Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry

(no subject)


You know that blog post I made awhile ago about identification with one's characters and whatnot?

Well, t'other day, a Digger went up where the local healer asks her weight, and she replies "Two-twenty." I figured that was a pretty good weight for an anthropomorphic wombat--her height looks to be somewhere around four-to-four-and-a-half feet tall, she's got immense muscle mass compared to a human, seemed a fair size.

Speculation in the comments today was that the reason I picked this number is because *I* weigh 220, and Digger is my metaphor for myself.

One person, who ain't gettin' their comment approved, went so far as to link to a photo of me at my top weight (which was never anywhere near 220, but with the usual camera-adding-pounds problem looks plausible as such.) It's not a good photo. No good photos of me exist, for that matter.

In case anybody's wondering, I'm 5'7", I weigh a little under 170 (possibly less, I keep losing weight) and Digger is not my metaphor for myself.

Sheesh. I bet this doesn't happen to male cartoonists.

  • 1
I bet you look a hell of a lot better at 170 than I do. Prolly cuz you're 3" taller than me and therefor have more bone to spread it out over.

And no, this probably doesn't happen to male cartoonists. Or male authors. Or male artists. Sexism and looksism is so deeply ingrained into our society that we jump to conclusions about females in professions where a well known addage is "write/paint/cartoon from what you know."

Sure it does. People will whine that they make all their females perfect in appearance, just like their ideal woman.

Etc, etc.

  • 1