I got a reply, and (with permission) offer it here for posterity:

Hi XXXXXX,
 
I looked at the cartoon, and did not find it particularly offensive. I
+ did
not find it particularly funny either. I looked at it with my husband 
+who
works in IT, and he did not really find it funny either.
 
I agree with you that the cartoon is more about men's innate sexist jo
+kes,
rather than being sexist itself. But I am sure that there would be som
+e
women who would feel otherwise, and would feel that the cartoon is jus
+t one
of many examples of the objectification of women.
 
best wishes,
Nadje
 
 
On 29 August 2012 11:33, <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXXXXX.net> wrote:
 
> Hi XXXXXXXXX,
>  
> This is a kind of off the wall request.
>  
> I wonder if you would consider looking at a cartoon:
>  
>     <redacted>
>  
> And briefly offering your opinion on whether it is offensive to wome
+n?
>  
> This come about from an on-line discussion amongst (mostly) male
> programmers, some of whom think it might be.
>  
> My personal conclusion -- white anglo-saxon male atheist 30 years ma
+rried
> to a muslim women -- is that it is not offensive to women, but rathe
+r makes
> men's innate, stereotypical reactions the butt of the joke.
>  
> But I would like a second opinion.
>  
> Many thanks for your time, regardless of your decision,
>  
> XXXXXXXXXXXXX
>  
> Ps. for reference, 
>    Perl is a computer programming language; 
>    Moose is a new, popular, but very heavyweight add-on library for 
+that language. 
>    Mouse is another add-on library providing similar functionality, 
+but in a much lighter form.
>  
-- 
Nadje XXXXXX
Professor of Gender Studies
http://www.XXXXX.ac.uk/genderstudies/
XXXX UCU Equality & Diversity Officer
XXXX, University of XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX Street, XXXXXX XXXXXX
XXXXXX XXXH 0XG, UK
Tel. (44) (0) XXXXXXXX 4547
Room XXXA
[download]

Why ask? Because I find her opinion more authoritative than that of the ghosts out of the woodwork.

What do I draw from her reply?

That even when men are trying to do the right thing and be sensitive to women, they often still do the wrong thing for the right reasons. Like shouting at a deaf man, or trying guide a blind man by grabbing his arm, their attempts to 'fix things' are often worse than what they are trying to fix.

Like the Heath&Safety-gone-mad of an archaeologist being forced to wear a fluorescent jacket, hardhat and goggles whilst using a trowel in a 6 inch deep scrape in the middle of an open field on a sunny day; overzealousness in trying to "be sensitive" to women is just as counter productive.

It engenders groans and apathy and worse, due to the overload of "do nots" and "must nots" and "Shhh! There's a girl coming in", which completely detract from the less frequent but far more serious issues & matters that *need* to be dealt with.

They are often at the same time, patronising, futile and unnecessary.

Think about the issues, talk about the issues, make it possible and desirable for women to point the issues out and suggest how to correct them, but don't overreact and don't do the "male thing" and try to 'fix' everything. Listen first, and tackle the big things in consultation with women. With luck, the rest will sort itself.