Revenge of the Dickwolves: Is Penny Arcade's Mike Krahulik in the wrong?

@darji: A little off topic but I remember there being a study (I can't find it for the life of me) that showed that women who chose traditionally male careers had the same life expectancy as males. The change in roles caused them to lose the extra 5-10 years that women usually get over men. I wonder if men who choose historically female careers gain an extra 5-10 years....

I've always wondered if choosing a career that isn't traditionally suited to your gender has something in common with the people who feel they were born the wrong gender, just to a lesser degree. I have noticed that women who do well in and seem to enjoy more masculine jobs also seem to have more male interests when it comes to leisure activities (enjoy rougher humour, more physical things ect.), while men who choose feminine roles seem to enjoy more female activities (softer spoken, more in touch with emotion ect.). My way of thinking about it is that if someone would be feel more comfortable/fulfilled in a role not suited traditionally associated with their gender they should be welcomed and judged on an equal scale as all the others. However it does not make sense to try and fit a square peg into a round whole by forcing people into roles they weren't meant for by modifying requirements or using quotas. All that will result in is under qualified workers in a position that they will never be able to truly excel at.

I almost hate internet victims as much as internet assholes. I wish they would both just rape each other to sleep and leave the rest of us out of it.

I don't even know why is that comic any popular at all.. I can see them being "funny", I mean if you stuck at a mental age of 12.

dickwolves lulzzz.

Easily the best comic they've ever written.

Merchandising? Meh - i could take it or leave it.

None of this will prevent rape. However, these battles are fought at the cost of innocence. Innocence is precious, and once lost, it's pretty much impossible to regain. This doesn't help anyone, it just propagates the damage that's already been done.

The truth hurts. The truth is, you don't make better people by fighting these tangential battles. You don't prevent future rape from happening. Victims will never regain their innocence this way. It is lost to them forever. Don't take it away from others too. Wittingly or unwittingly. It's not the thing to do.

There likely is really nothing to do, other than taking responsiblity for who you are. It's the only thing that's in anybody's power really.

It could be a stress factor for example but on the other hand nurses have terrible working hours and it is most likely on of the most stressful jobs in existence but if it suits their likeness much more I can see how they could live longer. And yeah I think the same. Women in more masculine jobs have generally a more masuline way then other women. I can totally see a connection there. In nature animals have also certain roles and they are not because they were manipulated but rather because of Evolution. That is why I believe that men and women have different things they care about and enjoy than men from the begining. It makes a lot of sense just for the cause of survival alone.

I do not believe in fairy tils how the evil system and patriarchy has conditioned all men and women in certain roles and only because men wanted to be superior. I see it in a biological way. Animals have these roles because of evolution so why should it different with us? In the end we are also animals.

Are there exceptions? Yes of course and for these exceptions all we can do is giving them the opportunity to become what they interested in and what thy wish for and that has already happened.

Assuming that the FBI statistics you suggested are accurate on the high end of things, that's 1 in 20. If someone were to offer you an honest bet that you had a 19 in 20 chance of winning 500 dollars, but it came with a 1 in 20 chance of them shooting you if you lost the bet, would you take those odds?

According to wikipedia, in 2010 there were 84,767 reported rapes in the US. 1 in 20 of them would be 4238. 3% would be 2547. "rapes are falsely reported at the same rate as almost any other crime" is not good enough to ignore. Just ask Judith Grossman.

I know this isn't addressed to me but since you sort of implied that I was guilty of falling into confirmation bias. I find it hilarious that you would apply that to me and then proceed to do the exact same thing. I read some scientific peer reviewed journals from time to time. I remember reading some reviews of this book years ago(I haven't read the book in question). It was highly contentious in scientific reviews to say the least. Here is one that tries to be somewhat diplomatic about her findings: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108906/ But, in the end, the very "bad science" techniques that Fine is attacking; she is pretty much just as guilty of in her book. Apparently, Fine goes so far as to ignore testosterone testing in primates that tried to examine behavioral differences between sexes. I think her rational(again, I didn't read the book) that type of testing doesn't apply to humans.

So, apparently, ignore those pesky tests that don't support Fine's original stance. Ignore evidence(and statistics) from both male/female scientists because it doesn't jive with her original stance. This isn't confirmation bias? Also, she also doesn't actually prove any of her assertions(no substantial psychological differences between the sexes). She is only trying to attack the methodology of some these various fields. One person, mind you, criticizing various fields of scientific inquiry with, ya know, actual scientists.

Here is the reality: This conversation is a subset of the "nurture vs nature" debate that has been ongoing for a quite some time. Cordellia Fine didn't crack the code. Hell, she is not even a scientist, she is a research academic. There is no clear cut answer. But I will say this: to say that gender/sex is completely a social construct, goes against mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. That stance is a losing argument that was fought mainly in the 1970's(a lot of it in child psychology). The argument now is: to what degree do biological differences pertain to actual cognitive differences. That spectrum is an argument that has been ongoing. Btw, this is dealing strictly with the mental aspects of genders, not the more obvious physical ones(which are pretty much indisputable).

If you want the counter argument to Fine's book, I would read "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker(or if you want a more biological slant read "Mother Nature" by Sarah Hrdy). Also, bear in mind, none of these gender difference studies are saying women can't be this or that. They are merely trying to explain trends of why men(as a whole)pick one thing and women another. These trends are found throughout different cultures, and societies across the world. Its a persistent theme.

Another part of your post where you make this statement:

"We know this to be the case - but we have to ask the obvious question - why are women no longer farmers, and why do they not rule the world? Because their roles have changed in society, they are not biologically determined to be farmers no more than they are to be gatherers or child rearers."

The last part is so mind numbing in its stupidity. I mean women don't have a biological imperative to be mothers? Seriously? I can understand choosing to ignore that biological tendency(which is why human beings defy biological determinism), but to say that it doesn't exist at all? Thankfully most women choose otherwise. So, ya know, we can continue the human race.

To explain your issue with why women stopped being farmers(they didn't completely btw) deals with the issues of biological adaptation. Ya know the corner stone of Darwinian theory. The role of hunter or gatherer are not innate jobs. The only thing that is innate is the desire for food. Not to mention, that humans, being omnivores, require meat and plant material in their diets. So we constructed jobs of hunting animals and harvesting planet life. The job of hunting animals, however, required long nomadic hunts following migrating herds. It was physically daunting, and dangerous. The hunters had to leave their dwellings for long periods of time to hunt these migrating herds(Modern Inuits still show this pattern). Men, it was deemed, because of their natural physical advantage as well as their disposability were better suited for that job. Forcing women/children to join in on the hunt meant not only slowing down the men but putting women/children at a higher risk. Therefore, making a tribe unsuccessful in proliferating if women were to be utilized as hunters. Neanderthals, apparently, didn't differ between gender roles. Many anthropologists believe that was a big reason why they failed.

Anyways, men went off on the long hunts women stayed back to maintain/defend dwellings and rear the children. In this time women created(you rightfully pointed out)agriculture over the years. Some speculate a big reason why women were so successful at creating agriculture was partly influenced by their natural nurturing tendencies(in a general sense). Farming requires tending to crops in related way to child rearing. Women were found to be exceptional at this.

What ended up happening though is that once agriculture became complex enough: civilization emerged. The immediate result of civilization? Men were no longer required to continue following migrating herds. Their hunting grounds could become smaller and seasonal because we were able to mitigate the desperate need for animal flesh with grain stores. Men became domesticated. Therefore, Men, because they didn't have to be as nomadic, could tend to the farming. Women could get assistance. Thats why men eventually became more involved with farming. It was more advantageous to have both men/women farming.

Your last paragraph is a bit of a conundrum. We both agree that we are not powerless to our biology. But that does not mean that the biology or tendency is not there. I'll take the mountains of "shoddy" evidence in various of fields of study by scientists of both genders then the word of one research academic and a poster commenting on a video gaming forum.

I've read Pinker. I've read Morris, I've read Baren-Cohen, I have read most of the prominent evolutionary-psychologists. Their science, when they make bold claims about gender roles, does not stand up to scrutiny. You have ignored the evidence I've presented showing the completely fluid ways in which roles have been defined across various cultures - remember that many Native American cultures had three, or even four, discrete genders. This is the essence of what it means to say gender is a social construct.

Let us be clear: you are favoring one very new scientific field (which is based on very little scientific evidence and instead post-hoc rationalisations) over centuries of anthropological work. The concept of male hunter and female gatherer as biologically defined is a myth. We know this because we look at contemporary hunter-gatherer societies and cross-culturally at the fossil evidence, and we see that it is impossible to make sweeping generalisations about the role of men or women being predetermined.

http://discovermagazine.com/1998/apr/newwomenoftheice1430#.Ui-bYcbEqeZ

Recent anthropological research has revealed just how much Soffer’s colleagues overlooked. By observing women in the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies and by combing historical accounts of tribal groups more thoroughly, anthropologists have come to realize how critical the female half of the population has always been to survival. Women and children have set snares, laid spring traps, sighted game and participated in animal drives and surrounds—forms of hunting that endangered neither young mothers nor their offspring. They dug starchy roots and collected other plant carbohydrates essential to survival. They even hunted, on occasion, with the projectile points traditionally deemed men’s weapons. I found references to Inuit women carrying bows and arrows, especially the blunt arrows that were used for hunting birds, says Linda Owen, an archeologist at the University of Tübingen in Germany.

You seem keen to paint the history of humanity with a gigantic brush, not paying any credence to the idea that humanity developed simultaneously in remote geographic pockets along divergent and convergent paths, with the structures of the societies (their economics, their heirarchies, their roles) being completely different and unpredictable from one to the next.

I think you would be interested to see how the perception of fields change over time. I am a teacher now - a field that we in the West see as a feminine occupation (for all the stereotypes you mentioned - "nurturing, caring" and so on). This is played out in the numbers - the majority of teachers are women.

But if we go back in time just one century we discover that the complete opposite was the case! Where were the women teachers in Dickens? They didn't exist, because teaching was a masculine occupation - one to do with knowledge, facts and power. A similar switch is happening with medicine in front of our eyes - a historically male occupation, and now most med school graduates are women.

The absurdity of our gender roles is shoved in our face daily, as women are relied upon to do the majority of the world's cooking and yet make up a sliver of the percentage of professional, recognised chefs. We in America have a preconception of women as being less mathematical, and yet test scores have shown for decades that they perform far better than boys. The examples go on and on. To search for a biological explanation in all of this is to miss the wood for the trees.

Dickwolves wasn't even a joke. It was just a throw away line about something that was intended to sound bizarrely horrible.

What gaming comic do you think is funny?

Dude, Hell no.

That is not even close the truth and you are conflating ignorance for innocence. If a person is old enough to understand what the word "rape" means (which you would need to "get the joke"), I hope to hell that person understands the conceptual implications of the action. If a person doesn't and is otherwise mentally capable, I hope they aren't out in decent society.

And yes awareness and education actually work as well at about any methods we have today at preventing future crimes (at least ones that aren't unacceptably draconian).

Think about the implications what you are advocating for a second, you are suggesting that people remain willfully ignorant of anything bad and that anyone who ever suffers misfortune should also never be allowed to talk about it in public.

Imagine if we extended that mentality to say, unprotected sex. Think STDs might turn into a major problem if people aren't aware of the potential danger? Nope can't talk about AIDS, because that doesn't make the AIDS patient better and gosh it "might propagate the damage".

Or how about Gun Violence? Or how about Depression? Or not wearing a seatbelt in a car? Should our soldiers who suffer PTSD not be allowed to talk about that either (here's a newsflash War is a lot different than Call of Duty)? What about the guy who suffers flashbacks when a chopper flies overhead? He should just suck it up and quit being so irresponsible right?

Frankly your attitude towards people who have suffered physical and mental harm is disgusting, for goodness sake earlier you compared rape survivors to "Jihadists". Do you how crazy that makes you sound? Quit blaming the innocent for your own personal inability to handle the dark truths.

You talk about responsibility and yet here you are advocating the most irresponsible position possible (willful ignorance). Responsibility means taking accountability to educate yourself about life and be a productive member of society. If you are still this bothered by the accusation leveled at you that it's affecting your judgment this badly, maybe you should consider looking into getting some therapy. Because frankly your position is completely nonsensical.

Well, I guess I can address paragraph by paragraph then:

1) I didn't ignore your data on gender outliers in primitive native american cultures. I find most of it to be irrelevant when talking trends in general gender constructs in societies. In pretty much every single culture that you provided: people, overwhelmingly fit into a male/female dichotomy. I think its interesting that those cultures had to deal with outliers whether homosexuals, hermaphrodites/transgender in interesting/inclusive ways. But it doesn't omit that men/women, overwhelmingly, fit into clearly defined gender identity. It seems to be "grasping at straws." I could give examples of certain polynesian cultures that teach young boys that giving oral sex to men is a way to pass down manhood between the two. The boys don't seem to like it, but its a tradition that persisted in their culture. The boys would then grow up to become heterosexual men. Is that common in most societal development trends for men? No, its an extreme outlier. When looking at trends, you look at the whole and see what is constantly happening. Even in the examples you gave, it doesn't actually defy those trends.

2) Yeah, evolutionary psychology is a newer field. But, evolutionary biology isn't or how it pertains to sexual development in anatomy/physiology. That stuff has been around for a while. You also say that the hunter/gatherer role defined by male/female dynamic is a myth. In a general sense, its very much a fact. Men, generally, were hunters. Women, generally, were gathers. The article that you provided doesn't actually counter that fact. People may have cross pollinated skill sets so that men/women both learned some aspects of hunting/farming. I don't think the roles were absolutely rigid, but they probably weren't all that fluid either. Showing that women help lay traps is not all that surprising. I don't think article is saying ancient man NEVER hunted large nomadic game; just that the size of the game was exaggerated. We will probably never know for sure.

I also find it interesting that they keep bringing up modern Inuits, who clearly have very defined gender hunter/gatherer roles.

3)Well I may seem keen on speaking about general trends in societal gender development. I can counter that you may be perseverating on outliers and exceptional examples to correlate your bias. But, that is largely based on what one values more: macro/micro.

4-6)Now, you seem to be arguing gender roles. I'm not arguing gender roles, nor do I think Steven Pinker is. The question that is posed is do biological differences dictate or influence how we behave as men or women. I don't believe any evolutionary psychologist is arguing that women can't be scientists, teachers, doctors or whatever. They are merely asking are trends completely dictated by nurture alone? Seems to me its probably an intermingling between nature/nurture which defines us as human beings. Its probably a combination of both. I don't fall into either extreme of the conversation. But to say that gender/sex is completely defined by nurture alone is completely laughable.

And that is the point I am making... More females are now teacher because it has to do with people. Yes back then Women were oppressed by men no doubt about that. But this is not the case anymore and now women can do what they want and most of the time they want to do something which involves people. Like doctor, teacher, nurse etc. And this is were our instincts come into play. To be a mother you need a lot of empathy just like you need it as teacher, nurse etc. That is while women rather do this kind of work then the mechanical stuff. If they have the freedom to do what they want, most of them will chose these fields of work. And that is caused by our genes and evolution. It makes perfect sense. And yes women do better in school except physical classes which again is caused by our structure and body physics because men are usually stronger. There is a reason why Olympics have men and women competition. Not because we want to hold them down but rather because they have no chance against men.

Again there is nothing wrong here and if women are not much represented in some sections it is not a sign of discrimination but rather they are not intersted. Same goes for men. The most important thing is that we are offering everyone the possibilities to to what they want to do.

Slag, you just restored some of my faith in this community. I like Giant Bomb, but jeez, some of its members need to grow up and at least try not to be pathetically ignorant.

I'm talking about an innocent joke bereft of its innocence. And all the implications that ensues. Chastising a comic for tangentially touching on rape is not *schooling* anyone.

Let's take your example of the soldier living with PTSD, suffering flashbacks everytime a chopper flies overhead. What you people are doing would be akin to grounding all fucking choppers, to spare the soldier from suffering flashbacks.

I'm not advocating against seeking help. I am all for victims focusing on mending their wounds. What I am against is grounding the fucking chopper!

@tbird13:

If anything is pathetic, then it's calling others ignorant for having a different opinion than yours. I don't see you engaging in discussion, seeing if your views are worth their salt in a direct bout. So how about it, care to actually add some constructive thought to this debate?

The one thing I have learned in my school regarding this is if the society is not allowed to make jokes about certain races, or topics it means that this race or topic is a taboo and not accepted in our society. So yes comedy about everything is totally fine as long you do not go for a personal attack aimed at specific persons than it is not becoming comedy anymore. And that is how I live. I make fun of everything while I in the same way show my respect to these people or topics. So yeah rap jokes are totally fine just like holocaust jokes, black, jokes, white jokes, blond jokes and so on. Some have more of a black humor but it is still fine and this comic was totally fine because this rape make it look even more ridiculous. It has no connection to the real world and it was totally fine.

And what if someone feels uncomfortable? You should just ignore it because if you don't ignore it and fight it more and more like these mobs then you will open up your old wounds more and more because now you are invested in this comic and you are starting to think more and more about it. That does not mean you should not talk about what happened to you but you should not it when it involves your uncomfortable feelings and anger at te same time. It is just not healthy.

I don't know, I don't invest time reading videogame comics. Said so whenever I have accidentally read PA stuff.. its like uggg ha-ha hilarious...

Maybe relevant?

Lately I've been enjoying Mike and Jerry's original creations more than the usual 'insightful but funny commentary on the games industry'. The Zeboyd games are actually really fun (and funny) JRPG derivatives, and I think their various story comics (Automata, Lookouts) are really fresh. Probably because Jerry's approach to other genres is really unique.