The Antichristian Phenomenon

Recently there has been a bit of a stir over the latest Mr. Deity: “Mr. Deity and the Woman”, in which Mr. Deity meets his latest creation, the rib-woman Eve.  After being posted to RichardDawkins.net and Pharyngula, its been stirring up debate over whether or not it is derogatory by negatively stereotyping women.  The short answer: No.  The long answer is below the jump.  I expect it will be largely unpopular, so don’t waste your time if you aren’t going to actually engage potentially uncomfortable ideas.

As with a lot of articles like this, a small disclaimer is necessary to hopefully circumvent all the lame comments from people who don’t bother to read the article but jump to conclusions about how *whatever* I am. So… [disclaimer]
~I am a female.  Oh noes.  I was not offended by this video, and you shouldn’t be either.  I will elaborate in future paragraphs.
~I am VERY much against discrimination due to gender / ethnicity / hair color/ religious belief / etc.  I believe I have made this clear in past articles (Arguing Fundies for women’s rights, Thoughts on Equal Opportunity, Fighting against reinforcing cultural norms.  There is also a clear difference between encouraging and propagating stereotypes as reality and playing off them.  When you give little girls pink books and tell them to consider themselves in relation to a man, while giving little boys blue books and telling them to protect the helpless female, that’s encouraging and propagating as reality.  When you make satire about this dichotomy, that’s playing off them, as long as you don’t encourage the spread as “normal” but include either a level point of view (watch “Words” by the Mr. Deity crew, and you’ll see a nearly complete female-male stereotype role reversal) or no intrinsic value judgement.
~To answer a comment on rd.net before it comes up again: I don’t blindly support Mr. Deity or any other “hero” figure such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, PZ, or even Carl Sagan.  I am a skeptic.  This means I question every statement by everyone, even those I admire and generally agree with.  Everything must be viewed critically and as objectively as possible.  Especially my own beliefs and those of the ones I admire most.
~Finally, I’m not arguing in favor of the video because I thought it particularly funny or because I’m a Mr. Deity fangirl.  I’m not really a huge fan of the show, just a casual passerby.  I find some episodes funny, more because of the situational irony than the dialogue.  I really don’t care whether or not you found the episode funny or like Mr. Deity, as I am largely neutral on both accounts.

Anyone who makes a statement to the contrary of the above points will immediately be mocked.[/disclaimer]

First let’s walk through the episode and line up exactly where the satire is, how it relates to religion (surprisingly, quite a few commenters don’t understand this), and basically why you should not be offended.

First, the telling moment: 0:32. Larry: “I don’t understand why you’re doing this if we’re going with the organic model.”  By now, you should get it.  Actual Reality = organic model.  Religious “Reality”= Rib-woman Eve.  The very fact that Eve exists in any form indicates that we’re not looking at reality, because reality is the organic model. From here on, you have to view everything in the episode through the scope of NOT REALITY.  This is where religion plays in initially, as the parody is on the twisted perception of our Judeo-Christian culture, NOT the world as it really is.

0:55.  Eve dotes on the first thing she sees.  Remember, in Judeo-Christian culture, women are supposed to be this way.  We are supposed to be defined by and dependent on the male, so to depict the Mr. Deity-programmed woman as reaching for the first male she sees is not out of context and perfectly within the bounds of the religious reality.  I don’t think you need to be reminded that we’re looking at Religion Reality, not Actual Reality.  She’s not SUPPOSED to be autonomous… at least initially.

1:20-40  “From a rib? How sweet!”  She realizes she’s supposed to be equal.  Deity, being the bastard he is, shakes it off and dismisses this idea, but doesn’t really argue against it.  He doesn’t take it seriously.  What was the opinion of women’s rights for the past couple thousand years?  Oh yes, women are not / should not be taken seriously.  This should come as no surprise that he does not necessarily react to this, but the fact that she makes this statement is incredibly leading.  Do we see a future episode plot?  I think so.

2:33 Eve cries and gets emotional.  Deity created an emotionally needy being to serve one purpose, and now he is surprised to find himself out of control and at the whim of his creation.  This is a point of contention amongst commenters but I’ll address that aspect later.  Here we have to realize that the point here is primarily showing that the MALES are at a disadvantage, and that Mr. Deity is NOT in control of his creations.  This is actually an ongoing theme throughout the entire show, as he’s constantly shown to be somewhat of a dorky moron, frequently failing to grasp basic concepts and has to rely on Lucy or Jesse to explain or do things properly.  Like the brushed off equality comment, you can see that the fear and confusion Eve is generating is likely to lead to a future plot, specifically one where all the misogynistic laws of the bible are written, because they don’t understand her and just want to control her and “turn her down”.  Again, it really isn’t her, its them.

3:36 “Are you guys completely clueless?”  The answer is yes.  It’s Mr. Deity losing here as he fails to grasp her set up.  She has outsmarted him with her wily ways.  (Ladies, seriously, don’t tell me you’ve never EVER done something like this, and Guys, don’t say a girl has “never” done this to you (though you probably were just confused at the time).  It’s a very effective trick to get your way and prove a point; make an obviously absurd statement, then when the opponent agrees, display their absurdity.  This trick can defy gender lines but it does tend to be a girl -> guy thing.)

4:33 “What have we done!… I feel so sorry for Adam…”.  Setup for the future.  Reeling from this, he’s going to take precautions.  By this point, Eve has stood up for herself, and Mr. Deity does not like this.  The parallels to scripture should be clear, as well as a rationale.  Interestingly, this is presenting the male as the weak one, as he will need to be protected from the female.  It’s not so much that the woman is behaving emotionally as that she is out of control.  I will address the emotional end later.

4:45 “THIS ISN’T THE ORGANIC MODEL”  Remember that word, satire?  This is further proof that we are, in fact, looking at satire and not a literal depiction of reality.  Don’t forget that Mr. Deity is a show made by the godless, so they don’t believe in the 6-day Genesis model–they accept the ORGANIC MODEL.  So when he says “this isn’t the organic model”, he’s saying “this isn’t a depiction of real women in reality”.  So, “will they all be like this?” NO, because this isn’t the organic model.

5:00 Lucy enters.  Yes, Lucy’s little “OOH she’s going to be so excited” is forced.  That kind of lost it for me, as its somewhat out of character.  The following dialogue starting with “you know what … go get ready”, IS very in-character.  She gets it, she’s being practical and realistic, and as usual, Lucy comes out on top compared to the Deity.  This isn’t unusual for the show, either.  Now think about it.  The Deity pissed off Eve.  Lucy is going to wake her up, and she is going to be angry at the Deity.  The Deity is going to be gone getting ready.  She also hasn’t actually met Adam yet, who was not so bright and fully expects a helper who he has power over… accepting the situation without hesitation due to a sexy photo.  Anyone who remembers the Adam and Eve story can start working up some ideas as to what might happen next.  Two words: Character Development.

Whether you found the execution or jokes themselves funny is irrelevant.  Now you should be able to see that we are NOT talking about a simple, one-sided stereotype or any kind of “belittling” toward women, and it was about more than *just* men/women relations.  Additionally, the whole episode seemed to me more of a set up for the future than a stand-alone skit.  I’m not convinced this is a good move for Mr. Deity unless he makes longer shows to allow the set up to play out.

Now, lets examine some of the reactionary comments from RD.net.  I did not follow the Pharyngula comments or youtube comments simply due to volume.  A cursory glance revealed that this dialogue was largely universal.  One group cries sexism and offense, another laughs at the satire, and the final group is largely nonplussed (eh not the best it was sort of kind of funny maybe i don’t get it).

A quote sampling:

“And just because some people found it funny doesn’t mean it’s not depressing to come to one of the places I should feel accepted and find this ‘women are so irrational’ and ‘women aren’t funny’ crap again”
“Yes, some of you have clever arguments that try to rationalize their choice in humor. Sadly, those arguments do not take away feeling like I have found a place (online) where I can be understood on some level, only to be shown that it is generally o.k. to make fun of me in the standard stereotypical way. No one should be ridiculed due to circumstances of birth, even if the people not being made fun of find it funny.”
“How powerful and in control is a person who relies on passive aggressiveness, who can’t speak openly and reasonably about her wishes, who can’t have a confrontation without breaking into tears? If you think that was such a positive representation, why don’t you try living it for a while?”
“Or you’re taking a cheap shot at a marginalized group.”
“I think what rubs people the wrong way is that your show generally satirizes religion, and in this case, religion only looks bad if women implicitly look worse. The joke, to me, runs: God is a buffoon because he made women. What a blunder! Look at how they behave!
Also, if we run with the creation story, this is not just about SOME women who behave like that SOME of the time; your insinuation is that the PROTOTYPICAL woman INTRINSICALLY behaves that way. This is important.”
“So Anath, next time some black person takes offense at a blatent stereotype, he/she’s just being an anti-white radical, right?”
“I don’t understand why it’s ok to trash women for their sex. It’s not like we chose what genitals we’re born with. To me, it’s no different than trashing black people for the color of their skin. (And there is a difference between picking on white men and picking on women and blacks.)”
“I really enjoy the Mr Deity episodes, but this one, well, I wasn’t sure exactly whether the rather simplistic caricature of a rather vacuous and irrational woman was meant to be funny.”
“There’s me thinking Mr Deity was pretty ordinary comedy from an anti-religion perspective, when it seems to be very ordinary, and derivative, observational bollocks.

It must be about 5 minutes since a comedian, somewhere, did the “woman are hard to work out” routine.”

In light of analyzing the episode, most of these comments fall flat (I’m not going to touch the race comments unless requested; too much potential off-topic debate).  The episode wasn’t ABOUT “ridiculing” women or “taking cheap crack shots at a marginalized group”.  If you think it was, maybe you should actually watch the full episode and pay attention rather than getting angry at her initial behavior and turning it off to rant.  If you’re so sensitive to the portrayal of women (or *insert group here*) that you can’t look past an initial gut reaction, you’re never going to understand whether or not someone is actually making fun of YOU, playing off a stereotype, or using stereotypes as a vehicle to send a greater message.  Godless, think about all the religious people you scorn for being unable to look through the blasphemous face value appearance to see the deeper message.  You can’t say “oh but this issue is different,” because it is not.  Additionally, if you assumed that 2-3 minute clip was the totality of Eve’s character, you’re VERY guilty of negative stereotyping.  Rather than wait and see what she does in different situations to judge her holistically, you’ve taken one brief excerpt and assumed that this excerpt is all she is.

One of the criticisms that is often brought up is that “I don’t behave like that!”  Face it ladies, there is a “2 minute clip” of your life sometime, where you have gotten angry, behaved on impulse, made remarkably similar facial expressions, and so on.  And men, there is an equivalent “2 minute clip” for you being flummoxed by a woman going crazy, as well as your own irrational clip.  It doesn’t really matter what it’s about, clothes, wedding, public transportation, not getting pizza on Friday night or whatever, there’s a universal link.  I’m sure a few readers remember the .999…=1 discussion?  Well, there you go.  My 2 minute clip of irrational insanity.  I am not proud of it, but it proves that even I am not immune to the effect of hormones, so I won’t pretend to be.  We’re all irrational at some point in time, even those of us who fight their hardest against it.  I’ve also been known to adapt some of the 1:00-1:40 tones of voice when confronted with something cute or talking to my cats, and I have occasionally been a little irritated at Cleric’s choice of clothes to various social events (though I deviate from the “standard” reaction quickly, because I remember hating when my Mom did the same thing).  The “manliest” girls I know do the same.  If you’re a female and bucking the stereotype presented because you “don’t behave like that”, I urge you to self examine.

This will not be a popular sentiment, because no one likes harsh self-examination OR positively comparing oneself with a stereotype, but I urge everyone to do this not only for your gender but also for your religious position, and your clique/major at school, and the brand of clothes you buy and your hobbies and political party and your favorite music and region of birth and…  You can’t lessen the power of stereotypes by simply sticking your fingers in your ears and whining.  You have to either fight against them by demonstrating irrefutably that you do not fit, or figure out what the grain of truth is and either exploit it or exaggerate it to eclipse the untrue bits.  You’re not nonconformist when you buy your clothes at Hot Topic, so wake up and have the strength to realize you’re not this amazing exception to every unsavory stereotype thrown at you.  If I’m not, you’re certainly not either.

Additionally, and on an equally unpopular note, what’s all this nonsense where comments about minorities are somehow different than comments about majorities?  If this idea is reinforced, no one should be surprised when the lines between minority / majority, power group / oppressed group do not disappear.  Think about it this way: “Its ok to stereotype and make fun of men but not women” is conceptually identical to “its ok to stereotype and make fun of Christianity but not Atheism”.  Do you really want to support such a sentiment, and reinforce the idea that you’re arrogant, intolerant assholes wanting to step on the rights of the religious?  Similarly, do you really want to support the idea that you’re reactionary, emotional, and unable to stand for yourself?   By whining about jokes, both negative views are actually supported, because it’s easy for the opposition to assume that you fill the more negative parts of the stereotype, because they’re already thinking in those terms, and humans are pattern-recognition machines.

As I learned the hard way in elementary school, the first rule of fighting bullies is not to react to them, as most of them just want a rise.  The second is to laugh it off and respond with good humor, no matter how much it hurts.  This means that if you feel discriminated against, you need to deal with this problem in a constructive way.  Putting off a reactionary, angry response also means you have time to gauge the intention, and responding with humor means that even (and especially) if the intention truly is harmful, you’ll look to be the best in the situation.  You’ll also defy the negative stereotype.  I was seriously blown away by the negative reaction to this silly 5 minute video, it was so impulsively reactionary…

Additionally, we have to distinguish between the “who” and “intent”.  It’s not about “who” is targeted by a specific comment, joke, or derogatory remark, its the intent of the remark that counts.  As stated before, by focusing on the “who”, one risks reinforcing currently existing lines of discrimination, NOT eliminating them.  By focusing on the intent, we remove the unnecessary information and baggage from birth and focus on the fact that being derogatory about ANYONE is not a good thing, and a joke made in good humor is a just joke, whether you personally find it funny or not.  It’s not “better” to mock white, middle class males.  They also bleed.

This leads into the root of the problem.  Frequently people can’t and don’t distinguish between “who” and “intent”, and they personally get insulted by something.   There is also an interesting assumption that stereotypes represent core qualities of a person, but we’re not looking at Actual – Reality when we speak in terms of stereotypes.  Instead, we’re REALLY looking at a product of our culture.  Culture is mutable.  Since a stereotype is not a reflection of intrinsic nature, but rather of perceived qualities, you have the ability to rail against it and behave opposite.  Think about the new stereotypes for women that have emerged in the past century alone!

Let’s make some more–built on Actual Reality instead of 6000 years old of narrow-minded, fearful patriarchy.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.