0385: "How It Works"

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

Moderators: Magistrates, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby zahlman » Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:59 pm UTC

Yuri2356 wrote:
One of the reasons I felt unable to resist the pull of this discussion in the first place is that I spent much of my adolescence in a quite sexually repressed state, feeling constantly threatened by the looming sense that "modern" society was implicitly distrustful of me...

<snip the rest>


Sir, in accordance with standard Male procedure, I'd like to buy you a sympathy Beer.


I don't drink beer or vodka. Anything else is fine. (The idea of men being expected to drink beer - especially engineers - or of certain drinks being seen as "girly" is ridiculous, BTW. Ditto stupid drink names used for flirtation purposes.)

cephalopod9 wrote:Women don't just "get raped", men rape them.


Er, in my mind, the statements "the man raped the woman" and "the woman got raped by the man" are logically equivalent. I can see what you're getting at, but I didn't intend to imply the idea you seem to infer.

It actually sounds to me like you empathize a good deal with people who suffer because of sexual oppression. (I am having a horrible time with finding the right words.) It seems like a lot of your greif comes from the effects of the actions a small minority of men have taken, which I would think would give you something in comon with rape victims**.


Actually, you'd probably be right on this, except that overall I'm a pretty selfish person. x.x There's something in common (and I *do* blame "those men" a lot), but...

Which is why it puzzles me why "women have it worse" offends you. While I will say "who has it worse" is not a good way of looking at it, and to use an extremely crude metaphor, I don't think it trivializes cancer patients to say it's worse to have cancer and AIDS.


It's not even that statement that offends me really, but the way it's arrived at. The things men have to deal with or which women get as bonuses tend to be quite ignored, and then the pros and cons are directly weighed, when a lot of things simply aren't directly comparable. It's not something where you can clearly say something like that, because women don't - to extend/reuse the metaphor - "have cancer", or at least most of the symptoms of that.

As you said yourself:

I think we have a reoccurring problem with setting up men's gender issues and women's gender issues to be in conflict with eachother.


I'm not trying to deny the claim so much as cast doubt on it.

It's not an analogy. I think the labels "for kids" and "for women" get used in a similar way and send a similar message ("you get this section over here"). Like I said, it's largely a matter of opinion.


I think I see your POV now. Making the label explicit causes a problem. If the for-women version of Stuff were called, say (let's make it really bad) Girl's Stuff, then there would be hue and cry. But if it were, say, Things, and the target audience were simply inferred, that would probably go over a lot better. (But then, what could go into such a magazine without reinforcing stereotypes.

As things stand now, men simply don't look good wearing lacy lingerie or posing seductively
Lies! (that was probably inapropriate, but I needed a segue)


Maybe it's because I'm one of them, and straight, but I just can't see that working for men. We tend to have this surplus of body hair (yes, I know about the whole leg-shaving thing; I'm saying we'd have to take care of that in addition to lots of other places women don't normally get much hair, to have the same effect), and bits that would hang out of a thong (very uncomfortably at that) and ruin the intended "streamlined" effect.

Last I checked, men are not angular,


I'm considering posting a picture of my elbow now, I really am...

Further more, it's these ideas that men can't be pretty, and that male nudity is shameful


I wasn't aware of a gender bias in the meme of nudity being shameful. Actually, I was aware of one the other way around: consider who more often gets away with being topless in public.

Shai wrote:Lastly, societies views aren't balanced or fair. I, for one, am not a fan of porn (so boring). I'd rather be intimate with my girlfriend then sit in the dark watching other people fake intimacy. Though I've always been strange. **shrugs**


Spoiler:


DeadCatX2 wrote:I disagree, somewhat. Sure, some men end up creating the stereotype of a stalker, but it was not any specific man which hurt him, but women.


And you were on such a streak of understanding me, too. >_< It's society hurting me, AFAICT. The meme that a man, being the "penetrator", is inherently dangerous.

I find it disappointingly ironic that a shy man can have such a high percentage of rejection, while an aggressive male seems to have a much lower percentage, and yet the shy man (who is most definitely safer) is considered more dangerous by potential dates.


I've since worked through it, more or less - though I'm still not having nearly the success I'd like to. And I haven't, in fact, become anything overly "aggressive". Turns out it's not that difficult. But man oh man do I wish I could go back in time and tell my former self a few things.
Belial wrote:I once had a series of undocumented and nonstandardized subjective experiences that indicated that anecdotal data is biased and unreliable.
zahlman
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:15 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby cephalopod9 » Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:29 pm UTC

I'm considering posting a picture of my elbow now, I really am...
I'll admit I didn't get that far in anatomy, but I'm pretty sure there aren't many structures in the human body capable of creating a sharp angle. Even bones have rounded edges.
I just can't see that working for men. We tend to have this surplus of body hair
This is just more of the same old paradigm. Why is hairlessness more attractive or sensuous? (Also, I'm kind of bettin' women are (naturally) hairier than you think).
I don't want men pretending to be women. I want masculine beauty presented as inviting, and sensuous. (Dang it, I'm going to have to just make this stuff myself, aren't I?) And I'll leave off talking about porn here and take it to one of the porn threads.

I wasn't aware of a gender bias in the meme of nudity being shameful. Actually, I was aware of one the other way around: consider who more often gets away with being topless in public
And yet "a woman flashes a man" and "a man flashes a woman" conjure up completely different ideas about decency, power, etc. Maybe "shameful" is the wrong word to use.
Image
User avatar
cephalopod9
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby dabigkid » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:39 pm UTC

This is just more of the same old paradigm. Why is hairlessness more attractive or sensuous? (Also, I'm kind of bettin' women are (naturally) hairier than you think).

Ah, I think Dawkins explained why in The Ancestor's Tale, specifically the chapter "The Peacock's Tale." Basically less hair meant less ticks and stuff like that. Hair, much like a peacock's large feathers, played little of a role outside of mating, so it evolved by the preferences of those mating through sexual selection. And due to sexual selection, women became less hairy than men but men were somewhat dragged along in their wake through genetic drift. Today, hairlessness is just... more attractive. Hair is nasty.
wut
dabigkid
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 3:09 am UTC
Location: NJ

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Philwelch » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:03 am UTC

Belial wrote:
The vast majority of firearms are designed for right-handed shooters, with the operating handle, magazine release, and/or safety mechanisms set up for manipulation by the right hand, and fired cartridge cases ejected to the right. Also, scopes and sights may be mounted in such a way as to require the shooter to place the rifle against his or her right shoulder. A left-handed shooter must either purchase a left-handed firearm (which are manufactured in smaller numbers and are generally more expensive and/or harder to obtain), shoot a right-handed gun left-handed (which presents certain difficulties, such as the controls being improperly located for them or shell cases being ejected towards their body), or learn to shoot right-handed (which may pose additional problems, primarily that of ocular dominance). Fortunately for left-handed people, modern guns feature more ambidextrous or right/left-handed reversible operating parts than their predecessors. Bullpup rifles are particularly problematic for lefties unless they can be reconfigured, since empty shells would be ejected fast and straight into the shooter's face and cheek potentially causing injury.


Ocular dominance is a red herring. Personally, I'm right-handed but left-eyed, and I always shot right-handed, although I've tried both and I wouldn't say shooting with your non-dominant hand was problematic at all. Shooting doesn't require manual dexterity so much as it requires focus, breath control, and the ability to keep your body as still as possible. It's actually quite serene, though those who've never participated in the sport wouldn't understand that.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby zahlman » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:27 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
I'm considering posting a picture of my elbow now, I really am...
I'll admit I didn't get that far in anatomy, but I'm pretty sure there aren't many structures in the human body capable of creating a sharp angle. Even bones have rounded edges.


I didn't realize you meant "angular", or interpreted "curvy", that literally. There is an obvious difference in shape between a typical male and typical female body, breasts notwithstanding. I'm talking about things like W/H ratio.

I just can't see that working for men. We tend to have this surplus of body hair
This is just more of the same old paradigm. Why is hairlessness more attractive or sensuous? (Also, I'm kind of bettin' women are (naturally) hairier than you think).


I don't know where the attraction-to-hairlessness thing comes from, but I'm pretty convinced it's hard-wired.

I've heard of women shaving legs, underarms, pubis and occasionally face; and plucking out the odd hair or two from where-ever. Anything else I should know about? AFAIK significant amounts of chest or back hair are quite unusual for women. (I haven't got that myself, but lots of men do.)

I don't want men pretending to be women. I want masculine beauty presented as inviting, and sensuous. (Dang it, I'm going to have to just make this stuff myself, aren't I?) And I'll leave off talking about porn here and take it to one of the porn threads.


[set voice:"overlord"]
There are porn threads, and I was not informed?

Seriously, though, I don't feel I have a good understanding of what's potentially attractive about the male form.
Belial wrote:I once had a series of undocumented and nonstandardized subjective experiences that indicated that anecdotal data is biased and unreliable.
zahlman
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:15 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Tyris and Cortle » Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:45 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Y'know Victoria's Secret catalogs? They should sell men's undergarments like that.
Bah! Nothing so flimsy and riddled with holes can possibly contain the mightiness that is masculinity!

This not-entirely-serious post has been brought to you by the smiley :D.
And Stent!
You can't look dignified when you're having fun.
User avatar
Tyris and Cortle
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:39 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby krynd » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:54 am UTC

I cited this comic in a paper about the differences in how the different genders are viewed in America (which I'm still writing, though. Yes, at 4 am. You mean that isn't normal?). I'll let you know what kind of grade I get.

EDIT: Anyone mind if I cite some forum postings as a reference? Just post a reply if you will let me use you as a source (if you don't want me to: just write: "F*** off krynd!" in big, bold letters).
Attachments
xkcd.PNG
xkcd saves my grade yet again.
xkcd.PNG (14.37 KiB) Viewed 6106 times
Dangermouse wrote:I hope this doesn't mirror too much of what you've read--and btw, you should read less and do more. No one takes good pictures or runs a marathon sitting on their couch surfing the internet.


WCG xkcd team
User avatar
krynd
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:09 am UTC
Location: Basement Bedroom

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby TheAmazingRando » Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:00 am UTC

I believe his last name is Munroe, not Monroe.
User avatar
TheAmazingRando
 
Posts: 2304
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby krynd » Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:02 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:I believe his last name is Munroe, not Monroe.

Dammit! This is what I get for being up at 4 am!

Thank you for pointing that out.
Dangermouse wrote:I hope this doesn't mirror too much of what you've read--and btw, you should read less and do more. No one takes good pictures or runs a marathon sitting on their couch surfing the internet.


WCG xkcd team
User avatar
krynd
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:09 am UTC
Location: Basement Bedroom

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby cephalopod9 » Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:31 am UTC

zahlman wrote:There are porn threads, and I was not informed?

Seriously, though, I don't feel I have a good understanding of what's potentially attractive about the male form.

Do we have to tell you everything?
Image
User avatar
cephalopod9
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Dft » Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:09 am UTC

krynd wrote:It shows the stereotype that given a particular problem, an apparently unbiased stranger will make different assumptions about a student if she is female, than if he were male.


..What? No, you've got it all wrong. A _male_ stranger, in a male-dominated area. I've heard the exact same kind of bullshit comment from females about men ['failing' in areas that are stereotype female]. "Men! Can't do anything right!" etc. Had a woman done the same thing, those women would not have said "Sheesh, women suck!", I guarantee you that.

If person A perceives B comes from a significantly different group, the likelihood of A attributing B's shortcomings in a field (dominated by A's group of focus) to being from the different group vastly increases. A sees themself as (if not) the norm for A's group(, at least not a single freak exception to the group). = "Yayz I r pwoof of my group!111eleven".

tl;dr: Change "stranger" to "male stranger"
Dft
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:05 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby TheAmazingRando » Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:48 am UTC

Dft wrote:Had a woman done the same thing, those women would not have said "Sheesh, women suck!", I guarantee you that.
Are you sure you want to stick by that guarantee?
I have a friend (female) who I helped last quarter with a programming class she had to take for her major (which really has nothing to do with programming). Every time I found a problem with her code she couldn't see, her response was something along the lines of "You're good at this. Ugh. Girls just can't program."

It's easy to stereotype another group based on an individual's shortcomings. It's also easy to stereotype your own group based on your own shortcomings, as it puts them outside of your control.
User avatar
TheAmazingRando
 
Posts: 2304
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Koriina » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:40 pm UTC

Dft wrote:Had a woman done the same thing, those women would not have said "Sheesh, women suck!", I guarantee you that.



You're lucky you have a qualifier in there, mister. I've been in this situation in maths class, and come to the same conclusion. While it was only in jest, there are many other situations where I have said that in all seriousness. After all, women are crazy hormonal bitches and it's impossible to understand the way our minds work, even and especially for other women.
"It won't fit there."

. . .

"Not legally."
User avatar
Koriina
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm UTC
Location: Aberdeen, WA. Stalk me, please?

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Dft » Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:02 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:
Dft wrote:Had a woman done the same thing, those women would not have said "Sheesh, women suck!", I guarantee you that.
Are you sure you want to stick by that guarantee?
I have a friend (female) who I helped last quarter with a programming class she had to take for her major (which really has nothing to do with programming). Every time I found a problem with her code she couldn't see, her response was something along the lines of "You're good at this. Ugh. Girls just can't program."

It's easy to stereotype another group based on an individual's shortcomings. It's also easy to stereotype your own group based on your own shortcomings, as it puts them outside of your control.


Right. I keep forgetting about that. orz
I'm not used to women who blame shit on being female, I guess it's a bad habit women doing comp sci and similar have learned to avoid. I've heard men blame shit on being men more often than females, but fortunately relatively rarely.

Edit: ...er, wait what?! That quote of mine doesn't work out of context! ::eats own goldfish memory::

Dft wrote:
krynd wrote:It shows the stereotype that given a particular problem, an apparently unbiased stranger will make different assumptions about a student if she is female, than if he were male.


..What? No, you've got it all wrong. A _male_ stranger, in a male-dominated area. I've heard the exact same kind of bullshit comment from females about men ['failing' in areas that are stereotype female]. "Men! Can't do anything right!" etc. Had a woman done the same thing, those women would not have said "Sheesh, women suck!", I guarantee you that.

If person A perceives B comes from a significantly different group, the likelihood of A attributing B's shortcomings in a field (dominated by A's group of focus) to being from the different group vastly increases. A sees themself as (if not) the norm for A's group(, at least not a single freak exception to the group). = "Yayz I r pwoof of my group!111eleven".

tl;dr: Change "stranger" to "male stranger"

Red text = Woman failing in stereotype female area --> woman not trying to blame her shortcomings on being female, since the stereotype proves her claim wrong.



edit2:
Koriina wrote: While it was only in jest, there are many other situations where I have said that in all seriousness. After all, women are crazy hormonal bitches and it's impossible to understand the way our minds work, even and especially for other women.

..That's a joke, right? I've never had more problems understanding women or men. I don't see why women would be more difficult to get, as long as you don't try to match all humans up to a single way of behaving. Because if you try to think of everybody's behavior only using a more stereotype male (or female) behavior as "cheat sheet", you'll have huge problems understanding a lot of (/some) women, and at least some (/a lot of) men.
Have some random semi-related text: http://www.fantasymaps.com/stuff/fanspeak.html (the differences between "fen" and "mundanes")
Dft
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:05 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Koriina » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:31 pm UTC

Dft wrote:
Koriina wrote: While it was only in jest, there are many other situations where I have said that in all seriousness. After all, women are crazy hormonal bitches and it's impossible to understand the way our minds work, even and especially for other women.

..That's a joke, right? I've never had more problems understanding women or men. I don't see why women would be more difficult to get, as long as you don't try to match all humans up to a single way of behaving. Because if you try to think of everybody's behavior only using a more stereotype male (or female) behavior as "cheat sheet", you'll have huge problems understanding a lot of (/some) women, and at least some (/a lot of) men.
Have some random semi-related text: http://www.fantasymaps.com/stuff/fanspeak.html (the differences between "fen" and "mundanes")


Hm. Perhaps this malady only applies to my little space of earth, then, because the general consensus around here is that all women are batshit crazy, and most of them know it. =)
"It won't fit there."

. . .

"Not legally."
User avatar
Koriina
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm UTC
Location: Aberdeen, WA. Stalk me, please?

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Dft » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:51 am UTC

Koriina wrote:Hm. Perhaps this malady only applies to my little space of earth, then, because the general consensus around here is that all women are batshit crazy, and most of them know it. =)


Maybe. Might be self-fulfilling prophecy at work too. They can be nasty little things. Believe something possible about yourself too much, and sooner or later you will conform. Mmm, internalized peer pressure.
Also: You're claiming only the women are batshit crazy? :D
Dft
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:05 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby mythago » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:44 am UTC

Koriina, really not following you. Are you saying that you believe yourself, personally, to be batshit crazy, and so you extrapolate this to all females? Or is it simply a handy way of justifying behaving badly towards women? ("Yes, I told her girls all suck at math, so what? Chicks are all batshit crazy.")
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs
User avatar
mythago
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby KingFridaythe13th » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:22 am UTC

william wrote:
william wrote:And yet almost all of the people in my school complaining about how hard AP Calculus is are girls. I know it's heretical but maybe boys are better at something.

After reading 4=5's article I'm going to retract the first half of the statement. I am not, however, retracting the second half, because it's important. I see a sinister undertone in all the "GIRL POWER" movements and I have since I saw the reaction to that "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" shirt. Let's face it, if it said "girls are stupid, throw rocks at them" it would have been taken off the stores in minutes.


addendum: boys are better than girls at somethings, but girls are also better than boys at somethings.
actually, i'm going to rescind that statement also. some people are better than other people at certain things.
KingFridaythe13th
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:38 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Apollo » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:52 am UTC

Apart from the fact that I didn't so much as take the time to read the posts previous this, I have only this to say. The comic was likely meant as a presentation of perspective and viewpoint of how one views one sex versus the other. I.e. guys are tended to be normalized as being unaffected because of the constancy of the rule, whereas complacency with women leads to a biased attitude when talking of intelligence. Examples of this would be women fighting for women's rights, anti-racism rights, etc.. It's all a matter of perspective in the end.

Also, with the equation he wrote on the board,
Shouldn't it be "Int(x^2) dx = ((x^3)/3) + C"not pi since the region it is going over is undefined. Unless it was going over a specific region such that overall area is equal to pi. But, again, that requires a definition of what region a and b it is going over.
Apollo
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:37 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby DeadCatX2 » Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:23 pm UTC

Apollo wrote:The comic was likely meant as a presentation of perspective and viewpoint of how one views one sex versus the other.

Is there a reason you think it is this way in particular? I believe Randall was making an example of xenophobia. You could similarly replace the female stick figure a raptor.

Image

Bonus points if you can imagine it being two raptors, and then a raptor and a human, with "wow, humans suck at math"

Apollo wrote:Also, with the equation he wrote on the board, Shouldn't it be "Int(x^2) dx = ((x^3)/3) + C"not pi since the region it is going over is undefined.

Hence why the individual in question sucks...
User avatar
DeadCatX2
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:22 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby ame p » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:30 am UTC

zahlman wrote:I've heard of women shaving legs, underarms, pubis and occasionally face; and plucking out the odd hair or two from where-ever. Anything else I should know about? AFAIK significant amounts of chest or back hair are quite unusual for women. (I haven't got that myself, but lots of men do.)


Plenty of women also have significant arm and lower back hair, as well as hair around the nipples. And I think female facial hair is more common than you think.
ame p
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:12 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby AAltair » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:18 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
AAltair wrote:Seriously, it goes a little farther than all that. Here's what's going on in their heads during this comic.
how_it_works2.jpg

(And the gender of the commenter doesn't matter.)

Says who?


What I mean is, the gender of the person in the comic who says "You suck at Math!" or "Girls suck at Math!" doesn't matter. It could be a guy or a girl saying that, and the thoughts inside the "ComicGeeks'" heads would be the same. I'm not sure that mine matters either, but that's not the point of my original post.
AAltair
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:02 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby GCM » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:59 pm UTC

DeadCatX2 wrote:
Apollo wrote:The comic was likely meant as a presentation of perspective and viewpoint of how one views one sex versus the other.

Is there a reason you think it is this way in particular? I believe Randall was making an example of xenophobia. You could similarly replace the female stick figure a raptor.

Image

Bonus points if you can imagine it being two raptors, and then a raptor and a human, with "wow, humans suck at math"

Apollo wrote:Also, with the equation he wrote on the board, Shouldn't it be "Int(x^2) dx = ((x^3)/3) + C"not pi since the region it is going over is undefined.

Hence why the individual in question sucks...


Xenophobia? Why, if you were afraid of something unknown (which would ALSO imply that the guy has never met girls before :D) , would you tell them they suck at math? That's like, a simple insult. If you were afraid, most likely you'd avoid. Unless he's implying that the guy is doing so because he's afraid, though that's way too obscure.
All warfare is based on heavily-armed robotic commandos.
~Sun Tzu

Notes: My last avatar was "Vote Robot Nixon", so I'm gonna keep a list here. :D
User avatar
GCM
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Metropolis City, Planet Kerwan, Solana Galaxy

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Philwelch » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:34 pm UTC

dabigkid wrote:
This is just more of the same old paradigm. Why is hairlessness more attractive or sensuous? (Also, I'm kind of bettin' women are (naturally) hairier than you think).

Ah, I think Dawkins explained why in The Ancestor's Tale, specifically the chapter "The Peacock's Tale." Basically less hair meant less ticks and stuff like that. Hair, much like a peacock's large feathers, played little of a role outside of mating, so it evolved by the preferences of those mating through sexual selection. And due to sexual selection, women became less hairy than men but men were somewhat dragged along in their wake through genetic drift. Today, hairlessness is just... more attractive. Hair is nasty.


There's a couple things that aren't explained here:

(1) Head hair. Humans have naturally fast-growing hair on the top of their head with long terminal length, men have a fair bit on the face, and there's almost none elsewhere on the body.
(2) Hairlessness is only attractive on women: the sexual dimorphism hypothesis.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.
Philwelch
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Quixotess » Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:52 pm UTC

Just stopping by...

KRYND: You may use my comments (is it too late to say so?) and I would be very interested to see your paper.

William, I know your shirt comment is a little old, but I'd still like to address it. For some reason, this idea that people would be up in arms about misogynistic shirts continues to pop up in lots of places, but it's simply not true. There is protest, but it's only among core feminist circles, and I can tell you from experience that if it ever gets out into the mainstream we get bombarded with "can't take a joke" "humorless bitches" sorts of comments.

(And that is not an exaggeration. Recently Feministing, through a vigorous complaint campaign, got David and Goliath to pull their "No means no--well maybe if I'm drunk" shirt. Yay, victory for us! But the URL that previously linked to that shirt now leads to a "Miss Bitch" shirt, with a notice saying that they'll give Feministing people a 10% discount, just enter the passcode nomeansno. You can't make this shit up.)

In any case, I can name PLENTY of offensive sexist t-shirts against women. "Stop rape: say yes." "I like my women like I like my chicken: battered." "I'm too pretty to do math." "I wish Hillary had married OJ." How about that "problem solved" two panel shirt? First panel: male stick figure listens to female stick figure talking annoyingly. Second panel: Male pushes female out of panel, and she plummets out; male grins.

For heavens sake, we can't even get that shirt pulled from K-mart, and the throw rocks shirt has been labeled as hate speech by the Canadian Children's Rights Council. Seriously. What's going on here? (Answer: Patriarchy.)
Raise up the torch and light the way.
User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
 
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby DeadCatX2 » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:04 pm UTC

GCM wrote:Xenophobia? Why, if you were afraid of something unknown (which would ALSO imply that the guy has never met girls before :D) , would you tell them they suck at math? That's like, a simple insult. If you were afraid, most likely you'd avoid. Unless he's implying that the guy is doing so because he's afraid, though that's way too obscure.

Perhaps xenophobia isn't exactly the word I was looking for. But, in my experience, it's generally used to refer to "people not like me" - Americans are scared of Arabs = example of xenophobia.

American Heritage Dictionary wrote:xenophobia [(zen-uh-foh-bee-uh, zee-nuh-foh-bee-uh)]

An unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.

In particular, when pointing out that someone different from you sucks at math, it is easy to stereotype it to be that entire class of person. Hence the example with the raptor; to call this comic sexist is to see a tree instead of the forest.
User avatar
DeadCatX2
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:22 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Kartoffelkopf » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:14 am UTC

william wrote:
william wrote:And yet almost all of the people in my school complaining about how hard AP Calculus is are girls. I know it's heretical but maybe boys are better at something.

After reading 4=5's article I'm going to retract the first half of the statement. I am not, however, retracting the second half, because it's important. I see a sinister undertone in all the "GIRL POWER" movements and I have since I saw the reaction to that "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" shirt. Let's face it, if it said "girls are stupid, throw rocks at them" it would have been taken off the stores in minutes.

ShadowLurker: It's x^3/3 + C.

Ah, of course. Reminds me of my old Intro Calc class (that I failed :P)
Image
wacht auf!

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

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Spill Wooner » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:54 am UTC

DeadCatX2 wrote:In particular, when pointing out that someone different from you sucks at math, it is easy to stereotype it to be that entire class of person. Hence the example with the raptor; to call this comic sexist is to see a tree instead of the forest.


Picture the original comic, except the man and the woman are standing over a burnt roast. Or imagine the raptor comic, with both human and raptor having destroyed the scenery but with an untouched cow in the center of the panel. Do you really think we'd get the same effect over "wow, women suck at cooking" or "wow, raptors suck at hunting"? (Granted, xenophobia often helps form and perpetuate our stereotypes. The stereotypes still have interesting lives of their own.)

Quixotess wrote:stuff


Actually, as a feminist you probably just have the network to be aware of these misogynist themes, while equivalent misandry wouldn't be reported as widely. To a certain degree, there will be people who enjoy saying and doing offensive things for their own sake. Calling patriarchy at this sort of thing would be yet another "how it works" comic, where a woman and a man being told "wow, you're a jerk" and "wow, men are jerks" respectively.
Spill Wooner
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:22 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Quixotess » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Spill Wooner wrote:
Quixotess wrote:stuff


Actually, as a feminist you probably just have the network to be aware of these misogynist themes, while equivalent misandry wouldn't be reported as widely. To a certain degree, there will be people who enjoy saying and doing offensive things for their own sake. Calling patriarchy at this sort of thing would be yet another "how it works" comic, where a woman and a man being told "wow, you're a jerk" and "wow, men are jerks" respectively.


I strongly protest and disbelieve that there are an equivalent, or close to equivalent, number of shirts that advocate violence against men. Not just "boys lie" or "boys can't cook" but actual *violence.* But perhaps, as you move in different circles you have knowledge otherwise? And if I am right, then a society in which people buy and wear shirts that promote violence against women would indeed be patriarchal.

Honestly I don't know where people are meeting these feminists who say that the throw rocks shirt is girl power, or even okay. The shirt isn't okay; it's juvenile and annoying, and certainly we don't want to combat violence with violence! (Although women throwing rocks at men does happen less often than men committing rape or domestic violence against women, so we WOULD say that the throw rocks shirt is less likely to perpetuate a current system of violence, but we would NOT say that that makes it all right to throw rocks at men, or anyone.) It seems like we have posited these stages of responses to the shirt:
1. People buy and sell the shirt. Ha-ha, it's so funny!
2. There is protest. This shirt promotes violence against men and that's not okay!
3. There is counter-protest. This shirt is just playing, guys, relax!
4. There is meta-counter-protest. You wouldn't say that about throwing rocks at GIRLS, would you? Men get such unfair treatment!
5. There is counter-meta-counter protest. A. Yes we would! Or alternatively, B. I never participated in (3)!

At least that's what people seem to be saying. But the weird thing is that I've never seen a single instance of (3). For that matter I've never seen (2), except as a part of (4). Frankly, I'm beginning to think that the 4 people are making up the 3 people, as an argument they would imagine that people have made, and then protesting against that. When in reality, people seem to be taking this shirt quite seriously--it has an article on Wikipedia, and did I mention that it was labeled hate speech by the Canadian Children's Rights Council?

I don't mean to discount what you're saying; it's true that the circles I hang out in are inherently biased. But we're also widely misrepresented. For example in the comic you are proposing, I'm imagining a man and a woman promoting misogyny in some way, perhaps by wearing hateful shirts. Well, we wouldn't call anyone a jerk (except maybe Glenn Beck), but say rather "Wow, you are a tool of the patriarchy."

Trust me, we know from bitter experience that women can be just as avid promoters of misogyny as men.

[disclaimers: it's late, sleep deprivation, was this coherent at all? etc.]
Raise up the torch and light the way.
User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
 
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby GCM » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:28 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:
Belial wrote:
The vast majority of firearms are designed for right-handed shooters, with the operating handle, magazine release, and/or safety mechanisms set up for manipulation by the right hand, and fired cartridge cases ejected to the right. Also, scopes and sights may be mounted in such a way as to require the shooter to place the rifle against his or her right shoulder. A left-handed shooter must either purchase a left-handed firearm (which are manufactured in smaller numbers and are generally more expensive and/or harder to obtain), shoot a right-handed gun left-handed (which presents certain difficulties, such as the controls being improperly located for them or shell cases being ejected towards their body), or learn to shoot right-handed (which may pose additional problems, primarily that of ocular dominance). Fortunately for left-handed people, modern guns feature more ambidextrous or right/left-handed reversible operating parts than their predecessors. Bullpup rifles are particularly problematic for lefties unless they can be reconfigured, since empty shells would be ejected fast and straight into the shooter's face and cheek potentially causing injury.


Ocular dominance is a red herring. Personally, I'm right-handed but left-eyed, and I always shot right-handed, although I've tried both and I wouldn't say shooting with your non-dominant hand was problematic at all. Shooting doesn't require manual dexterity so much as it requires focus, breath control, and the ability to keep your body as still as possible. It's actually quite serene, though those who've never participated in the sport wouldn't understand that.


Hey, if I'm not mistaken, which I might be, don't US soldiers fire left handed? Trained to do so, or so I've heard. Something to do with the right hand being better for making the shot steadier. My source is probably not very reliable, though.
If anyones also played C&C, Generals or Zero Hour, the US Rifleman (sorry, forgot the actual name) carries his weapon left handed in the "build" picture, right?


DeadCatX2 wrote:GCM wrote:
Xenophobia? Why, if you were afraid of something unknown (which would ALSO imply that the guy has never met girls before ) , would you tell them they suck at math? That's like, a simple insult. If you were afraid, most likely you'd avoid. Unless he's implying that the guy is doing so because he's afraid, though that's way too obscure.

Perhaps xenophobia isn't exactly the word I was looking for. But, in my experience, it's generally used to refer to "people not like me" - Americans are scared of Arabs = example of xenophobia.


American Heritage Dictionary wrote:
xenophobia [(zen-uh-foh-bee-uh, zee-nuh-foh-bee-uh)]

An unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.

In particular, when pointing out that someone different from you sucks at math, it is easy to stereotype it to be that entire class of person. Hence the example with the raptor; to call this comic sexist is to see a tree instead of the forest.


Actually, I thought xenophobia meant fear of the unknown. In which case, it's not likely that a guy would consider girls to be "unknown". Unknown, actually, is pretty close to foreign or different, yet the meanings change everything, so I can see where you're going with this.

The comic isn't sexist as far as I see it, just pointing out stereotyping and MAYBE pointing out sexism. Also, Americans are afraid of Arabs? I don't think thats universal, or even close to universal. Or is just just a simple example?
All warfare is based on heavily-armed robotic commandos.
~Sun Tzu

Notes: My last avatar was "Vote Robot Nixon", so I'm gonna keep a list here. :D
User avatar
GCM
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Metropolis City, Planet Kerwan, Solana Galaxy

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Spill Wooner » Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:44 am UTC

GCM wrote:Actually, I thought xenophobia meant fear of the unknown. In which case, it's not likely that a guy would consider girls to be "unknown". Unknown, actually, is pretty close to foreign or different, yet the meanings change everything, so I can see where you're going with this.


Interestingly enough, while there are certainly stories of sexist teachers or other administrators, most of the girls I know who tried their hands in technical fields had a different complaint. The departments were happy to have more women enroll, but their classmates were frightened of those alien girl-things. Much of the girl-geek fetishization I see on these boards carries a similar theme.

Quix:

If you wanted to compare acts of violence against men vs. acts of violence against women in the general media, there's really no compare. Our hero fires into a crowd of mooks? It's a safe bet those mooks are all men. Our plucky investigator gets the tar beat out of him as a warning? Odds are it's a he as well. I'm not trying to go all Men's Rights Advocate here; the male and female position both have advantages and disadvantages in society, I'm not trying to argue that all things considered men are worse off, just that in this particular instance that violence against men is treated as unexceptional, while violence against women carries greater emotional weight.

I don't know enough background on the "throw rocks at boys" shirts to know if they became popular because they were controversial, or became so controversial because they reached a certain level of popularity that they were highly visible. I'm just going from my personal experiences, but I haven't seen enough misogynist clothing to trigger an outcry response. Social censure serves to limit visibility, and limited visibility in turn serves to limit outcry.

So the violence against women humor is "funny" precisely because it's so transgressive. Your David and Goliath example proves little; they enjoyed transgressive humor to begin with, as is obvious by the fact that they put out the shirt in the first place, so further transgressive humor shouldn't be a surprise. Being highly aware that people who enjoy transgressive humor exist - I believe I called them "jerks" in my last post - shouldn't be all that noteworthy. The only way to stop that would be to make violence against women as culturally unexceptional as violence against men, which would be nigh impossible. Even assuming we consider it desirable in the first place.
Spill Wooner
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:22 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby cephalopod9 » Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:27 am UTC

Spill Wooner wrote:If you wanted to compare acts of violence against men vs. acts of violence against women in the general media, there's really no compare. Our hero fires into a crowd of mooks? It's a safe bet those mooks are all men. Our plucky investigator gets the tar beat out of him as a warning? Odds are it's a he as well. I'm not trying to go all Men's Rights Advocate here; the male and female position both have advantages and disadvantages in society, I'm not trying to argue that all things considered men are worse off, just that in this particular instance that violence against men is treated as unexceptional, while violence against women carries greater emotional weight.


You might also note in the violence violence cases, the ones doing the shooting and punching are also men. It's part of the same unfair paradigm that says it's right or good for men to be hurthing eachother (I'm cranky, so this is real informal.)

Maybe I didn't explain well enough earlier, instead of taking the approach 1-"bad stuff happens to women" 2-"but, but, bad stuff happens to men" 1-"women have it worse" 2-"nu-uh" 1-"uh huh" -and so on forever-

we should be looking at things like 1-"bad stuff happens to women" 2-"you're right, and hey, the stuff that causes bad stuff to happen to women also causes bad stuff to happen to men!" 1-"you're right too! this stuff is bad" -then maybe we get something done and aren't angry at eachother-

To elaborate:
bad - 1-"violence against women means women have it worse" 2-"nu-uh, violence against men is worse" -bicker bicker bicker-

better - 1 and 2 realize societal pressure for men to be violent kind of sucks.

I would also like to take a moment and remind everyone that Todd Goldman(david and goliath) is like 5 kinds of asshole, and not a good example of anything except how to suck at life (and maybe get rich doing it).
Image
User avatar
cephalopod9
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby GCM » Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:51 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
Spill Wooner wrote:If you wanted to compare acts of violence against men vs. acts of violence against women in the general media, there's really no compare. Our hero fires into a crowd of mooks? It's a safe bet those mooks are all men. Our plucky investigator gets the tar beat out of him as a warning? Odds are it's a he as well. I'm not trying to go all Men's Rights Advocate here; the male and female position both have advantages and disadvantages in society, I'm not trying to argue that all things considered men are worse off, just that in this particular instance that violence against men is treated as unexceptional, while violence against women carries greater emotional weight.


You might also note in the violence violence cases, the ones doing the shooting and punching are also men. It's part of the same unfair paradigm that says it's right or good for men to be hurthing eachother (I'm cranky, so this is real informal.)

Maybe I didn't explain well enough earlier, instead of taking the approach 1-"bad stuff happens to women" 2-"but, but, bad stuff happens to men" 1-"women have it worse" 2-"nu-uh" 1-"uh huh" -and so on forever-

we should be looking at things like 1-"bad stuff happens to women" 2-"you're right, and hey, the stuff that causes bad stuff to happen to women also causes bad stuff to happen to men!" 1-"you're right too! this stuff is bad" -then maybe we get something done and aren't angry at eachother-

To elaborate:
bad - 1-"violence against women means women have it worse" 2-"nu-uh, violence against men is worse" -bicker bicker bicker-

better - 1 and 2 realize societal pressure for men to be violent kind of sucks.

I would also like to take a moment and remind everyone that Todd Goldman(david and goliath) is like 5 kinds of asshole, and not a good example of anything except how to suck at life (and maybe get rich doing it).


The lesson here? Men are better at violence :D.
All warfare is based on heavily-armed robotic commandos.
~Sun Tzu

Notes: My last avatar was "Vote Robot Nixon", so I'm gonna keep a list here. :D
User avatar
GCM
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Metropolis City, Planet Kerwan, Solana Galaxy

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Linux0s » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:25 am UTC

Raptors suck at math but they excel at raptor (...here come the dreams again Randall). ~Linux0s
Attachments
how_it_works_raptor_II.png
how_it_works_raptor_II.png (22.74 KiB) Viewed 5004 times
If the male mind truly were a machine it would consist of a shaft and a bushing.
User avatar
Linux0s
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby DeadCatX2 » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:19 pm UTC

Spill Wooner wrote:
DeadCatX2 wrote:In particular, when pointing out that someone different from you sucks at math, it is easy to stereotype it to be that entire class of person. Hence the example with the raptor; to call this comic sexist is to see a tree instead of the forest.

Picture the original comic, except the man and the woman are standing over a burnt roast. [..] Do you really think we'd get the same effect over "wow, women suck at cooking" [..] ?

Actually, if you meant "men suck at cooking", then I do think it would generate roughly the same effect. It's still stereotyping someone else because they're in a different "class", and the stereotypes are probably roughly as popular.

In fact, I would venture to say that the discussion thread wouldn't have been nearly as long, because people wouldn't get nearly as offended by the propagation of a male stereotype.


Quixotess wrote:I strongly protest and disbelieve that there are an equivalent, or close to equivalent, number of shirts that advocate violence against men.

I strongly believe that mainstream distributors of clothing would consider a shirt advocating violence against women (or gays, or goths, etc) to be a PR nightmare.


Linux0s wrote:Raptors suck at math but they excel at raptor (...here come the dreams again Randall). ~Linux0s

Image
User avatar
DeadCatX2
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:22 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby pinkgothic » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:00 pm UTC

(Oh god! I'm loving this little sequence of comics.)

Which in turn leads to the inevitable:

Image

I can't draw stick-figures. No, don't look at me like that, I honestly can't, not so they actually convey anything.
Stuff: own scribblings; favourite mewsic: luxuria & @440; underrated game
User avatar
pinkgothic
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:47 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Yuri2356 » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Aww...


Thought it annoys me on a theoretical level that this depiction of a feminine-looking raptor killing a young man can be viewed as cute and comical, whereas the opposite would likely be met with torches and pitchforks. I hope for a day when we can all be equally expendable in the name of good fun.

On another note, its mouth should be open a bit to accomodate that leg. It doesn't look like it's gripping anything with its mouth.
User avatar
Yuri2356
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby DeadCatX2 » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:39 pm UTC

Kawaii! You draw quite the attractive raptor. I love her eyes and her eyelashes.
User avatar
DeadCatX2
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:22 pm UTC

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby pinkgothic » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:54 pm UTC

Yuri2356 wrote:Thought it annoys me on a theoretical level that this depiction of a feminine-looking raptor [...]


It's actually not designed specifically to be a she, per se - but a reference to, "blinks cutely", which was otherwise hard to do without making an animation of it.

Yuri2356 wrote:On another note, its mouth should be open a bit to accomodate that leg.


Oh, come on. Eyelashes on a raptor! Eyelashes on a raptor! :lol: Suspension of disbelief!
Honestly, it's intentional. I was thinking of letting the bit of the leg visibly 'pinch' together to become almost a mere line at height of the mouth, which it does, but I didn't want to sacrafice the "cute" angle just to make that bit clear. In a nutshell: this has very little to do with reality, and everything to do with punning the cliché of the cat caught with a feather protruding from its mouth. :P
Stuff: own scribblings; favourite mewsic: luxuria & @440; underrated game
User avatar
pinkgothic
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:47 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: "How It Works" Discussion

Postby Yuri2356 » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:56 pm UTC

pinkgothic wrote:Oh, come on. Eyelashes on a raptor! Eyelashes on a raptor! :lol: Suspension of disbelief!
Honestly, it's intentional. I was thinking of letting the bit of the leg visibly 'pinch' together to become almost a mere line at height of the mouth, which it does, but I didn't want to sacrafice the "cute" angle just to make that bit clear. In a nutshell: this has very little to do with reality. :P

Suspending Biology is one thing, Geometry is not so forgiving.

Still good work! :mrgreen:
User avatar
Yuri2356
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

PreviousNext

Return to Individual XKCD Comic Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media, Shoaler, SNOXIAABOBORA, yappobiscuits and 18 guests