After constantly asserting that the devil basically controls the world, and that demons exist for the sole purpose of corrupting people, out of the blue we're excpected to believe that demons are a poor, innocent, unjustly oppressed minority, for no reason other than to make us feel sorry for Fuchsia?
He only controls certain aspects of the world, namely the corporate sector. The things he doesn't control are pretty open with their hatred for demons. Remember that during that time, Fuschia was in the middle of her character development, trying to change her ways. At that point, IIRC, she was in the Anti-Villain / Punch Clock Villain stage of her change. Those who are familiar with redemption tropes know that things like that can be very discouraging to those seeking it.
Also, the Devil controlling anything doesn't mean his underlings get anything out of the deal. He's the Devil, after all. He's not very nice.
Just look at when Fuchsia and Blue try and unionise... he's basically a good boss so long as they do what they're supposed to, but a very bad one as soon as someone steps out of line even slightly.
It's also been shown that some, if not all, of the devils were once human. So it can be a somewhat literal example of selling your soul to get ahead, but it doesn't always work.
So, Fuschia and Blue, all the appearances of a steady relationship there. Suddenly, Criminy. Fuschia turns 'good' for Criminy, leaving Blue behind. Am I the only one bothered by the implications, here?
What they had was, as I saw it, though I might be wrong, and Blue may have seen it that way, not a steady, lesbian relationship, but a relationship of friendship. Their lesbian relationship was less a loving relationship and more of a co-workers relationship, which has such antics as responsibility for their jobs.
I guess this has been talked about before, in this page, but my question is more specific and different. Why is Seymour evil because of his actions on bad behaviour? Sure, he is a jerk, and he has proven it more than once ,and he is also sexist, conformist and an extremist, but how is he supposed to know that Fuschia is trying to reform? I mean, all he saw was a succubus he has verified as evil before trying to seduce a friend of him (acquitance?) and, in turn, driving him in hell. Sure there were hints about their love and her reformation. Oh, I guess he should have guessed it... we are talking about the guy who does not see Jesus when he is in front of him.
He should have seen it coming via the changes in Fuschia's attitude and approach. When she was evil, her approach and conduct was aggressive and proactive. During her change, her attitude became more defensive/reactive, not actively seeking trouble. Of course the big issue here is his Heel Face Door Slam, which is actually a very evil thing to do to someone actively seeking redemption.
Again,seymour is not sharp.You except him to notice such things when he could not notice Jesus on the street?Not to mention that,you know,the scene he saw could give everyone the wrong idea,especially someone who is neither sharp nor sensitive(which are things we knew about him before bad behavour).
Honestly, I don't think he was attempting to commit suicide, since that wasn't a cliff at all... I think he was PURPOSELY jumping into the lethe because he couldn't deal with the knowledge.
Satan isn't worried about the Apocalypse? Why? Even if the Book of Revelations in the Bible is wrong, shouldn't he worry about the whole "your greatest minions will fall and God will lock you in a cage for all eternity" thing? I wouldn't put it passed God given how he is represented in the comic. The page I refer to is this.
Who is in Nique's current fanbase? Judging by the portrayals of her fans in the comics, I assumed that most, if not all, of her initial fans were men who are only interested in her body, except for that one young lass who is a diehard fan of hers. If that is true, most of them would have probably left after she completely cut fanservice out of her acts. Since Nique now focuses on hating the patriarchy, I would guess that the majority of her current fans would be members of the Sisterhood, but, since the Sisterhood is actively against men bothering women and Nique's remaining implied-male fans throw tomatoes at Nique and otherwise heckle her as she preforms without retribution, I doubt that the Sisterhood follows Nique either.
As a broader question, what exactly was Monique's act before? Previously, it seemed to consist of her standing on stage and shaking her ass. Now it seems to consist of her standing on stage and insulting the audience while being pelted with tomatoes.
It was shown as a type of poetry slam the whole time (Slick and Squig got in on the act more than once). And I'd say, most likely there were people there for more than just 'Nique's routine, so now instead of being silent, they're actively booing her. Also, plenty of people will stick around a fandom after they've decided it sucks SPECIFICALLY to heckle the remaining fandom. I see no problem with her previous dudebro fans hanging around just to hate on her because she changed, no she sucks.
Ok, maybe I'm the only one having trouble figuring this out, but is Devil Slick a separate entity or is he an avatar of Slicks darkside? The main reason I ask, we see Devil Slick doing various things that are implied to be affecting real Slick, but half the time they seem to be closer to independent entities. I don't know if I'm just not getting it or if maybe someone has a clearer explanation or if Tat himself maybe hasn't decided yet.... I'll admit part of it is that it feels like the development Slick got sort of got erased or backtracked heavily so I'm just trying to get my head around it.
I sort of see it as a sort of psychic link, mixed with a bit of recovering addict. Slick!Prime is still advancing, but when his will is weak, Devil!Slick can be freed and indulge. So Devil!Slick is sort of a homonculus of Slick!Prime, a separate entity, but linked to his mind and soul.
Okay, am I supposed to side with Monique in this strip? Because in the next strip, 'Que is shown depressed and needing a hug and what not, while Slick is shown more or less pathetic... while Slick is right. 'Que needs to tone it down, bashing people on head telling them how evil and bad they are, while at the same time totally blowing off the one guy who still supports you and tries to give you advice is not cool.
I think it's kinda showing that she is becoming more two-dimensional, though in the opposite direction than she used to be.
Actually yes, you are supposed to side with her, because she IS right. She was at a poetry thing and people threw shit at her because of what she said. Sure people can get 'riled up', but that is NO EXCUSE to throw shit at her. And telling her she brought it on herself is wrong, and when you've been hurt, you sort of want your friends to stand by your side and understand. Slick is WRONG here because people ASSAULTED Monique for what she said. Which is WRONG. No matter WHAT.
It's made clear that Monique knows that she's openly antagonizing her audience. She's doing it INTENTIONALLY. She has no right to try and throw a pity party when they react poorly.
Question: Has Produce Pelting been a thing in the comic before the Sisterhood arc took over? If it wasn't, then I agree with the condemnations on the audience. If it was, then I think it's sanctimonious to act like they're doing it just because she's talking about feminism and The Patriarchy, because it's been the standard reaction to terrible performances and if Monique's ability to discuss the topic is anything like the author's, then I'd view the Produce Pelting reaction par for the course.
IIRC Produce Pelting is not a new thing or exclusive to Monique, but I could be wrong. However, seeing what else has happened in the story, for much smaller reasons, it feels like people are taking in comics term relatively small thing and making it much bigger. In earlier strips, Slick would be often treated much worse and suffer much more. Furthermore, there should be noted that before the event she essentially told the audience to go fuck themselves. She intentionally insults and antagonizes her audience (which begs the question, why are they coming to see her and why does she go to them?), then is "surprised" that they get angry (and reach in typical comic strip fashion). Furthermore, there also the fact that she refuses to see that Slick might be concerned for her. They used to be friends, two people who had fun together. Now, Slick can't even talk to Monique because Monique sees Patriarchy everywhere, even where it isn't.
It's been pointed out somewhere else that the way Monique and her fans act toward each other is a parallel to Tatsuya Ishida and the strip's detractors since the Sisterhood took over: both acts now seem to consist of the creator bashing the audience over the head with feminist tracts and insulting those who don't like it, while the fans of both continue reading it despite hating how it's going. The intended allegory is probably that the creators of both works will not stop their work for some detractors and they can screw off if they want them to change. From Monique's perspective, at least, I think it's an idea that if she stops her act, she'll be letting the jerks in the audience have their way. From at least her, it's an act of rebellion against the Patriarchy, which does make sense. The main issue is I think Tatsuya Ishida is severely stereotyping his strip's audience by saying that any dissenters are perverts who just want to see tons of fanservice again. While I don't doubt that there are detractors like this, I really don't think this is even the majority. I think the solid majority of the strip's detractors have reasonable complaints about the strip's writing, or fully support feminism, but wish it wasn't the new focus of the strip, or at least wish it was done less anvilliciously. I think that's the main issue with both acts and the strip Slick was probably trying to make: even if you're making a good point, people probably won't want to hear it if you're just relentlessly beating them over the head with it, and if you know that the people you do it to react badly and/or violently, then it's at least partially your fault for smacking the beehive like that.
I saw it as both were right, to an extent (but both were mangling the message). This is a version of an actual argument between other feminists. The argument of "is being cautious and aware of your safety just an appeasement to your opponents?" has gone back and forth for a long time. Some feminists say limiting what you say or do out of fear of reprisal is tacitly approving of the patriarchy. Others say you have to pick your battles and try to win the game on inches. Neither are exactly wrong, but finding a middle ground is difficult, not to mention it can dissolve to hot-tempered name calling if it's not done delicately.
I think it can be simplified; is it preventing you from reaching your goals? Are your goals to persuade people, or to force them to change things? If it's the former, you need to not alienate your audience. If the latter, then that begs the question of how oppressed you can be if you can force your "oppressors" to do what you want. There's also the false binary of "feminists vs. opponents", where "opponent" is anyone who's not a feminist. That sort of rhetoric not only alienates non-feminists on its own, it promotes an adversarial feminist mindset where a persuasive one is often more appropriate. I've even seen feminists who said, in effect, that it was either the aggressive approach or nothing at all. They didn't even acknowledge that a less hostile advocacy existed.
Part of the problem is that the soft handed approach was tried for quite a while, and it didn't do a whole lot. Consider that the fight for Women's Suffrage in the U.S. started basically at the birth of the nation in 1756, and after numerous back and forth attempts to give them the right to vote, only got the 19th Amendment in 1920. Now compare some of the issues that have become accepted as clearly wrong since feminism started becoming more aggressive in the 60s and 70s. An aggressive platform DOES have merits. It just needs to be tempered with reason.
Which misses my secondary point; if aggressive methods are so effective, how oppressed were those women in the first place? Women in the UK basically got suffrage for asking; men died by the millions in WWI. Yet suffragates are the ones who "fought" for the franchise. Heck, suffragettes occasionallycommitted what would now be considered acts of terrorism, and stillbreak laws (specifically, the fire code) to silence "Them"note There's evidence many of those protesting didn't even know who was halving the talks or what they were about, since they were still talking about incest at the second talk, six months later.. Which leads to the next question; how "effective" do feminists need to get? What productive purpose do things likethis have? And if "Big Red" is so isolated, why did Jezebel, the most popular feminist website, have an article lauding her without mentioning the whole "mocking suicide" thing?
Secondly, while some feminists do have the "Us vs Them" mentality, most do have a clear idea of who the "opponents" are. They might not like people who are simple apathetic to the cause, but they do not view them as active antagonists.
That "aggressive/Us vs. Them" mentality is exactly what I was referring to. And as for the target identification, I refer you to the second Big Red video above. And the harassment Erin Pizzey got for trying to bring attention to male abuse. And the fact that critics of feminism, even mild ones, have been blocked on several UK mobile networks and web filters. Feminists online have been complaining about friendzones and nice guys and fedoras on dating sitesmen taking up "too much" space on public transit. And that's a popular tumblr. I can go on. Heck, feminism regularly asserts that M>F rape and abuse are generally condoned in western society, which is manifestly false. Well, depending on whatever a given feminist's definition of "rape culture" is this week.
Am I the only one who thinks that Tatsuya Ishida pretty much described himself in this strip?
I think it shows that Slick would be more inclined (or less afraid) to do good things if things didn't bite him on the ass all the time.
Okay so this is me trying to keep out of as much social justice of both sides, but why is it that the Devil is running something that only negatively affects one half of the population? I mean this is the devil we are talking about, and not the one who's a misunderstood okay guy. No this guy is apparently really evil. But so far what he's done has only affected one side of the earth's population, and the guys seem to be well off. Ignoring the obvious social justice logic of that men are evil women are saints and the whole "The devil is the cause of all evil in the world including subugation of women" bit that actually takes away from the message. Isn't the evil devil... well? Evil? He is going to screw over everybody, stuff like that?
Well thanks for letting me know. That helps clear up some stuff in a sense. Which brings me to the next question, why is he being subtle about about Men's issues while still being in your face about women's?
I think this one does work because the way it hurts men is more subtle in real life. The way it hurts women is more noticeable because they're the ones being "actually" hurt by it. On the opposite side, many believe that misogyny is not in the inherent nature of men, especially in enlightened times like nowadays, and that it is taught to males as children, whether it be by their parents or guardians, the media, or their culture. It is not as easy to see these issues, or to take the men's side of things, because men are conditioned to be the aggressors in the equation. Of course, it doesn't help that these issues are rarely brought up in the strip at all, instead portraying men as Always Chaotic Evil, but the issues are there.
One of those issues is that society encourages everyone to ignore men's problems, including men themselves, and to prioritize the well-being of women. For example, men are more likely to be victims of violent crime, including murder. More likely to be erased as rape and abuse victims, even by law. In fact, they can be blamed for their own abuse under the assumption the women is acting in "(pre-emptive) self-defense". And there's actually good evidence indicating that men make up as many rape and [[www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm abuse]] victims as women, or at least significantly more than most people think. Even many feminists use Insane Troll Logic to claim that men are never the "real" victims of sexism, they just get the "side effects" of sexism targeted at women. It's not "less subtle". Everyone's just trained not to notice.
Considering that Tatsuya mocks Slick's misunderstanding of The Bechdel Testhere, are there more than a few pages where it's passed? I mean, ever since it became feminist we've seen some new female characters, but all they seem to talk about is how men are such sexist pigdogs—so they're still talking about men for the most part.
Yeah they are still going. It's good Tats is passionate about feminism. But he isn't going to let it die down. So, it's between Lil'E and Feminism now.
I think I have nearly all my questions answered. But why is there a train of thought that Xanthe a deconstruction of radical feminism? I can understand the idea that she might be a deconstruction seeing as she herself is cold, uncaring, does not want male allies, cries about no male allies, has friends that cry "Kill all men", seems to run her tricycle off the tears of men whether their suffering is deserved or not, and is actively different from the old lady running the feminist movement, and seems too young to fully understand that feminism is not causing death, destruction, pain, misery of anyone. I can get that, the last bit about her being too young may be a sign that she's a deconstruction, but I don't think she is a deconstruction as she is missing the vital part of deconstruction and parody; awareness. So far no one has called her out on her actions, pointed out what she is doing is crazy, or even brought some realism to what she is doing. It could just be me not seeing it or being a cynic, but I'm a bit wary of the idea that she is a deconstruction, if she is, let's hope the awareness starts and people on the good side start calling out how crazy she is acting or what she is saying.
I think the inconsistent messaging lends fuel to the notion that the author is actually going somewhere with all this and is just taking his sweet time getting there. Like someone else said above, I really hope so.
So with the introduction of the White Matrix from the dark skin Sisterhood member, does that mean it's now White Males who are to blame for the problem of the world in Sinfest?
Isn't it because The Devil was expecting her to write the opposite of what he was saying? To make the sisterhood look bad? Blatant Lies, anyone?
Is the latest comic mocking the aborition debate with "Life starts in the womb?" thing, or what?
I don't know. But I do know that was the most funniest think ever. If only for how insane idiotic that logic was.
Okay, I'm wondering, as of the latest comic who are we supposed to root for? The Feminist girls? Or Slick? If we are meant to root for the Feminist girls, why? Slick seems actually pretty damn miserable, wishing for a time retcon seems like a serious thing now doesn't it? Wasn't Monique created by god as a companion for Slick? Hasn't Slick tried to change only to get shot down multiple times by nearly everyone? Who are we supposed to root for?
Slick still doesn't know about Devil Slick either, so he's even more screwed over than he knows. That whole thing confuses me. Sometimes it seems like Devil Slick is something possessing Slick, sometimes Devil Slick goes off and does things independently while Slick is asleep. What exactly is he supposed to be?
It's why I find it so hard to root for any characters, it's just confusing, and Slick really seems to get the shit end of the stick always, are we supposed to laugh at that?
the Author seems to subscribe to the Charlie Brown belief that making a the main character miserable is supposed to be funny.
Well then. It's only funny for so long, does anyone find what's happening funny?
Just the author.
I don't really think you're supposed to be "rooting" for anyone. Sure, Slick is trying to be better, but he's not very good at it yet. I don't see this as much different from older comics where he'd try to be smooth, but fail miserably. And the Sisterhood is fighting for a good cause, but are still not entirely likable characters (Xanthe especially). I don't think that's on accident.
Okay... So... there is now a new comic out, where Fangirl is going through her daily life, and she finds something online going "What about the men? Patriarchy hurts men too! Men Men Men! ME! ME! ME!" Is... Is Tats just going to go back on what he's said in previous comics about how "Yes the Patriarchy hurts men too because it keeps them locked on ridged gender roles!" Or what? I wouldn't even note this if this was ignoring your own words. What is this comic? Is this mocking the Fangirl's life? Is it a Feminist thing? What is this? What do people even think of this?
I think the bigger question is this: what does she mean by "hitting peak dudebro"?
It's mocking the MR As who decide to derail the discussion and make it all about the men. It's not poking fun at men who suffer at the hands of the patriarchy, but rather, it's poking fun at those who refuse to discuss and acknowledge the suffering that women go through because of the patriarchy.
You might want to tell the likes of Michael Kimmel, Warren Farrell, Jennifer Newsom, and roughly 2,000 people that feminism's remit doesn't actually include men's issues. Because they, and everyone else who discusses "toxic masculinity", disagrees with you.
...And now she's going through some kind of Heroic Breakdown. Wah-wah. By the way, does the patriarchy affect men in a bad way at all? Because I'm pretty sure that not every single guy in the world is a Jerk Ass.
Increasingly, people - men and women, MRA, feminist and other - ask why a "gender equality" movement has almost exclusively acknowledged the problems of only one gender. Feminism's response is generally to portray them as people trying to "derail" discussions of women's problems, as if it were impossible to discuss both. I've seen feminists start discussions of MRAs and their claims, only to declare it "derailing" when they're corrected and contradicted. Note how our pal above assumes that MRAs necessarily haven't suffered themselves, and that they necessarily refuse to acknowledge that women have problems too, and that they're all men, all of which are wrong. note Also, some feminists have actively broken the law trying to silence MRAs and others who were trying to have their own talks about men's issues, not "derailing" anything. Note that Xanthe literally runs her trike on her symbolic indifference to men's issues, so the strip is sending, at best, a very mixed message.
There's a new comic now, where Monique is still enduring the wrath of her haters, when her shadow starts looking like her if she was a demon and hands her a pitchfork, which (probably) shapeshifts into a microphone. Is Monique starting to realize that maybe her efforts are futile and the only way to get rid of a-holes like her audience is to Do Unto Others (as in unleash her wrath on them)?
Not quite. She was realizing that rather than using her words to educate she was using them to seek vengeance. She did not notice her shadow until she started aggressively walking closer to the edge of the stage - closer to the audience. Whatever she was going to do before she noticed her shadow... it wasn't going to be nice.
Isn't it weird that no one in the comics is questioning the presence of the Sisterhood? If I'm not mistaken, they just popped out of nowhere some time ago and now they're infiltrating the comic hogging the spotlight. And what happened to that green demon girl that gave Slick his Superpowered Evil Side? Did she just disappear altogether? Is she even aware of the damage she has done? Where's Laser-Guided Karma when you want it to happen?
That would presume that women in Sinfest can be capable of being guilty, even on their own. She's not in because she wouldn't fit in with the Sisterhood or the Patriarchy Stuff, apparently Evil Slick is just there to help Tats state his political points. Just like questioning the Sisterhood. Monique couldn't go "Um. This just happened. And you just appeared out of nowhere, where are you from? Do you live around here? Care to explain to me why it looks like the Matrix?" Because questioning the Sisterhood, where it came from, and it's validity would probably undermine it in universe, and if Tats truly believes in the Sisterhood, he won't let that happen.
To be totally fair, I don't think it's really fair to expect Absinthe to be punished for what happened to Slick, since there's no evidence that she even knows it happened. Also, her later characterization paints her as not being nearly evil enough to inflict this sort of thing on somebody intentionally.
Going off of the last headscratchers, what about the 1 million men Monique has sent to hell? What about them? How come they are rarely mentioned anymore? Or is A Million Is a Statistic in effect here?
They were men, so by this comic's logic they were going to hell just for existing anyways
Has it ever been explained just how Monique tempted men to hell in the first place? Why did they go to hell? Did they sell their souls for girlfriends as hot as Monique? Did they damn themselves for experiencing lust?
Assuming that the Devil was telling the truth about Monique damning so many men, why would he do so in the first place? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave her be so she would continue to get more souls for hell?
So there's this comic with Evil!Slick walking around his mirror world and comparing the regular world (which is colorful and filled with people) with the mirror world (which is dark and empty). In fact, even the strip club in the mirror world is practically a ghost building. Is this the part when Evil!Slick starts thinking "nobody likes me"?
If it is don't expect it to last long.
As of the latest comic, Tangerine has run into the Sisterhood and is gleefully cutting into a practice dummy labelled "Douche Bag". So is she Obliviously Evil? Has Ishida really fallen so far that he is willing to use an Ensemble Darkhorse in this underhanded manner? I mean, what's next? Is Lil' E gonna be labelled dudebro? At this point, it wouldn't surprise me.
New rule of Sinfest. If it exists, he will use it with the sisterhood.
It got worse, she's being offered a place in a the Sisterhood. Expect her to join them in fighting off the evils of "teh menz"
Dear bloody God, is Tats set on ruining the few likeable things left in Sinfest?!
Considering Tangerine has a habit of just going along with whatever seems like fun at the time, then horribly mangling it and applying it wrong, this could very well turn out to be a sort of misguided extremism realisation for the Sisterhood. She did it for Seymour and Lil' E.
So it's possible that Tangerine will make the Sisterhood realize, "Oh my god, we're assholes!". Hmm, I'd like to see how that will turn out. Also, based on the big sister/little brother relationship Tangerine probably has with Lil' E, I have a feeling that if the Sisterhood tries to rip on him the way they do with other guys, they're all going to be on the receiving end of Tangerine's sword (if you catch my drift).
Aaactually, many real feminists have a tendency to rationalize extremists by saying they're misguided. Or just saying that they don't count as feminists, or aren't representative, or their feminism is about equality.
Well, when you put it like that, I guess it all just boils down to whether Lil' E is regarded as a dudebro or not. So, would he really be considered a dudebro? No, right? Also, should we really consider Tangerine and Lil' E as bad guys based on their recent actions?
Anyone notice the Voltron references showing up lately? If Seymour fantasizes Jesus doing...stuff with the Voltron Force, does that mean Tats is something of a Voltron fan (but not as much as Seymour)?
I've heard talk that Tats has taken his comics to his forums so only his registered followers can read them now. Is this true or just a rumor?
I was wondering why it hasn't been updated for two days. Of course, I was hoping that it meant he was ending the comic.
And now it's down again.
When did the reading boy, can't remember his name, get turned into a frog?
Criminy got turned into a frog a few strips before the one you probably just read by one of Fuschia's incantations. Word of advice: when you see a new plot thread, backtrack to see if it's mentioned anywhere else.
Is Tangerine aware that she technically threatened a man who politely asked how she and the Fembot were doing? I mean, this is Sinfest so clearly the man had some evil intentions if I understand the logic of male characters in this comic, but what on grounds is "How do you do?" worthy of having a sword pointed at you?
Honestly, I chalk that one up to poor word comprehension on Tangerine and Maverick's part. They may have thought he meant "How do you do what you do?". Or maybe Tangerine just got through some offscreen Sisterhood brainwashing.