Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2500-2504 (29 July- August 2, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
wiserd:
--- Quote from: Method of Madness on 06 Aug 2013, 12:43 ---I don't think anyone was suggesting that her sociopathic tendencies and her apparent violations of gender norms were at all related, unless I missed something.
--- End quote ---
Is It Cold In Here wrote; "The key question is how Dickmouth Stinkface's actions compare with those of other sociopathic female inmates."
Method of Madness:
He was comparing her to other inmates, I don't think he was saying that made her "less female".
altheora:
I am rather morbidly curious about tomorrow's strip. >>
Method of Madness:
This is actually last week's thread, but welcome to the forum! Here is this week's thread.
Valdís:
--- Quote from: wiserd on 05 Aug 2013, 19:28 ---I never claimed that the AIs were 'less than' anything.
--- End quote ---
You literally said "where the AIs are concerned" as if something inherently sexist and inappropriate was suddenly fine just because these people aren't human.
--- Quote from: wiserd on 05 Aug 2013, 19:28 ---They're designed as some kind of agents, but I don't totally grasp the deeper purpose (if there even is one) behind their agency. Was there a huge push for jumping the uncanny valley by adding really odd personality idiosyncrasies? Maybe I'm just expecting too much from a webcomic. But I don't think I'm totally off the deep end.
--- End quote ---
The comic has talked about it. They're an emergent intelligence from things humans were doing without specifically making an AI, not a designed one.
--- Quote from: wiserd on 05 Aug 2013, 19:28 ---Uhh. Please reread where I already clarified that my statements weren't normative. So the use of 'adequate' isn't really relevant. Or are you implying that the notions of masculinity and feminity themselves should be taboo? May herself seems to clearly believe she's somehow inappropriately gendered.
If we were critiquing a story about the Victorian era and a character wore pants for casual activities, it would be completely in line to note how unusual/anachronistic that was and ask what the author was saying about the character.
--- End quote ---
In no possible way were your statements not "normative" - merely saying they weren't doesn't make that the case. You called into question her very female identity over some traits you feel are too "male" for it to be the case.
Also QC isn't in friggin' Victorian England, apart from some bar visits, and the very fact that you would consider her being, in your eyes, "male-like" to be completely out of place and having to be a statement "saying something" says more about you.
--- Quote from: wiserd on 05 Aug 2013, 19:28 ---Sure. Intersex is more PC.
--- End quote ---
It isn't "More PC", it's "Not completely fucking wrong and misrepresenting who and what they are". It's also worth noting that talking about how "PC" something is.. is generally a huge red flag going up.
--- Quote from: wiserd on 06 Aug 2013, 12:48 ---Socially, even today, it's not necessarily adaptive to treat people "exactly the same" in all cultures and all situations. People are individuals and their individuality is frequently informed by their sex. Male behavior is not statistically identical to female behavior, for whatever reason. Look at prison populations and arrest rates for an example of that. I don't think it holds up as a predictive model in day to day life.
--- End quote ---
Since when do you have an urgent need for a predictive model on whether some woman is "really a guy", then?
You are clearly just making excuses for cisnormative sexism. Statistical differences between particular genders are utterly irrelevant as to whether or not you're justified in that kind of shitty gender-policing behaviour. Having your preexisting biases "informed" by people's gender and that "because people in your group tend towards X, it is correct to assume you are also X". It is more or less identical to saying that because in the U.S. black people are disproportionately put in prison that you're therefore justified in treating all people of that group as criminals. That clearly isn't true.
Even if you believe that it's inevitable that women will statistically end up different in such ways, then that still doesn't at all account for the fact that 100% of female characters wouldn't be like May as things stand. This betrays that fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. If you really understood that then there's no reason for her to be out of place at all, even when thinking of women in such a way. But no, even when talking about "statistics" you none-the-less revert back to "None of the women I know".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version