”Science“ neither makes nor supports* claims about profession or potential activities engaged in by girls or boys being the result of sex or gender, outside of social compulsion.
“Science” neither makes nor supports* claims about associating flowers with girls and not boys, or about associating rocket ships and lightning with boys but not girls, being the result of sex or gender, outside of social compulsion.
”Science” neither makes nor supports* claims about people exhibiting stereotypical secondary sexual characteristics being “girls” or “boys” (i.e., terms used to denote *immature* individuals of either sex, so also here ew WTF?).
I see only one “Village People” archetype In the cartoon.
Gender stereotypes are worthy of destruction and dismissal. I think that’s in agreement with the artist? But so much garbage to unpack here…
Admittedly, yep I’m biased. I’m sick of hearing anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-knowledge movement that’s been overtaking everything in recent years :-/
*Ok so actually “counters”, but hey who’s counting?
If the … girl? … in the cartoon didn’t have purple hair, I’d find the message clearer.
One of the things about using manga-influenced art style is that the vast majority of characters are essentially androgynous. I suspect that may be why the style is so appealing to the trans/queer/nb set.
The storyline that appears in is basically anti-trans, with the character in it having just been recommended “girl pills” or “boy pills” for liking the wrong stuff. A boy later in the story is sent to gender camp for thinking a Barbie doll was pretty, and the overarching “patriarchy matrix” is described as having adapted to continue its war on women by becoming “More colourful” and “choicey”. One of the characters gets threatened with an axe and then cited by a cop for misgendering her teary eyed assailant.
It’s clear, at least to me, from this one panel, that the cartoonist is pushing back against the reductive view of gender displayed in the chart. To what end, I wasn’t sure; thanks for the link to the comic and the plotline summary.
I have friends who reject gender stereotypes one moment and then the next moment rely on those very same stereotypes to assert they are “non-binary” or that another person is “trans”. They seem unaware of the dissonance. So I can’t tell, when they post something regarding gender stereotypes, which narrative they are thinking about.
Sackbut: The link is to a current comic strip. Scrolling back into mid-November doesn’t find this graphic.
Its a nice panel on pink/blue apartheid, but not enough on its own. The ‘science’ of modern purdah seems to be centered on ‘evo-psych’ and ‘neurobabble.’ Without pointing that out, there’s a risk of Goop-ish anti-rationality.
The comic has an interesting history. Back in the long-ago, it was very much a typical gag-a-day strip, and frankly used a lot of sexist and racist humor to get cheap laughs (jokes about pimps were common, scoring the double-tap). Then he started doing longer storylines with the characters, and as a result, they became more fleshed out–but they were still acting the same way, with the male lead being perpetually sexist and the female lead just marginally tolerating his antics.
But making the characters and their stories deeper somehow tripped a wire in the author’s brain, and he realized how harmful so much of what he’d written for the strip was. Since (as is common in webcomics) there was basically a self-insert character, he had that character go through much the same moment of conscience he was dealing with.
When he finally got a grip on his new view of the world, he started the Patriarchy Matrix storyline, and has been going full-tilt RadFem ever since. A massive number of readers jumped ship, and another group found the strip, because the first Patriarchy strip was being spread online.
Initially, he was pretty much indifferent to the trans issue. (He was branded a SWERF almost from day one, on the other hand, because that was something he felt the need to address–his original comic often used “pimp humor” to get those cheap laughs, so he immediately began ripping on the sex industry.) But as the TRAs began to get more and more absurd, he started joining in the pushback.
Which, absurdly, caused another shift in readership–again, a bunch of fans who joined because they thought he was WOKE, suddenly decided that he was now TERF. End result, they left, and other readers who had begun to question Trans Ideology have started coming in, instead.
I guess I didn’t read this as anti-science, but against those who claim science supports their claims, which it does not. But still the trans side claims science, and the Jordan Peterson’s of the world claim science, and Sam Harris claims science, and so forth.
Sounds from the posts above I might have been reading it right? They aren’t anti-science, but anti-people-claiming-to-use-science to support arguments against women being able to do more than be sexy?
Freemage, thanks for the explanation, which both intrigued me and horrified me. This mad swirl of correct ideology, groupthink, and popularity leads me to imagine that high school never ends for some people.
One thing for sure: we need more disparaging acronyms. SWERF and TERF sounds like an expensive entree made from plants.
I honestly don’t know what to make of this.
”Science“ neither makes nor supports* claims about profession or potential activities engaged in by girls or boys being the result of sex or gender, outside of social compulsion.
“Science” neither makes nor supports* claims about associating flowers with girls and not boys, or about associating rocket ships and lightning with boys but not girls, being the result of sex or gender, outside of social compulsion.
”Science” neither makes nor supports* claims about people exhibiting stereotypical secondary sexual characteristics being “girls” or “boys” (i.e., terms used to denote *immature* individuals of either sex, so also here ew WTF?).
I see only one “Village People” archetype In the cartoon.
Gender stereotypes are worthy of destruction and dismissal. I think that’s in agreement with the artist? But so much garbage to unpack here…
Admittedly, yep I’m biased. I’m sick of hearing anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-knowledge movement that’s been overtaking everything in recent years :-/
*Ok so actually “counters”, but hey who’s counting?
If the … girl? … in the cartoon didn’t have purple hair, I’d find the message clearer.
One of the things about using manga-influenced art style is that the vast majority of characters are essentially androgynous. I suspect that may be why the style is so appealing to the trans/queer/nb set.
What’s with the “right-side” science-shelf?
Oh, so now somehow “Science” and “The Village People” are mutually exclusive?
It’s true! Science is always saying girls are sexy maids. When will science finally stop saying that?!
Anyone who thinks they know what this comic is about but hasn’t read it, go to http://www.sinfest.com.
The artist is one of the good guys.
The storyline that appears in is basically anti-trans, with the character in it having just been recommended “girl pills” or “boy pills” for liking the wrong stuff. A boy later in the story is sent to gender camp for thinking a Barbie doll was pretty, and the overarching “patriarchy matrix” is described as having adapted to continue its war on women by becoming “More colourful” and “choicey”. One of the characters gets threatened with an axe and then cited by a cop for misgendering her teary eyed assailant.
It’s clear, at least to me, from this one panel, that the cartoonist is pushing back against the reductive view of gender displayed in the chart. To what end, I wasn’t sure; thanks for the link to the comic and the plotline summary.
I have friends who reject gender stereotypes one moment and then the next moment rely on those very same stereotypes to assert they are “non-binary” or that another person is “trans”. They seem unaware of the dissonance. So I can’t tell, when they post something regarding gender stereotypes, which narrative they are thinking about.
I believe this is the correct link for the comic. The previously posted link said “com” rather than “net”.
https://www.sinfest.net/
The story arc starts here:
https://www.sinfest.net/view.php?date=2019-04-28
The author explains the chart here:
https://spinster.xyz/@TatsuyaIshida/posts/102649221641416261
It’s a parody of the mermaid chart previously covered here:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2019/the-barbie-gi-joe-scale/
Sackbut: The link is to a current comic strip. Scrolling back into mid-November doesn’t find this graphic.
Its a nice panel on pink/blue apartheid, but not enough on its own. The ‘science’ of modern purdah seems to be centered on ‘evo-psych’ and ‘neurobabble.’ Without pointing that out, there’s a risk of Goop-ish anti-rationality.
Here is the link to the first strip in the series (which, again, is on sinfest.net, not com), named Level Up.
https://www.sinfest.net/view.php?date=2019-04-02
The strip in the OP is this one, episode 29.
https://www.sinfest.net/view.php?date=2019-04-30
Sorry! I thought the meaning was clear from the commentary in the corner. I just thought it was amusing; didn’t mean to be cryptic.
Haha, ok that makes waaaaaaay more sense in context :-)
The comic has an interesting history. Back in the long-ago, it was very much a typical gag-a-day strip, and frankly used a lot of sexist and racist humor to get cheap laughs (jokes about pimps were common, scoring the double-tap). Then he started doing longer storylines with the characters, and as a result, they became more fleshed out–but they were still acting the same way, with the male lead being perpetually sexist and the female lead just marginally tolerating his antics.
But making the characters and their stories deeper somehow tripped a wire in the author’s brain, and he realized how harmful so much of what he’d written for the strip was. Since (as is common in webcomics) there was basically a self-insert character, he had that character go through much the same moment of conscience he was dealing with.
When he finally got a grip on his new view of the world, he started the Patriarchy Matrix storyline, and has been going full-tilt RadFem ever since. A massive number of readers jumped ship, and another group found the strip, because the first Patriarchy strip was being spread online.
Initially, he was pretty much indifferent to the trans issue. (He was branded a SWERF almost from day one, on the other hand, because that was something he felt the need to address–his original comic often used “pimp humor” to get those cheap laughs, so he immediately began ripping on the sex industry.) But as the TRAs began to get more and more absurd, he started joining in the pushback.
Which, absurdly, caused another shift in readership–again, a bunch of fans who joined because they thought he was WOKE, suddenly decided that he was now TERF. End result, they left, and other readers who had begun to question Trans Ideology have started coming in, instead.
I guess I didn’t read this as anti-science, but against those who claim science supports their claims, which it does not. But still the trans side claims science, and the Jordan Peterson’s of the world claim science, and Sam Harris claims science, and so forth.
Sounds from the posts above I might have been reading it right? They aren’t anti-science, but anti-people-claiming-to-use-science to support arguments against women being able to do more than be sexy?
Freemage, thanks for the explanation, which both intrigued me and horrified me. This mad swirl of correct ideology, groupthink, and popularity leads me to imagine that high school never ends for some people.
One thing for sure: we need more disparaging acronyms. SWERF and TERF sounds like an expensive entree made from plants.
Ha! Thank you for that laugh :D