The problem here, as far as I can tell, isn't whether the woman was depicted incorrectly in this comic, because it seems to me like the characters in the comic are completely made up. I don't have a roster for the Sapheads, but I can't find any reference to a Tiffany that's on their team, nor any of the other names.

If these are characters that were created specifically for the comic, then the female character is just a projection of what the artist/author thought she should be: a pretty, but dumb, girl that asks a lot of questions then dismisses everything as stuff she can't understand. That's a pretty lazy choice for a foil, at the least, and I can definitely understand how someone would be offended at that.

If there really was a woman on their team that acted like that, and this is some document of what happened, then you have a point. But it really looks like a one-dimensional stereotypical character just cooked up for the occasion.

Maybe one of the Sapheads can clear that up.

Why does everyone jump to the conclusion that this is sexism and not the author poking fun at someone they know? I have worked in IT now for over 10 years and I have know both men and women that have behaved the way the female character does. I am an equal opportunity hater in that regard. I treat everyone as equals until I get to know them. Then I judge their level of intelligence or lack there of.

I don't here anyone complaining that the guys in the comic strip are the stereo typical geeks. Not all geeks were hoodies, have long hair and where T-shirts with geeky saying on them. There are a lot that do and that is cool the author has no social responsibility to portray all types of geek proportionately. I also don't think it was the author's intention to stereo type all geek girls. Who know maybe it is their fantasy to have some non technical girl hanging around bestowing the glory of all things they do then more power to them.

I know we talked on IM but I wanted to say a bit here to "for the record". My fight isn't if Tiffany was depicted stereotypically, which I can agree she was (and might in real life fit that bill).

1. It is more towards the why get offended by a Cartoon that may or may-not be a real person? I mean, I can understand if they were depicting someone that was well respected as dumb, but as you say, this is very possibly a fictional character. So why get offended?

2. The other thing I was trying to express was using any possibly "ist" occurrence to express your distaste for the people that "ism" as a whole.

Yes, it's the stereotypical dumb blonde (w/ black hair). But she is never said to be a hacker, or even technically inclined. And as you so aptly put, she makes the story flow and stops the other characters to explain what's going on. I for one appreciate her existence, because her questioning helped me learn from the cartoon.

I can understand it if female security professionals are offended by something like this for many of the reasons shazzzam stated on her blog. The security field isn't an easy one to gain respect in, in the first place, and on top of that a female has to overcome a set of perceptions a lot of people already have about what a "hacker" should be like. I don't know percentages or anything, but I'd say that there are enough people in this field that wouldn't give a female security pro the same benefit of doubt as a male to make it harder to gain respect. Then you have a contingent of the security community that don't have the best social skills, and assume that any female around is just someone's girlfriend or looking for a l33t boyfriend. These are things that you and I don't have to contend with.

If anything, it's more offensive as a cartoon than as a depiction of a real person. As a cartoon with made up characters, the author/artist has a choice as to who they put into what roles, and how they fill them out. I'm sure the author/artist didn't set out specifically to be sexist (I'm not sure that many people do), but they wound up doing the same thing that someone would do to marginalize someone in person: depict them as their stereotype of what a female in security is.

In the first panel, she's shown as a part of the team of hackers, with the role of "cheer-leader". She, specifically, isn't said to be a hacker or technically inclined, but I can understand why someone would see that the implication is that the woman's place on this team is to cheer on the rest, rather than fulfilling a "productive" role.

As I said before, she's the comic's foil, and a lazy one at that. The "hacking" characters could have just as easily asked each other the same questions, however it makes them look more "l33t" that they never have to, instead having this one-dimensional female character ask the questions for them only to fade back into confusion.

I agree that the cartoon isn't sexist, and most likely reflects the artist's real life experience of someone's girlfriend or something. And I also agree that it's not worth getting excited over - people should learn to choose their battles.

That said, my first thought about the cartoon was, "Why is the girl the no-nothing cheerleader"? It may not be the responsibility of every creative person to be politically correct, but this particular choice of the cheerleader seemed to just be more stupid than sexist. She just served no purpose that I could identify.

Think of it this way: maybe there is a real African-American somewhere who likes watermelon and fried chicken. Maybe there is a real Jew who cares only about money, running the world, and eating Christian babies. That's not the point. Can you really not see that this comic was perpetuating a stereotype that we already have a hard enough time trying to kill off? You're just making it worse by accusing the person who pointed this out of the same "ism" offense, which is laughable in the extreme. (It's called "blaming the victim," by the way.)

The only upside to this whole thing is that the comic in question has no influence to speak of, and the twit who thought it was a great idea to draw it is already losing at life without even realizing it. He's going the way of the blackface minstrels.

We'll all stand around for a while, marveling at his lack of clue, and then move on.

Okay, I've been emailing for the past 4 days non-stop about this topic (obviously not about this post).

I like the comic, but I can see both sides. I have a slightly different view on things though.

I liked the part you added about the old marine joke, a lot can be learned from it even though it's crass.

I believe that females (and males as well) should have the right chance to make a conscious choice about their personal image, be it provocative or not, and they have the right to be taken seriously despite those stereotypes present about how they present themselves.**

**I am partially quoting @rogueclown in a dialogue between us, but I couldn't say it any better!

Talk about stirring a hornets nest.......

I really don't think that this is meant to portray a female hacker, as it is a clueless person in the group. (just happens to be a woman in this case). Seriously, I could see myself transposing the clueless girl in this group with a male. I'm thinking a man dressed up in a suit, ala manager of some sort.

But this makes another point; The "-ism" believers would immediately jump on my reference to the manger being male. So if I put the manager in a business skirt, would I then be accused of being a sexist assuming all "women" managers are clueless.

I will concede that woman in IT and/or hackers are some what going uphill. There just aren't that many out there statistically, so for some they don't know how to approach them. I've seen men and woman approach IT woman differently than they would a male IT person. However, like mubix said, I don't think hackers give much thought about your gender, race, religion, etc. Who really knows what gender/race/religion/sexual preference is behind that hacker handle? Does it matter?

I think the point was missed with the joke and the immediate observation. Turds come from all walks of life. Be it white, black, Latino, Mexican, male, female,etc.etc.etc.........there are turds in every group. I saw a lot of turd male Marines too....disproportionately more than with the female Marines. (this is by Marine standards people....not "normal" standards....you have to understand Marine culture) This all depends on the ones you came in contact with (no puns intended) at that point in time.

If there were only one thing I would've changed about that cartoon, I would have given the girl blonde hair..... (there I go....stereotyping people by their hair color)

Hey mubix,

I'll have a better go at summarizing what we discussed on IRC once I've had some sleep, but I just wanted to share that the Sapheads have issued a statement and apology:

http://hackerschool.org/DefconCTF/17/B300.html" rel="nofollow">http://hackerschool.org/DefconCTF/17/B300.html

Apparently Tiffany's their binary analyst, which is good to hear - I look forward to reading the rest of the comics without having my teeth set on edge :)

-Leigh

Having an open mind is fine; but empathy is also needed…

In my opinion (only my opinion) one shouldn’t be hurting sentiments be it nationalistic, philosophical, religious, etc. in a public forum; What happens is some one gets hurt > they react and start the fire > fire spreads > fire hurts everyone… point here is fire hurts everyone (community).

That comic is fiction, there are dumb people (male/female) in all the industries; and naïve also exist.

I read that not as her being the binary analyst, but that her character's more skilled in crypto and forensics. Apparently they don't have a female member IRL, so they based her on a Korean singer. Bizarre :). Either way, I think it's good that the author/artist is going to balance things out.

Good points all around, from both Mubix and the comments. I don't think anyone is wrong in their feelings of the issue, and frankly it honestly seems like everyone is finding common ground. Now, if only we ( a generalized term) did not react so quickly to each other and project our own fears and insecurities, we would really be getting somewhere. We seem to get hung up on the words of others before really considering what is said and by whom is saying it. Words are words, actions speak louder than words, and sticks and stones, blah blah blah. Good perspectives from all sides. That's kinda what WE do right? ( we as in hackers)

Reading that comic again, Tiffany seems to fit a Watson role where the other characters are playing Holmes. She's naturally curious about a topic she has little experience in, possibly the same reason a third party would be reading the comic. Tiffany displays a natural curiosity of the task at hand, something that should be encouraged in the community, so she asks questions: If you don't ask, you don't learn. Therefore, that she's female is irrelevant since she's taking the place of the reader's voice for the sake of education.

I say more questions from every ethnicity/gender/age and more polite, educating answers from the same!

Keep in mind that the comic has been modified now. It's pretty good right now, as far as I can tell, and I agree with your assessment.

[...] #2 - Sexism, Religion, and Hackers: This is a topic that isn’t discussed enough. While DojoSec’s Marcus J. Carey did a v-blog post about sexism in the security field a little over two months ago, there hasn’t been much discussion about it since. That’s why it was refreshing to see @mubix respond to a post by @shazzzam and others about females in information security. Let’s be honest: it’s not fair, and there is a bias. But as @mubix points out, “[s]exism, and for that matter, any “-ism” is flawed on both sides.” This is a highly controversial post, but one that should be read. You can read the full post here. [...]