I remember that! I can see where there would be complaints, and it wasn't nearly his funniest, but I was okay with it. Perhaps because Larsen did it, so I'd know that it's him going off in the deep end. And I didn't see it when it was originally printed.
For all anyone knows, I could be a female masquerading as a male and then would what would be said about previous artwork.. I bet it would change..maybe just a little.
I'd have said the same thing.
There's been an interesting discussion going on in the school newspaper. It started with an anti-feminist column, and then there was a feminist response which said, "... women cannot be sexist. I do recognize that men are given societal expectations and requirements that seem to be a result of sexism, but you should keep in mind that the people who make sexism exist in the first place are men and you can’t actually oppress yourself. Women don’t oppress men. Men oppress women and men."
Now, I think that elsewhere she made some pretty good points. But there's been a reckoning with this statement, I think rightly so. She places blame for sexism too exclusively on men. Women can produce art that is considered sexist. They can certainly uphold the status quo. They can, as any of us can, "oppress."
Anyway, both authors have been receiving her reckoning, one for being sexist, the other for denying that she can be sexist.
But yes. If you, as a hypothetical woman, had drawn them, I would still observe how fun it looks, as compared to how uncomfortable it would be. I would still allow for some speculation about your artistic motive, and so on. It'd be the same, or at least very similar.
My return question to you, because I find it highly interesting, is why you think we should respond differently if a woman produces material that we find objectionable to her gender, as opposed to a man?