What Better Present Than a "Secretary"?
The root of this joke is pretty funny, actually--the idea that somebody would employ somebody around their home for writing daily emails or whatever (though how a secretary would do that with a steno pad isn't clear--I think the steno is there in lieu of a nametag that says "secretary", as an identifier). Thing is, as it stands, it's just creepy, what with the short-ish skirt and the fact that, by default, the secretary is a woman. Even Creepier: A Womb as a View
Or is my title for this comic even creepier? Probably.
I think what bothers me most about this is that this represents at least a couple of things going on here that are only very slightly magnified for so-called comic effect--things that people do and experience daily. The sign isn't far from how some men talk and think about women. And the experience of having to walk by such a sign, as a woman, isn't far from the general harassment many women go through daily. Dating Women as a Class of Things
There's an interesting storyline going on in Monty over the past few weeks, which I'll probably talk more about, because it's relatively nuanced for a comic. But some of the first strips are great examples of what men sometimes do: They attempt to date a gender, rather than a person:
Single? Check. Woman? Check. And that's all it takes, because they're interchangeable objects!
18 comments:
Ever since getting married, I've fohgt really hard not to become the social secretary for my husband. It's not working, though. People call me when they have questions for him (he's very bad about letting his phone die, so he's not helping much), and sometimes, I just send birthday cards to relatives without tracking him down to get his signature on it. It's not my job to maintain his relationships for him!
That's interesting, Sara. I know several couples that have a similar setup...for some reason these sorts of things default to the women of straight relationships a good deal of the time--although I'd imagine it also happens along other gender lines, too.
I'm curious--knowing that it's not your job, why do you send birthday cards out for him, rather than just let him get called on not sending out cards? I wonder if some of this has to do with a certain lack of intimacy in relationships men have with other people in general...?
Oh, I don't send them for him, I send them for myself - I'm related to these people now too. I don't want to rag on him too much, because I think that to a certain extent, men grow up assuming that the birthday card kind of work that goes into maintaining relationships will be done for them, because it so often is. And he's not completely oblivious, though I'm certainly more on-top of these things than he is most of the time.
Oh, I gotcha, Sara. That makes sense, that these are your relationships too. I think it would be funny if his mom gets a birthday card, say, with only your name signed to it!
does anyone use the term secretary anymore? Every job I've had has referred to that position as Administrative Assistant.
I mean, Servers are not waitresses anymore...
Flight attendants are not stewardesses anymore...
Or are they? I do realize some people still use these old words.
kyle, "secretary" isn't a gendered term, like "waitress" or "stewardess." I tend to use "waiter" (I also hear "waitron) for a server of any gender.
It may be a regional thing, but I think one reason Administrative Assistant has become popular is because 'secretary' has historically been gendered, even if it isn't as often gendered now. (Similarly, depending on various factors, say 'doctor' and people will more often think of a man.) Also, Administrative Assistants make more money.
I've tried to use 'waiter' for people of any gender, but it doesn't roll off my tongue for people who I perceive as women just yet--though it may. Also, I don't go to enough restaurants that actually have waitstaff for it to matter much. :)
[clueless]
What's the point of birthday cards, anyway? It seems like a waste of time and money to me. If you just want to say "Hi, I haven't forgotten you're alive" then isn't there a better way to do it? Like, actually meet with them or something? Seriously, if you're mailing me a card and it doesn't have money inside it or a picture of a cute kitten on it, I'd rather you didn't bother.
[/clueless]
(Sadly, I really am this clueless.)
Also...
"Single? Check. Woman? Check. And that's all it takes, because they're interchangeable objects!"
Well, how much more can you learn about a person before you try talking to them, anyway? If someone's unacceptable because of something that's not obvious, you'll need time to figure that out anyway.
(In theory, increasing the range of people one finds acceptable should lead to, well, having a smaller chance of rejecting someone who finds you acceptable. Oddly enough, it doesn't work out that way, because "finds too wide a range of people acceptable" is a trait that many people seem to find unacceptable in others.)
Also, I'm reminded of mistake #3...
I would say that the last comment has less to do with viewing women as objects, and more to do with the attitude that being in a relationship with anybody is better than being single. From what I have seen, people do this no matter what their sex, gender, or sexual orientation is.
My approach to dating is to date people who I am interested in, rather than to try dating people and see if some mutual interest develops. Granted, I've been single for the past couple years, but I don't see this as a problem. People like the man in the last comic seem to look for potential partners just so that they can be in a relationship. They may be objectifying partners, but I don't think it specifically objectifies women.
They may be objectifying partners, but I don't think it specifically objectifies women.
I may begin to agree with you, r, when I see a bunch of comics where (for instance) a woman is asking out one guy a day in a similar way...
Do men really attempt to "date a gender" (e.g. say "I need to find a woman" if I understand the concept correctly) more than women do? Not that it's right either way, but I don't really consider it problematic if it's just a matter of people objectifying each other because we're naturally egotistical. The goal of finding a girlfriend, or a boyfriend, combined with the sentiment of "anyone may as well do" is one which I didn't think was exclusive to gender... Although it's my perception that the stereotype of a pathetic person who has ridiculously low standards for that "anyone" more commonly is made to fit men, so that would be sexist... although the background behind that stereotype may be the sexist belief that women are more shallow, who knows? Actually this stuff is way too deep for me, I just came here from another blog. Anyway, I also dislike sexism, so it's nice that you have this blog which gets people to think about it, and stuff.
"I may begin to agree with you, r, when I see a bunch of comics where (for instance) a woman is asking out one guy a day in a similar way..."
My first observation: Comics are not the vital signs of the human mindset. They are just creations of individuals that express their opinions.
My second observation: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are implying that women don't do that; that is, they don't look for a relationship just to be in a relationship, like the man in the comic. It's been my experience that both genders do that, it's just that it's often for different reasons. I don't have time to go into all possible scenarios, but here's one for each:
Men: they're looking for sex. They're not interested in the woman as a person; they're only interested in her physical attributes.
Women: They're afraid that the older they get, the less likely they are to find "Mr. Right", so many women will take the first man they can get to marry them. In short, they're afraid of becoming "the old spinster".
Both are obviously incorrect approaches to relationships.
I agree with you about the first two, but I read the third a different way. I don't necessarily deny that it may be objectifying towards women, but I think the point of the comic is the source of that objectification: the poor prospects that low status men like Monty have with women. From the perspective of a low status man, all women are interchangeable: they all serve the exact same function, which is to reject him. This isn't necessarily because women are shallower than men, but because they are more selective than men.
Why bother seeing women as individuals if they are just going to reject you either way? It's safer to see them as numbers. Men may attempt to "date a gender" because they have abandoned hope of being able to date particular individuals, and feel that the most they can hope for is any warm body of the opposite gender. The objectification towards women is the mindset is sad; yet I will submit that the position that these men are in deserves sympathy.
I know this is a bit of an old thread, but i just came upon this blog.
I don't get the second comic at all. At all. What is that in the doorway, is it relevant to the joke? What is the joke? I'm confused.
~asha
Asha there is no open doorway. What you are looking at is bushes between the houses. The woman is actually looking at the for sale sign realizing the neighbor that the good view is of, is her. At first I thought she was looking in between the houses at what I also mistook as a doorway. I think this is because of the title that the original poster gave the comic. Truthfully I don't find any of these to be particularly sexist. Perhaps the last but not in the way the poster was thinking. I think it is an insult to men.
Post a Comment