more likely to internalize, "a woman wearing short skirt must be a [choice of slurs here]" than "it's ok to steal from a teammate if another teammate REALLY needs it". Most women - most people - find themselves in the former situation at some point, far fewer the latter. Also, we already have fairly strong societal cues regarding theft. There isn't really a strong mainstream pro-theft rhetoric for Rich to worry about perpetuating. There is one of slut-shaming, and as a woman who has been on the receiving end of this (and giving, in my teen years), I'm appreciative that he's choosing to not do so.

[durron597]

B) quietly drop it here.

I am, of course, happy to do this. I don't agree with Rich, but if I only read things written by people with whom I agreed on everything, I would never read anything.

I will continue to enjoy this amazing webcomic in spite of this philosophical disagreement :)

[Miriel]

In Tolkien's day, 'queer' was basically a synonym for 'strange, weird'. It's not until the 1960s that the sexual meaning started to displace the older usage. Monty Python (early 70s? - I don't know the sketch you're talking about) would have been playing on what was still, at that time, a dual meaning.

Actually, it had been used in that sense since the '30s, by conforming gay men who prefered it to "fairy".

Since Graham Chapman was gay (the very normative kind who didn't like those who weren't normative, as proven by the frequent homophobia in the show) and knew these words fairly well, I'm fairly certain that "queer" in that sketch was pejorative for "homosexual".

[TheWolfe]

I think it's a good thing that Haley (and thus by extension, Rich Burlew) shows that she can change and stop using these slurs. I

would also like to thank Rich for the way in which he introduces Bandana's sexuality. It's done in a very... casual (I'm not sure if it's the right word) manner, said without saying "Hey look! She's gay!". Bandana says it the same way she might have done if she was straight and gave Roy clothes from her ex. This says that gay people and relations are the same as straight ones, which is a very good message.

[Ulysses WkAmil]

I don't necessarily see how Haley's behavior should be, in any way, directly reflective of Rich. Yes, she is a strong female lead, but strong female leads are people too, and generally have flaws about them (like these gender based slurs). If he uses slurs through Haley, it is Haley's character making those remarks, not all of the characters and certainly not Rich. If there were a character who abused women, it would (hopefully) be just that; a jerk character that beats women, that in no way relates to Rich. I'll agree, the main problem was that the slurs weren't ever directly referenced as a character flaw (until just now that is). I'm just disappointed that this wasn't a more complex movement of character, instead being a blatant change with no precursors. Just for the record, I do not think that those slurs should be used towards women, all I'm saying is that it is a story, witch is representing both the real(ish) world as well as the gaming community.

I also love the nonchalance Rich used in introducing Bandana's sexuality. You can appreciate it, but he doesn't throw it in your face saying "my world is diverse look". Rich has always been able to make things feel organic in his world. Again, I'm completely fine with a queer character, and I'm glad Rich isn't making a queer character who is completely defined by being gay.

[Sky_Schemer]

I, too, am very appreciative for this strip, and want to thank Rich for what he's done. The last panel addresses the one aspect of the OOTS about which I've been uncomfortable since more or less the beginning of the comic: Haley's repeated and consistent clashes with major female characters. While not all of those have fallen from mere petty insults to the low of slut-shaming, it's still been cringe-worthy at best.

This is an enormous step in the right direction and I am happy to see it.

[TheMiningDwarf]

Since this thread isn't blowing up as much as the discussion thread for the comic itself I can get my opinions off my chest without getting in the way of some page spanning debate.

I appreciate what the Giant is trying to do, acknowledging in comic that he isn't proud of what he's done in previous strips and that he continues to improve is something to admire.

Now that I've prefaced what I'm about to say with that I can get to what I've really wanting to get off my chest. People have been mentioning again and again in discussions about this comic that Haley's choice of insults promotes slut shaming and how sexist these insults are and so on. Honestly, whenever I read that kind of rhetoric I keep thinking to myself that these insults seem, at least to me to be insults first and foremost and gendered and therefore sexist insults secondly. These insults can be taken to be indicative of slut shaming but unless they're used in a context that would support that secondary meaning I'm just going to assume the former.

[Graustein]

Since this thread isn't blowing up as much as the discussion thread for the comic itself I can get my opinions off my chest without getting in the way of some page spanning debate.

I appreciate what the Giant is trying to do, acknowledging in comic that he isn't proud of what he's done in previous strips and that he continues to improve is something to admire.

Now that I've prefaced what I'm about to say with that I can get to what I've really wanting to get off my chest. People have been mentioning again and again in discussions about this comic that Haley's choice of insults promotes slut shaming and how sexist these insults are and so on. Honestly, whenever I read that kind of rhetoric I keep thinking to myself that these insults seem, at least to me to be insults first and foremost and gendered and therefore sexist insults secondly. These insults can be taken to be indicative of slut shaming but unless they're used in a context that would support that secondary meaning I'm just going to assume the former.

Well, think of it this way: calling someone a slut is implying that they're promiscuous. And using this implication as an insult. Why is it a bad thing to be sexually active? Unless you believe on some level that it this is a bad thing, and further that this is a worse thing for a woman to be (when was the last time you saw someone call a man a slut insultingly without the added intention of feminising him?), there are way better words you could use.

As a good analogy, using "gay" as an insult or otherwise as a synonym for "bad" he is highly problematic because the only reason it's an insult in the first place is because of this twisted notion that being gay is a bad thing on some level. It's the same principle at work: you insult someone by implying that they have some quality which is frowned upon, and if you don't frown upon that quality there's no reason to use it insultingly, because no matter the context that's the context you're managing to bring into the discussion.

[Ulysses WkAmil]

Since this thread isn't blowing up as much as the discussion thread for the comic itself I can get my opinions off my chest without getting in the way of some page spanning debate.

I appreciate what the Giant is trying to do, acknowledging in comic that he isn't proud of what he's done in previous strips and that he continues to improve is something to admire.

Now that I've prefaced what I'm about to say with that I can get to what I've really wanting to get off my chest. People have been mentioning again and again in discussions about this comic that Haley's choice of insults promotes slut shaming and how sexist these insults are and so on. Honestly, whenever I read that kind of rhetoric I keep thinking to myself that these insults seem, at least to me to be insults first and foremost and gendered and therefore sexist insults secondly. These insults can be taken to be indicative of slut shaming but unless they're used in a context that would support that secondary meaning I'm just going to assume the former.

I agree, in my read-throughs it always just seemed like Haley was using common insults that have no personal direction (except in the case of Sabrina). Slut-shaming is a bit far fetched, but using insults that coincide with clut shaming, yes.

[Dr.Starky]

That most people don't realize that it's sexist to use "slut" as an insult shows just how deeply sexism is ingrained in our society.

[dancrilis]

... twisted notion that being gay is a bad thing on some level.

I don't know if it is that twisted a notion. Gay means happy - and happy people are annoying and cause extra work for the rest of us (if they just shut up and do what they are paid for everyone would be better off).

If on the other hand you are referring to gay as homosexual - well they don't seem to on average cause me any extra work over non-homosexual people which means I really don't care one way or another.

Still people who have work to do and aren't doing it because they are busy smiling and distracting other people from their jobs with tales of the cause of there happiness ... could do with a good being fired.

[Vinyadan]

I don't know if it is that twisted a notion. Gay means happy - and happy people are annoying and cause extra work for the rest of us (if they just shut up and do what they are paid for everyone would be better off).

If on the other hand you are referring to gay as homosexual - well they don't seem to on average cause me any extra work over non-homosexual people which means I really don't care one way or another.

Still people who have work to do and aren't doing it because they are busy smiling and distracting other people from their jobs with tales of the cause of there happiness ... could do with a good being fired.

What about people who are happy about doing their job?

[NerdyKris]

People who don't understand what's wrong with the word "slut" should think of it like this.

Imagine you're at work. You mess something up, people laugh. Then someone calls you a slut. Because, hey, that's just what people call you when they insult you.

You're at the bar. You turn a woman down who's hitting on you. She calls you a slut. Because she wants to make herself feel like she rejected you.

Imagine you're with your friends. One friend constantly refers to other men with sexual insults. Always. Non stop. Any description of a person involves a comment about their appearance or sexuality. Eventually, you don't feel comfortable around that friend. Are they judging you that way? Who are they to call you a slut? What business is it of theirs how many women you've slept with and under what circumstances? What does that have to do with the person in question's driving skills or poor attitude at the cash register?

Eventually you internalize the message. Sex is bad, and guys that enjoy sex are bad. It's something to be ashamed of. If you ask that they stop using that term, they go to great lengths to explain why the problem is with you. Why do you have such a problem with the word? Clearly you're the one that's hung up on sex, not them. Eventually you just accept that all women see you as a sex object first, and a person second, and your worth as an individual is first based on how much they'd like to sleep with you, even if you're their brother, son, or father.

And that's what's wrong with using the word "slut" as a generic insult.

[veti]

Actually, it had been used in that sense since the '30s, by conforming gay men who prefered it to "fairy".

Since Graham Chapman was gay (the very normative kind who didn't like those who weren't normative, as proven by the frequent homophobia in the show) and knew these words fairly well, I'm fairly certain that "queer" in that sketch was pejorative for "homosexual".

Yes, it had been used in that sense for a long time, but its traditional and still, until at least the late 60s, predominant use was in the other sense.

Yes, Monty Python would have been fully aware of that meaning. But they, and their audience, would have been aware of the word as having a dual meaning. Read some mid-20th-century British literature, you'll see many authors use "queer", quite un-self-consciously, in a completely asexual way.

Example: Mary Renault, an author who (unusually) wrote openly and explicitly about gay characters: in Purposes of Love, published in 1939, she used the word "queer" quite asexually. In 1968, she revised the text to (among other changes) avoid that, because (as she knew) the sexual meaning by then had shifted closer to the mainstream.

But even then, the older meaning was still widespread among more conservative audiences. And Tolkien was nothing if not a conservative, particularly about language.

[Mrc.]

People who don't understand what's wrong with the word "slut" should think of it like this.

Imagine you're at work. You mess something up, people laugh. Then someone calls you a slut. Because, hey, that's just what people call you when they insult you.

You're at the bar. You turn a woman down who's hitting on you. She calls you a slut. Because she wants to make herself feel like she rejected you.

Imagine you're with your friends. One friend constantly refers to other men with sexual insults. Always. Non stop. Any description of a person involves a comment about their appearance or sexuality. Eventually, you don't feel comfortable around that friend. Are they judging you that way? Who are they to call you a slut? What business is it of theirs how many women you've slept with and under what circumstances? What does that have to do with the person in question's driving skills or poor attitude at the cash register?

Eventually you internalize the message. Sex is bad, and guys that enjoy sex are bad. It's something to be ashamed of. If you ask that they stop using that term, they go to great lengths to explain why the problem is with you. Why do you have such a problem with the word? Clearly you're the one that's hung up on sex, not them. Eventually you just accept that all women see you as a sex object first, and a person second, and your worth as an individual is first based on how much they'd like to sleep with you, even if you're their brother, son, or father.

And that's what's wrong with using the word "slut" as a generic insult.

Bravo good sir, bravo. The context of any insult matters a lot; for instance, if I meet up with a friend of mine with African origin, I usually greet him with "Alright ******" despite knowing how offensive that can be. Between mates, we have a rapport that means he doesn't mind me calling him that because he knows I don't mean it in any way to be offensive.

I have yet to hear anyone use the word "slut" in a non-offensive way. I've never heard people say "Hey, it's those sluts from the other day" and there not been a negative connotation. I've never heard "Na, don't worry about her; she's sound, she's a slut" because the word is inherently insulting. If someone calls someone else a slut, it's purely designed to hurt.

Also, this is an argument I use against insulting someone on gender, sexual identity etc. It's really easy to insult someone like that. It takes a lot more intelligence and a lot more skill to actually insult them using something else. So if you look at someone and think "she's a slut", try actually thinking of a better insult before you say it. That way, you get more practice at shooting people down AND you look more intelligent than you would have otherwise. It's a win-win!

[Ulysses WkAmil]

Also you have to consider, insults are meant to hurt someone's feelings, by pure definition. If I am in a mortal fight or absolutely hate someone, I'm going to insult them with things that would actually insult them. Haley used insults that targeted her opponents most prominent characteristic, being a woman. It may remind some women of their experiences being slut-shamed, but the same could be said for violence or anything relatively unpleasant. Again, I'm not saying that the use of these words are appropriate, but within the context of an online fantasy webcomic, if it fits the story, and isn't directly attacking readers, go for it.

[NerdyKris]

Also you have to consider, insults are meant to hurt someone's feelings, by pure definition. If I am in a mortal fight or absolutely hate someone, I'm going to insult them with things that would actually insult them. Haley used insults that targeted her opponents most prominent characteristic, being a woman. It may remind some women of their experiences being slut-shamed, but the same could be said for violence or anything relatively unpleasant. Again, I'm not saying that the use of these words are appropriate, but within the context of an online fantasy webcomic, if it fits the story, and isn't directly attacking readers, go for it.

And again I say, would you be saying the same thing if she called Laurin a "n****r", or if Nale consistently referred to Roy as such? Or if most people in popular media referred to black characters with that slur, because "it fits the character"?

Just because it might make sense in context doesn't mean that this isn't a constant message being delivered in the media. Yes, a woman might hate other women. But when the majority of female characters do so, while being held up as the heroes, that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Not waved away as "But it fits the character!".

[Ulysses WkAmil]

That's a tad bit unfair, considering racial slurs like n***** are, in a societal point of view much worse than ones like slut. Even still, Huckleberry Finn was a classic and still used obscene racial slurs, because it fits the time and parallels society at that time. (I don't want to begin comparing a webcomic to Mark Twain, so I digress) I'll agree that the comic is good for moving away from these slurs, I just wish he had done so in more of a character development way rather than an author development way. I'm not going to pretend like OOTS is supposed to be paralleling large societal themes, because it isn't for the most part. Haley is indeed a hero, but she is far from a shining paladin, as indicated directly by the comic. If she had made the transition in character over time, in a "I've learned to stop degrading my enemies because I'm strong enough without insults"-type fashion, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I agree that having a feminine roll degrade other women is bad; so is slut-shaming and slurs; but at a certain point, it just gets to a point where you are trying to remove slurs against specific groups entirely, which is frankly impossible. Energy should be focused on strengthening individuals at that point.

[NerdyKris]

I think it's fair and a completely apt comparison. Both are insults designed soley to attack what a person is, and not their actions. Both were/are prevalent and had the same defense of "it's not reinforcing racism/sexism". Both tell people "You are bad because of your skin color/gender".


Both are designed to reinforce the people on top while pushing down everyone else by indoctrinating them to believe they're inferior. I used it as an example because we as a society have been told that it's okay to insult a woman based on her sexuality, to the point where an author saying "Hey, this character was wrong to do that" is considered something to disagree with. Literally the same thing happened when people pushed back over the term "n****r".

[Paseo H]

Personally, I'm starting to root for Xykon now. He may be evil and trying to take over the world, but at least he's a firm believer in equality and has never been known to say anything particularly offensive, unlike our 'heroes.'

[Keltest]

Personally, I'm starting to root for Xykon now. He may be evil and trying to take over the world, but at least he's a firm believer in equality and has never been known to say anything particularly offensive, unlike our 'heroes.'

Im reasonably certain that Xykon only believes in equality because not doing so would require him to hate and/or enjoy the suffering of some less than others.

[Ulysses WkAmil]

First of all, the term slut is designed to attack woman who are very promiscuous, not women period. I'm not defending it, nor am I trying to say that slurs against women shouldn't be curbed. But removing insults with any traces to any groups is impossible. The intended nature of the insults within the comic weren't necessarily personal, just like calling someone a dumbass isn't a deep attack on someones overall intelligence. If the attacks on a single character were repeated, unwarranted and more specific/directed, that would be a justifiable example of slut-shaming and sexism.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Personally, I'm starting to root for Xykon now. He may be evil and trying to take over the world, but at least he's a firm believer in equality and has never been known to say anything particularly offensive, unlike our 'heroes.'

Xykon believes in equality for everyone, with himself being more equal than everyone else.

[Ulysses WkAmil]

Xykon believes in equality for everyone, with himself being more equal than everyone else.

That sad moment when hating everyone in the world becomes better than making jokes about certain groups.

[Porthos]

First of all, the term slut is designed to attack woman who are very promiscuous, not women period.

Maybe in theory, but not really in practice. Especially since 'very promiscuous' can often mean 'will not sleep with me' (or even worse, did sleep with me).

Then there's the elephant in the room over the fact that there's nothing wrong with people (men or women) being promiscuous in the first place.

[Ulysses WkAmil]

Maybe in theory, but not really in practice. Especially since 'very promiscuous' can often mean 'will not sleep with me' (or even worse, did sleep with me).

Then there's the elephant in the room over the fact that there's nothing wrong with people (men or women) being promiscuous in the first place.

I suppose you're right there, but in contrast to things like racial slurs, women aren't necessarily sluts. If someone uses a derogatory name for a race, the victim can't really dispute being apart of that race (not implying the slur is appropriate or in any way representative of the race).

EDIT: This sounds very bad, let me rephrase it better: Women who aren't necessarily promiscuous still get the same slurs, where as races are what they are and can't consider themselves mislabeled, just attacked, offended and victimized. I do not believe in using slurs as insults.

[jere7my]

I suppose you're right there, but in contrast to things like racial slurs, women aren't necessarily sluts. If someone uses a derogatory name for a race, the victim can't really dispute being apart of that race (not implying the slur is appropriate or in any way representative of the race).

It's not acceptable to use "lazy immigrant" as a generic insult for hispanic people, however obviously false the accusation is in any specific case. The same is true for "slut."

(Gotta admit, I'm a little surprised at the number of people taking the time to speak out against the pleasant, personal thank-you to the author that started this thread. If Rich, looking back, noticed that Haley had an arguably offensive flaw that he did not intend to put there, because he just didn't think too hard at the time about the words he was putting in her bubbles, there's nothing wrong with taking one frame of one comic to issue a mea culpa. If it was intended from the start to be part of Haley's character that she had issues with hypocrisy and slut-shaming and sexist language, then, sure, it would have been better for her to overcome them organically. But it wasn't; it was an oversight, and Rich felt bad enough about it to pony up an in-comic apology. That's a classy way to handle the issue, and, as I say, I'm surprised at the number of hackles it raised. Especially in a comic that breaks the fourth wall nine ways from Tuesday.)

I have yet to hear anyone use the word "slut" in a non-offensive way. I've never heard people say "Hey, it's those sluts from the other day" and there not been a negative connotation. I've never heard "Na, don't worry about her; she's sound, she's a slut" because the word is inherently insulting. If someone calls someone else a slut, it's purely designed to hurt.

There has been some reclaiming of the term—e.g., the SlutWalk protest marches and the (brilliant) woman-run burlesque ballet Nutcracker parody The Slutcracker.

[Paseo H]

Part of that 'mea culpa' was also that apparently it's 'scantily clad' for an agility based class like Haley to have a bare midriff, and that such 'impracticalities' that are staples of the genre are supposed to inherently reflect on how we view women.

So yeah, apparently I suck for at least not minding chainmail bikinis (I don't need them to get through the day, but I also don't think that those who like them are monsters). That's why so many are countering the original post.

[jere7my]

Part of that 'mea culpa' was also that apparently it's 'scantily clad' for an agility based class like Haley to have a bare midriff, and that such 'impracticalities' that are staples of the genre are supposed to inherently reflect on how we view women.

Just going along with the "staples of the genre" without thinking them through and considering the messages they're sending is...well, thoughtless. By definition.

So yeah, apparently I suck for at least not minding chainmail bikinis (I don't need them to get through the day, but I also don't think that those who like them are monsters). That's why so many are countering the original post.

I'm also a fan of chainmail bikinis, in the context of a pulp fantasy Frazetta riffing kind of story or illustration. The problem arises when chainmail bikinis and midriff-baring tops are the default for female characters in fantasy—when they all seem to wear them, without much thought put into why. A conscious decision to give a Frazetta shout-out with one character design is one thing; putting most of your female characters in skimpy outfits just because it's the default is another. That sends a message to female fans that there's only one thing they're valued for.

If 90% of female fantasy warriors wore sensible Joan of Arc armor, without boob cups and impractical cut-outs, I doubt you'd get as many complaints about the 10% dressed like Red Sonja.