0712: "Single Ladies"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:57 am UTC

Protector1 wrote:To those who were earlier complaining that LOTR is before Beyonce's time period, I would make the argument that if Star Wars was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, LOTR is a long time into the future and very close to home.

Someday, the Tolkien estate, bearing the Copyright Imperishable, will appoint a group of LotR geeks to design an official SecondLife-like MMO of the Tolkien legendarium, "Ea". Then the Estate will give being to that design, and into that world the Geeks will descend. The greatest amongst them will be appointed the Admins of Ea, and they will begin to shape it according to the Design...

Also:
Timtu wrote:
zyxuvius wrote:If Sauron had half a brain, he would have made two rings.


And if he had a quarter of a brain, he would have made four rings, etc.


So since he made (or helped to make) twenty rings (the One, the Three, the Seven, and the Nine), that means he had about 0.05 brains?
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:25 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Methoxychlor
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:12 am UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Methoxychlor » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:16 am UTC

One of my all time favorite strips

calico
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:09 am UTC
Location: The Lappy
Contact:

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby calico » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:36 am UTC

unleash the unicorn wrote:I think this comic has made Pomplamoose Music a lot more popular.

(If you wanna know what I mean, search for "All the single ladies" on Youtube.)


Pomplamoose for the win!
...Please, don't make me sing this part of the song...
Oh no, I've said too much; I haven't said enough

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:54 am UTC

calenlily wrote:
halcyon1234 wrote:
Czhorat wrote:Does anyone else see something slightly misogynistic here? If the point of Beyonce's song is that women should insist on the formal long term commitment represented by an engagement ring, then the comparison to the prototypical dark lord seems cruel at best. It feeds into the stereotype of the female as a cold, selfish manipulator.


The women in the song profess an absolute inability to engage in any casual or short-term relationship. The end goal of any relationship they pursue is marriage, as if that is their own purpose in life-- to _be_ married. "Ring or GTFO".

The song itself is re-enforcing the negative stereotype. The comic just plays off that.


I can't believe I'm defending this song (especially when there is LotR geekery afoot), but I believe the message is not "ring or GTFO", just "if you dump me, you have no right to object to my pursuing other relationships".


I thought the message of the song was that if you won't marry the girl, expect the relationship to eventually end. It isn't as if you have 1 month to propose or else; she was dating the ex-boyfriend for 3 years (I looked up to lyrics to find that out). Was she supposed to wait 5 years? 10 years? Until menopause? If the guy hasn't proposed after that long, chances are he will never propose, and the girl should find someone else. Unless, of course, she is happy being childless.

And don't give me any of that crap that "boyfriends and girlfriends can raise children too". It ends badly.



On a related note, is it me, or are all of Beyonce's songs about breaking or making up with a loser boyfriend? Sort of like how Linken Park sing about how they never got along with their fathers, or how Korn were bullied in highschool, and so forth?

The_Barbarian
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:03 am UTC
Location: Seattle, WA, US
Contact:

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby The_Barbarian » Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:10 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I thought the message of the song was that if you won't marry the girl, expect the relationship to eventually end. It isn't as if you have 1 month to propose or else; she was dating the ex-boyfriend for 3 years (I looked up to lyrics to find that out). Was she supposed to wait 5 years? 10 years? Until menopause? If the guy hasn't proposed after that long, chances are he will never propose, and the girl should find someone else. Unless, of course, she is happy being childless.


Why wouldn't she be? Plenty of women are.

CorruptUser wrote:And don't give me any of that crap that "boyfriends and girlfriends can raise children too". It ends badly.


My bet is that it ends badly about as often as married couples raising kids does.

User avatar
Stay_Puft_marshmallows
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:01 pm UTC
Location: third tube from the left, and straight on till morning

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Stay_Puft_marshmallows » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:35 am UTC

The_Barbarian wrote:Why wouldn't she be? Plenty of women are.


...and the point of the song seems to be that she isn't one of them. Which makes "why wouldn't she be?" an interesting question, the answer to which might be "if she was, she wouldn't be singing this"

Also, another way to read the song is this:
The man's choice not to "put a ring on it" when it seems like the logical next step in a stable and satisfying relationship, coupled with a failure to explain why, says that he wants to leave himself an out.
(it's perceived that way, anyway. Whether that characterization is fair or not is another conversation)
It then becomes hypocritical for him to be angry when she avails herself of that way out when the only reason it existed is that he selfishly wanted to preserve it for his own potential use.
text goes where?

macrocephalic
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:17 am UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby macrocephalic » Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 am UTC

I'm actually pretty happy that I had no idea what this comic was about, someone had to explain it to me.

Bajakens
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:28 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Bajakens » Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:49 am UTC

Am I the only one who couldn't appreciate this comic at all- having never heard that song before?

I mean, I get it, but without recognizing the song, it's hard to enjoy the joke.

*watches song on youtube*

"...so their voices, which uttered only [Sauron's] will and his malice, were filled with evil and horror. Ever they circled above the City, like vultures that expect their fill of doomed men's flesh. Out of sight and shot they flew, and yet were ever present, and their deadly voices rent the air. More unbearable they became, not less, at each new cry. At length even the stout-hearted would fling themselves to the ground as the hidden menace passed over them, or they would stand, letting their weapons fall from nerveless hands while into their minds a blackness came, and they thought no more of war; but only of hiding and of crawling, and of death."

Huh. Beyonce would make a good Nazgul.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:00 am UTC

The_Barbarian wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:I thought the message of the song was that if you won't marry the girl, expect the relationship to eventually end. It isn't as if you have 1 month to propose or else; she was dating the ex-boyfriend for 3 years (I looked up to lyrics to find that out). Was she supposed to wait 5 years? 10 years? Until menopause? If the guy hasn't proposed after that long, chances are he will never propose, and the girl should find someone else. Unless, of course, she is happy being childless.


Why wouldn't she be? Plenty of women are.



Most women aren't; they only have a 'short' timeframe to work with. Sorry, mother nature is a harsh mistress.

The_Barbarian wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:And don't give me any of that crap that "boyfriends and girlfriends can raise children too". It ends badly.


My bet is that it ends badly about as often as married couples raising kids does.


No, children of married couples have a HUGE advantage over children of unmarried couples/single parents, if only because married couples planned for the child more often than unmarried couples/single parents would. Yes, many marriages end in divorce before the children are grown, yes some people become very successful despite deadbeat fathers (for example, Obama), but don't try to claim one parent is the same as two.

If a couple was planning on starting a family, they probably would've made some sort of pact between them to stay together until the family is grown. This pact is called a marriage; whether religious or secular, state contract or not, every society (at least, those that have been around more than a few generations) has some version of this.

Alzhaid
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:00 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Alzhaid » Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:58 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:No, children of married couples have a HUGE advantage over children of unmarried couples/single parents, if only because married couples planned for the child more often than unmarried couples/single parents would.


CITATION NEEDED! You are stating your opinion but it feels like you are pretending to have some scientifical knowledge... Googling:

"According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2007, released by the U.S. Census Bureau in November, 2009, there are approximately 13.7 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 21.8 million children (approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today). (...) 34.2% of the custodial mothers have never been married, 20.9% of the custodial fathers have never married."

Looks like too many children with a "HUGE disadvantage" according to you. You are looking down on a quarter of the whole population under 21 (in U.S., other countries other figures I suppose), basing your opinion in no facts. Of course I also don't have any data that proves that this 21.8 million children are no "worse" than the rest, but until proven the opposite I prefer not to look down on so many people.

CorruptUser wrote:they probably would've made some sort of pact between them to stay together until the family is grown. This pact is called a marriage
.

No, it's not. According to Webster:

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.


So if MY GIRLFRIEND :wink: and I decide to have children and we live together happily forever, we CAN'T say we are married unless we were recognized by law. And in fact, in my country many people live together with their children and they don't marry at all. And by the way, I don't see any example of their children having "HUGE disadvantage" to other children. In fact I bet YOU couldn't distinguish who is the son of what kind of parents. :roll:

JustDoug
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:35 pm UTC

Re: Single Ladies

Postby JustDoug » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:02 pm UTC

ilaifire wrote:
zyxuvius wrote:If Sauron had half a brain, he would have made two rings.

Well, in total he did create 17. Just that he made the first 16 of those with help.


Wow. He must've been a real idiot then.

User avatar
Stay_Puft_marshmallows
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:01 pm UTC
Location: third tube from the left, and straight on till morning

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Stay_Puft_marshmallows » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:56 pm UTC

Alzhaid wrote:
So if MY GIRLFRIEND :wink: and I decide to have children and we live together happily forever, we CAN'T say we are married unless we were recognized by law.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage

oopsie. Looks like, depending on the jurisdiction, you probably are considered married in that case.
text goes where?

Jake2
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:12 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Jake2 » Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:41 pm UTC

http://hijinksensue.com/2009/12/11/i-am-smeagol-fierce/

Randall needs to start including a bibliography on his comics...

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby brian0918 » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:18 pm UTC

Wow, a direct ripoff from Hijinks Ensue. That takes skill.

rcox1
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:23 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby rcox1 » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
If a couple was planning on starting a family, they probably would've made some sort of pact between them to stay together until the family is grown. This pact is called a marriage; whether religious or secular, state contract or not, every society (at least, those that have been around more than a few generations) has some version of this.


Marriage does provide certain legal boundaries for couples wishing to start a family, which is why non traditional couples want to get married. However, marriage is also seen by some as the sole method to gain a security that they are not able to be provide for themselves. It is the difference between "Single Woman" and "Independent Woman".

One big issue is the assumption that marriage, or even a child, provides any real security. Divorce is pretty easy, so a person who thinks a ring provides more security than a long "3 year" relationship may not be in line with reality, especially when the other person clearly has no interest in it.

pscottdv
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:32 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby pscottdv » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:28 pm UTC

clanders wrote:This one was actually pretty clever! Certainly the best recent one.

BUT RANDALL, BEING RANDALL, HAD TO RUIN IT WITH HIS ALT-TEXT


You are allowed to not read the alt-text.

User avatar
adaviel
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:30 pm UTC
Location: Vancouver Canada
Contact:

Slightly creepy

Postby adaviel » Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:05 pm UTC

I've always thought there was something just a little bit creepy about the whole engagement ring/wedding ring thing, with its hint of symbolic bondage - especially if the guy doesn't reciprocate and wear her ring. Must come from reading Reage's "Story of O".

Zimmer-Bradley plays with that in her Darkover SF/Fantasy series - the people of the Domains marry "Di Catenas", symmetrically with symbolic locked bracelets. The Dry Towners go asymetrically (men on top) with real shackles, and the Free Amazons (beloved of SF conventioneers) reject all forms or marriage as bondage and exploitation, sticking with "freemate" relationships (what's a divorce lawyer?)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:18 pm UTC

Alzhaid wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:No, children of married couples have a HUGE advantage over children of unmarried couples/single parents, if only because married couples planned for the child more often than unmarried couples/single parents would.


CITATION NEEDED! You are stating your opinion but it feels like you are pretending to have some scientifical knowledge...


I don't need citation to prove that 2 + 2 != 5.

Yes it is my opinion, but not only is it a generally accepted opinion, it is overwhelmingly accepted. I could find some polls for you that prove this, but I'm not sure they would meet your moonlanding-was-faked level of scientific scrutiny...

Alzhaid wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:they probably would've made some sort of pact between them to stay together until the family is grown. This pact is called a marriage
.

No, it's not. According to Webster:

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.


So if MY GIRLFRIEND :wink: and I decide to have children and we live together happily forever, we CAN'T say we are married unless we were recognized by law.


Marriages can exist without the state contract, also known as the marriage liscense. Marriages in India exist without Oklahoma issuing a liscense. Depending on the jurisdiction, you could be considered married even without any official liscense.

Alzhaid wrote:In fact I bet YOU couldn't distinguish who is the son of what kind of parents. :roll:


No, I couldn't. That's what variation is all about. For example, a tall father is correlated with a tall son, but that doesn't mean that tall fathers WILL have tall sons, or that tall sons WILL have tall fathers, but that the father's height will correlate with the son's height. The son will probably be closer to the average than the father, but the taller the father, the greater the expected height of the son. I wouldn't be able to simply declare that because you are a tall son, you MUST have had a tall father. If you absolutely need citation for that, I would recommend Sir Francis Galton's paper on that http://www.jstor.org/pss/2245330.

In the same vein, I couldn't declare "because you are a criminal, you MUST have come from a single parent", or "because you are successful, you MUST have had both parents", as children from married couples can become criminals too (and people with one parent can become successful), but I CAN declare that "children from broken homes/single parents are more likely than children from marriages to become criminals".

For the citation, I'm sure I can find something better for you, but\ http://janicehiggins.bizopiaweb.com/Portals/48411/pages16-17.pdf is the first thing I could find.

Kaijyuu
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:58 am UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Kaijyuu » Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:57 pm UTC

I interrupt this incredibly stupid conversation with a humorous video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE-l4gfiCM8


It DOES relate to the comic in some way. Well, half of it.
The cake is a lie, but truth is in Pi.

User avatar
Atomsk
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:03 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Atomsk » Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:33 pm UTC

Protector1 wrote:To those who were earlier complaining that LOTR is before Beyonce's time period, I would make the argument that if Star Wars was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, LOTR is a long time into the future and very close to home.

Is it just me, or does that make scary amount of sense?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:29 pm UTC

Atomsk wrote:
Protector1 wrote:To those who were earlier complaining that LOTR is before Beyonce's time period, I would make the argument that if Star Wars was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, LOTR is a long time into the future and very close to home.

Is it just me, or does that make scary amount of sense?


Maybe Ralph Bakshi's "Wizards" is right after all?

He did do the original movie adaption of LoTR...

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Sprocket » Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:20 am UTC

So Randall puts his stamp firmly in the anti-marriage camp.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

flag
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:04 am UTC
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby flag » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:09 am UTC

Jake2 wrote:http://hijinksensue.com/2009/12/11/i-am-smeagol-fierce/

Randall needs to start including a bibliography on his comics...

Aaaand his was funnier.

JaytheMage
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:24 am UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby JaytheMage » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:27 am UTC

Hey, at least Sauron got his revenge when he killed Gil-Galad and Elendil.

User avatar
Platypodes
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:42 am UTC
Location: On a knot on a log in a hole in the bottom of the sea

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Platypodes » Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:28 pm UTC

Hey, Beret Guy is a bartender!

unleash the unicorn wrote:I think this comic has made Pomplamoose Music a lot more popular.

(If you wanna know what I mean, search for "All the single ladies" on Youtube.)

Wow, I like their version way better than Beyonce's! I always found the original to be kind of an irritating ear worm. Now, when I have that song stuck in my head (as I probably will for a week after reading this comic), I can imagine Pomplamoose doing it instead.

By the way, anybody have a clue what the line "all the single ladies" has to do with the story the song is telling? For the whole rest of the song, she's addressing an ex-boyfriend, not a group of single ladies. (First time I heard the song, I mostly just caught the "single ladies" and "put a ring on it" parts, and I thought she was telling other single women not to complain if she danced with their ex-boyfriends.)

brian0918 wrote:Wow, a direct ripoff from Hijinks Ensue. That takes skill.

Er, maybe it just takes not having read every single webcomic on the whole intertube.

I'm pretty sure that hundreds, probably thousands, of geeks have heard the lyric "put a ring on it" and free-associated their way to a connection with Lord of the Rings. When you've got the number one all-time classic piece of geek literature and a super-famous hit song that share an important keyword, people will make the connection. Lots of people.

neoliminal wrote:Just as a side note, I'm pretty sure it's not canon that Sauron went to strip clubs in a world where Beyonce existed.

Wait, a strip club?

Oh yeah, I guess the characters aren't wearing anything except their hats.
videogamesizzle wrote:so, uh, seen any good arbitrary, high numbers lately?

User avatar
Ephemeron
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Ephemeron » Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:27 am UTC

This comic is not canon. It can't be, unless...

Lord of the Rings is set on a far future version of Earth, or possibly an offworld colony. Elves, hobbits, etc must have arisen as a result of accumulated mutations or deliberate genetic engineering. Magic is possible due to the "sufficiently advanced technology" arguement; people do magic by commanding swarms of nanobots which are omnipresent in Middle Earth. Yet most of the source technology has been lost to the ages, leaving no trace, but with enough time to reinvent things like bows and arrows. Beret guy must have become immortal. Either that or his beret has been passed down through many generations, or it just happens to be a guy with a similar looking beret. Also music players and strip clubs only exist in one place, which was unmentioned in the books and the films.

The alternative theory is that Beyonce has found a way of sending her music back in time. Time travel is possible due to the "dead brother" argument (see page 1 of this thread). Beret guy is really, really old, or has time travelled himself. Elves, hobbits, etc have died out for some unspecified reason (surely beret guy would remember them?), possibly as the result of some mass extinction event. Actually this doesn't make sense because archeological evidence shows none of this stuff happened in our past. It's far more likely to have taken place in a parallel universe. That's the ONLY explanation.

Either that or we just accept it as non-canon and move on with our lives.

JohnMarlo
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:54 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby JohnMarlo » Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:00 pm UTC

Usually, XKCD is good for a chuckle or two. With this comic, that was not the case.
It was instead good for three solid minutes of tearful, hysterical laughter. Which was made all the sweeter as I had just finished reading the Silmarillion.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Lazar » Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:20 pm UTC

Ephemeron wrote:Beret guy must have become immortal. Either that or his beret has been passed down through many generations, or it just happens to be a guy with a similar looking beret.

That would pretty much make him the Blackadder of the xkcd/LOTR universe.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Kartoffelkopf
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:44 am UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby Kartoffelkopf » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:36 am UTC

Protector1 wrote:To those who were earlier complaining that LOTR is before Beyonce's time period, I would make the argument that if Star Wars was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, LOTR is a long time into the future and very close to home.

Actually, the Middle-Earth mythos was written to be like an early history of Earth, much like many other old legends (the Bible etc).

mross
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:05 pm UTC

Re: "Single Ladies" Discussion

Postby mross » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:50 pm UTC

"Clever connection, I must say."

man i sure hope that shit is sarcasm


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AndrewGPaul, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 46 guests