The Oklahoma Daily ran a cartoon on the opinion page Wednesday that has offended many members of the OU community.
I’m taking this opportunity to shed some light on the situation and apologize to those who misinterpreted the cartoon and were offended.
The cartoon was centered around the possibility of condoms being made available in the basement of the dorms on campus. It depicted a male walking into the laundry room of the dorms, a woman standing near a washer or dryer and condom machine. The next frame is a shot of the woman up close. The last scene is the laundry room door being locked.
According to comments on OUDaily.com, many viewed this as suggesting rape.
Schuyler Crabtree, the cartoonist, said he wanted the cartoon to be satirical and poke fun at the idea that easier access to condoms would lead to more sex in the dorms.
Max Avery, the opinion editor, and I didn’t interpret the cartoon as suggesting rape when we viewed it the night before it was published. The suggestion of rape definitely did not cross either of our minds. If it had, it would not have been published.
It was only after hearing complaints and reading comments on OUDaily.com did I understand the connection some had made between the cartoon and rape.
I would like to assure all of you no one at The Daily, including myself, think rape or sexual violence should be taken lightly.
I hope those of you who were offended will accept our apology and continue to help us learn in the future by sending us letters to the editor, commenting on OUDaily.com and calling to let us know your thoughts and concerns. And thanks to those of you who have already done that in this situation.
— Jamie Hughes is editor-in-chief of The Oklahoma Daily and a political science junior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
peachesformeplease 2 years, 3 months ago
It's just so odd to me that NO ONE at the daily saw the glaring resemblance to a rape fantasy. I don't even consider myself a feminist- I have problems with the word, but I was immediately shocked by the cartoon. It doesn't take any level of sensitivity to see it.
Also, I'm not a women's studies major. Far from it, I'm a Chemistry major. But I was still outraged. The fact that Crabtree is trying to blame the women's studies students solely for the controversy is an insult to the intelligence of the MANY students and professors of all studies who found this to be a TERRIBLE cartoon.
acornvoter 2 years, 3 months ago
Funny how the editor-in-chief uses the word misinterpreted. Because from my point of view, it was a valid interpretation to see the cartoon as both offensive and problematic. A dismissive apology is, i suppose, better than none at all.
hmanwarren1 2 years, 3 months ago
Who got fired for this?
ThatOneGuyFromThatOnePlace 2 years, 3 months ago
Why is there any debate over artistic merit or implied/hidden meanings? A poorly drawn comic by some college kid with a weak sense of humor isn't exactly art. It's a rhetorical question by the way. I didn't read the 4-part monstrosity up top, and I'm definitely not interested in some long-winded explanation by an overzealous idiot.
mustafa 2 years, 3 months ago
The artist's intent was clear enough except for those who have a knee jerk reaction about rape. The meaning might be clearer if the last frame showed the girl hanging out a Do Not Disturb sign, but then someone might say that makes OU girls look easy.
The cartoon’s comments were really something, especially with all the guys who felt compelled to go on record as saying rape is bad and they’re against it. Who at OU is pro-physical assault? Just how credible is a rape in a dorm laundry. How many in the last ten years?
Oh, and laughing at rape-jokes, no matter how funny, is also bad.
sandra 2 years, 3 months ago
braceyourself, you're right. Its certainly rape when a woman has sex with a man who's too drunk to consent or when a man has sex with a man, or a woman has sex with a woman. I shouldn't have made a gender distinction here. It was insensitive and thoughtless and I will try not to make that mistake again in the future.
borenismyhomie 2 years, 3 months ago
"I’m taking this opportunity to shed some light on the situation and apologize to those who misinterpreted the cartoon and were offended."
Read: we really really messed up but are too proud to admit that the cartoon was not only offensive but just BAD.
NO ONE understood the supposed original intent of the cartoon because it was BAD. It was really really bad. And for the artist to get so angry and indignant is just silly. You CHOSE to publish your work dude. Don't be shocked when it gets criticized.
This really reflects poorly on the OUDaily. And this gets sent out through the AP wires! I'm so embarrassed.
sandra 2 years, 3 months ago
"Misinterpreted"? Really? Because when Schuyler attempted to defend himself, he said that the girl's consent was implied by the way she dressed and leaned over the washer and by the use of condoms.
While he did not conceive of that as rape, and therefore that is not his stated INTENT, consent is NEVER IMPLIED, regardless of what someone wears or how they position their bodies. Similarly, while I'm sure there are men don't consider having sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent or even passed out rape, and therefore it is not their INTENT, it is still RAPE. And I know for a fact that condoms are often used in those situations.
So there was really no misinterpretation happening here. The author's intent is not the only valid interpretation. This apology is insulting. As Hughs and Avery have already showed questionable editorial judgment by letting this cartoon be published, perhaps someone should look over Hughs' apology letters before they are published to check for condescending and insulting rhetoric.
mythman 2 years, 3 months ago
I am willing to accept the Daily's apology, and Schuyler's clarification, but I still await Schuyler's admission that HE made the mistake.
Very few people who saw the cartoon knew beforehand that Schuyler "wanted the cartoon to be satirical" in response to concerns about sex and condoms. Nor did the cartoon itself give us the information necessary to come to Schuyler's (and only Schuyler's) interpretation. We're not mind-readers, for crying out loud.
yostarica 2 years, 3 months ago
Dear "acornvoter,"
You have the best username in the history of usernames. That's all.
PS the OU Daily is crap, but they care about your opinions. Unless that means actually responding to them in more than a superficial way.
robi6087 2 years, 3 months ago
braceyourself, i am sincerely sorry for your experience. I did not mean to imply that its easier for male victims to cope, only to point out that generally a females choice of clothing makes people say she was asking for it, or that she is just easy- whereas when a male is a victim this sort of ludicrous excuse doesn't play into the equation. I'm sorry i didn't lay out my point correctly.
Lansdallius 2 years, 3 months ago
I didn't see it as rape, I saw it as consensual action between the two parties. I could kinda see how someone would jump to such a conclusion, though. Now, if there was one more panel, showing the two of them buying a condom or something to that effect, we may not be having this discussion. That being said, it's a little refreshing to see the artist defend himself from negative interpretations rather than simply cave and demand forgiveness on an interpretation that wasn;t his intent.
BeatrixComet 2 years, 3 months ago
Pt. 4:
If any apologies should be delivered, they should be delivered from the mouths of the students who presumed this cartoon supported rape. Not only because the assumption of rape is not logically supported in this cartoon, but also because the vast majority of students who made this assumption did not even attempt to conduct the simplest research and contact me to find out exactly what the cartoon represented. You should apologize to your parents and professors for wasting their time and money by failing to utilize the assets and knowledge provided to you via your academic career to conduct simple research methods.
I hope this message clears up any confusion concerning the content of the above cartoon. While you should feel free to comment in response to this post, please do not make the mistake that I will read any comments written in response to this message, as I have now more than adequately provided you with the information you need to interpret the above cartoon accurately.
Rape is NOT funny, NOR is the fact that I actually had to explain that condoms don't imply rape (along with the rest of the information in this message) to educated college students.
Radiohead 2 years, 3 months ago
I can't believe he asked for an apology, we don't owe him s hit.
BeatrixComet 2 years, 3 months ago
Crabtree may have said to you that he meant the cartoon to be satirical, but his Facebook profile note reads differently. He is very, very unapologetic and he is proud of his drawing. The following is from his note, verbatim:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/schuyler-crabtree/cartoon-from-wed-21010/295629257723
My name is Schuyler Crabtree, and yes, I did draw the above cartoon - with great pride I might add.
This is a fairly interesting series of comments... Many of which are rather surprising to me.
While I normally do not clarify or explain any kind of artwork I create, I will make an exception this time. Most of the art I create is intended to be interpreted as it is seen by the viewer. The cartoons I draw for the daily, however, are not designed in this same fashion. This cartoon, as well as any other cartoons I have drawn for the daily, has one message. I know this because I made it that way. So, there really should be no further discussion about what it means; it means what I drew it to mean.
I recently heard there was discussion about installing condom dispensing machines in the basements of the dorms - this cartoon is a response to that idea.
There are some people who oppose making contraceptives available to young adults because they believe it will incite unbridled sexual activity. This cartoon depicts a situation where two young people behave in exactly that manner: sex is implied immediately after encountering each other because condoms are readily available. I drew this scenario because I believe that people who think the availability of contraceptives leads to unbridled sexual activity are incredibly naive to young adult sexual behavior. I also do not believe that pre-marital sex is necessarily something negative, nor do i believe that anyone should try to inhibit other people's decision regarding sex by making safe-sex practices less available. By presenting a scenario that depicts the opposite of what I personally believe in regards to contraceptives, my aim was to show just how unrealistic and unintelligent the argument against the availability of contraceptives is. This method of humor is not uncommon in our society.
In this cartoon, there is a gap in time between each frame that does not show the viewer directly what happens during each moment between the beginning and the end of the cartoon. It is often necessary to leave moments in time out of cartoons because it would take up far too much space, it would take too long to read, the reader would lose interest over time, and most importantly: not all moments in time are necessary for telling the story. When there IS a gap in time not shown, the viewer should assume the simplest and most logical flow of events from one panel to the next.
Apparently, some people did not make the simplest, most logical assumptions between each frame; otherwise, there would be no need to discuss this.
BeatrixComet 2 years, 3 months ago
Pt. 2:
So what actually happens in the cartoon, and what assumptions can be made from that? In this cartoon, a young adult is taking laundry to the basement of the dorms. Next, we see a young woman leaning over a washing machine with a condom dispensing machine in the background (zoomed in on underneath). A close up of the woman's breasts and butt are shown next. And finally, we see a door closing and locking.
Most likely everyone assumed the person in the elevator was a man (whether it be by the lack of curves in the body, rough-shaped hands, or attire). This assumption is simple and logical for most people. Unfortunately, this is a very critical forum, so I will continue with that spirit in mind. I did in fact draw this character as a man, but the assumption that he/she is a man (without the specific knowledge of creative intention only I possess) is prejudice.
The frame depicting the interior of the laundry room with the woman, machine, and condom dispenser is very clear. The assumption that the "man" entered the room is never actually confirmed, however.
Next up, anatomy. Why is it assumed the man is checking out the woman, and that the woman is not pushing her breasts out and leaning far over the washing machine to get the man's attention? To assume that the man is the "dirty" one in this situation with sex on his mind is sexist towards men.
When the door locks, the simplest and most logical assumption would be that something sexual or private is occurring between the two people. Astonishingly, some people made the complex and unfounded assumption that the woman was being raped by the man. This assumption is entirely sexist towards men. The idea that the man is locking the door, rather than the woman, is also an assumption made without evidence. So why would anyone assume rape? The cartoon doesn't show the woman consenting to sexual activity, but it also doesn't show the man consenting to sexual activity. Even if we do assume the man was checking out the woman rather than that she was trying to seduce him, checking someone out is a very different action from raping someone. It is unreasonable to assume a woman is going to be raped every time a man checks her out. Most importantly, the fact that this cartoon is about the availability of condoms should give the viewer the idea that the sex is safe and therefore consensual. I would hope that it is common knowledge that rape generally does not involve safe-sex practices like the use of contraceptives. This knowledge alone should be more than enough to lead viewers away from the idea of rape if they somehow find themselves entertaining the idea.
As I stated earlier, the simplest and most logical assumptions are exactly as I intended: The man and woman are both consenting to sexual activity with each other in the end. He is checking her out, and she is making her physical attractiveness known to him through her actions. Entirely consensual.
BeatrixComet 2 years, 3 months ago
Pt. 3:
Many of you are under the impression that this comic was drawn to appease you, make you laugh, or simply provide you with a moment of entertainment. This is simply not true. I draw comics for the daily because it is entertaining for me, and because a friend of mine asked me to draw cartoons containing my opinions for the paper; certainly not for public approval. If you understand and enjoy this, or any other cartoon I've drawn this semester, then I am happy to share the message with you. If you do not understand the cartoons I draw, or disagree with the message they send, then you probably shouldn't read them; save yourself the confusion or embarrassment from making sexist comments about things you've misinterpreted.
It is very unfortunate that some viewers did not properly view and analyze the cartoon as it was depicted, but rather developed ideas completely unrelated to the message of the cartoon. Many people interpreted the intended message with ease, and are unfortunately not represented strongly on this online forum; there is little need to discuss that which is straightforward.
It should be noted that one often finds what one is looking for. I imagine some people embittered by the ills of our society are looking for exactly the kind of thing they were able to procure from this cartoon.
It is highly disappointing that some bright young women (who will remain unnamed) involved with the Women's and Gender Studies program at OU, of all people, would actively work to incite further discourse in our community, constantly grabbing at any available media attention in order to fulfill their own desires, to the point of making highly sexist statements concerning men. Let's remember the real purpose of activism; it isn't a selfish cause. Activism should aim to ensure equality, support fairness, and pursue the TRUTH (among other things).
Those of you who have asked (or demanded) for an apology, you won't be getting one. And you don't deserve one.
BeatrixComet 2 years, 3 months ago
Even Crabtree's friends are telling him things such as: "This is a chance to learn something from this. In fact, I think this is a learning opportunity for everyone. Some people "out there" jumped to conclusions, and you misunderstand a few things. However: - I don't think the reactions were stupid - the way women dress does NOT imply consent - if the message of any cartoon should takes 2 pages to explain, it obviously was not effective in communicating whatever it was you intended to communicate"
Crabtree's reaction to comment was: let's go through your points, -The reactions aren't about intelligence. It's legitimate to be concerned about things if you honestly believe them to be intentionally offensive. But when I inform people of the reality of the situation, as I can because I created the situation the cartoon presents, there is no reason to continue to be upset. -the way the woman in the cartoon acts and dresses DOES imply consent, ONCE AGAIN, as I explained in my note because that's how I created her. -It doesn't take two pages to explain for a lot of people. And I'm well aware my art isn't for everyone - most people won't get a lot of the things I create this semester for the daily, as they havent understood them prior to this cartoon. It is not my intention to reach the people who do not understand my art, nor did I ask anyone to interpret it. If people want to interpret something wrong, and are determined to believe their wrong ideas, I can't do anything about that. My messages are not a debate. I made them with a meaning, and some people made their own meaning. I am not responsible for the meanings people insist on finding in places they don't exist.
Shanaynay 2 years, 3 months ago
Crabtree's response was more offensive than the cartoon. He won't even concede that someone could see this as rape or the objectification of women. On top of it, he wants an apology.
Jamie, why do you have to apologize for your sexist, misogynist, and privileged male staff?
TheTroll 2 years, 3 months ago
The cartoon needed one more panel in it to convey the idea of using the laundry room and condom machine to hook up. That's the idea I had when I read it. I can understand where the confusion could be made, but it might have been blown out of proportion a bit.
But when the writer comes on his Facebook to argue and stir up more trouble? Come on. If I were in charge, his cartoons would no longer be featured and the writers at the Daily would be restricted from social media. It's a tight line to ban communication like that, but if it interferes with work, do it.
Welcome to Bobo's Chicken: Part Two.
braceyourself 2 years, 3 months ago
"HOWEVER, even a male rape victim has no idea what it feels like to be raped as a woman, the consequences that follow regarding our male-dominated society, and the things people say to us as to why we were raped."
I have a real problem with this. I was raped as a male and went through a lot dealing with it. To assume that it's easier to be raped if you're a man is a huge assumption and very sexist.
"Similarly, while I'm sure there are men don't consider having sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent or even passed out rape, and therefore it is not their INTENT, it is still RAPE. And I know for a fact that condoms are often used in those situations."
I have a big problem with this too, Sandra. If a woman has sex with a man that is too drunk to consent, that's still rape too, and I find your comment very sexist. Having sex with anyone that's too drunk to consent is rape. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but when say things that imply that only men are rapists and women never take advantage of men, you lose serious credibility in my mind. Rape is rape, no matter the gender. I realize that it's more of a problem for women, but to exclude a group because it happens less to them is outrageous.
BeatrixComet 2 years, 3 months ago
Response from Crabtree to another commenter who had a problem with his cartoon:
I believe it is your responsibility to figure out what the comic means. You freely elected to read it. Did I ask you to read it? Did I say it was intended for you? No. And the audience I choose to address in my comic does NOT have to be the same audience that the daily as a whole addresses. If you can't handle something, don't look at it. And a much greater series of events are passed over in order to assume rape. Assuming casual sex would have taken less steps in this situation. once again, checking someone out is not a predatory action. I consider it a compliment when someone checks me out. Especially if I want them to, which, as I've explained to you, the girl in the comic DID want to be viewed. I made her that way. And that's not a bad thing. it's a potential personality trait for a lot of people. And I, as well as many other people found it VERY easy, actually to understand what my intent in the cartoon was. I am sorry you didnt. But your argument that it is impossible to find just isn't true. Whether you want to believe it or not, people did. If you can't possibly get it, then that is a lack of comprehension ability on your part. Which is not to say you are not intelligent, but that your way of viewing the world does not line up anywhere with mine. That's nobody's fault, but I don't deserve to be ridiculed because of that rift in our understandings of art and society. Also, I never said it was only women and gender studies majors, I mentioned an example that referred to some, but I never inferred they were the only ones. I did effectively communicate my message with the people are I'm like-minded with. And that was my goal. don't assume my goals or intentions for me.
Your misunderstandings do not mean you deserve blame, but your irresponsible actions by spreading slander(claiming negative intentions on my part), lies (UNIVERSAL negative reaction), assumptions (rape, among MANY other examples), prejudices (making men into criminals for being sexual beings while women are victims in sexual situations; assuming I dont understand the severity of rape because I'm not a woman) , and twisted words (ie. saying I inferred it was only W&GS) actually do warrant blame.
I cite your ills above because I am proving to you that unlike you, I am using valid arguments, and not twisted words, assumptions, or any of the above listed as the two of you are constantly using. You literally have no credibility at this point based on the terrible argumentative tactics the two of you have used.
BeatrixComet 2 years, 3 months ago
More from Crabtree (a PR major) - comments to responses from his Facebook post.
Commenter: Mocking the UNIVERSAL negative reaction of the Daily readership is probably a terrible PR move.
Crabtree: ...Why would you assume I care what kind of PR move I'm making about my cartoon? I'm not concerned about upsetting unreasonable people who refuse to view the truth about a situation even after it has been given to them repeatedly. This wouldn't be my market, and I dont want to go into PR. But thanks for the snide remark. I know your major also doesnt promote sexism towards men, and yet that's been very present in much of your speech; offending me repeatedly due to your lack of concern for anyone else or any kind of research behind the things you claim. And there's nothing universal about. Also something you would know if you had spoken to enough people. Becase I have spoken to enough people and I will admit I have recieved a wide range of reactions. None of which are universal. Exaggeration is not becoming, and it severely diminishes the validity of your argument.
peachesformeplease 2 years, 3 months ago
Beatrix, I'm not sure if rehashing an entire facebook conversation is necessary OR appropriate...
Crabtree executed his cartoon irresponsibly, and it's unfortunate that he was unable to recognize WHY he had offended so many. And his words here are really terrible, but he didn't plan on them being read by the entire Daily readership.
I'm glad the editors are apologizing- they should. But doesn't it seem like really terrible,offensive stuff is always slipping through the cracks? Is there a way to hold the Daily accountable? WHO actually reads all the content before it gets published?
robi6087 2 years, 3 months ago
Not only does this arrogant and misogynistic staffer refuse to apologize, he expects to be apologized to because a part of OU's student AND faculty population interpreted the cartoon as a satire about rape. I am aware that perhaps that is not what he intended the cartoon to portray, however, as a rape victim myself, i have tried to view the cartoon differently and still found it offensive. He even goes far enough in his note to backhand rape victims, saying that just because he is a male doesn't mean he doesn't understand rape. I am quite aware there are numerous male rape victims, and although i highly doubt mr crabtree is a victim, I realize it is not an issue for women only. HOWEVER, even a male rape victim has no idea what it feels like to be raped as a woman, the consequences that follow regarding our male-dominated society, and the things people say to us as to why we were raped. Crabtree suggests the way the girl is dressed implies consent. I hate to break it to you kid, but there is no such thing as "implied" sexual consent. Lose the attitude, grow a brain and issue an apology. Unless your overgrown male ego won't allow you to show even that small amount of compassion.