1202: "Girls and Boys"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Kit. » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:25 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:My post was not worded clearly however, as I have acknowledged. This is because I initially intended to post a stronger statement but thought that it wasn't properly valid. I didn't rework my post thoroughly enough once I'd decided to make that change however.

It still bears the marks of that "not properly valid" statement, though. And that's, I believe, what most are objecting to.

Besides, I hope that we can agree that it's not your definition that matters, as the discussion about "-isms" was started not by you, but by cmyk:

eSOANEM wrote:
cmyk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:My university is doing a campaign at the moment where they get people to write "I need feminism because..." along with a reason on a whiteboard, they take a photo and put it on their website. I've already done one, but I'm very tempted to do another with today's comic drawn on it.


I fail to come up with any reason why anyone, anywhere, needs any kind of "-ism".


While proisms and antiisms are not needed (and they are generally unhelpful), feminism (at least as I, and almost all non-misandrist feminists use the term) is not a proism in favour of women any more,

There is nothing unusual in it for proisms. Communism didn't end up as pro-communes either.

Now, enough with formalities, let's go straight to the point: it's not the egalitarians who benefit from calling egalitarianism "feminism". It's just the opposite, i.e. chauvinists of all sorts. In particular, both male and female chauvinists are interested in presenting gender egalitarians as a kind of "female chauvinists", and that's exactly what this labelling does.

eSOANEM wrote:
Kit. wrote:No, I would argue that this word choice was deliberately employed to frame feminism as an "exceptional" "anti-antism" - instead of a "generic" "proism" (which it possibly is).

See the above point and you will see how, if this was used deliberately in such a way, I'm doing it incredibly badly (what I'm actually trying to do is clarify my terms so you understand what I'm saying).

I didn't say that you were doing it well (nor that it were you who did it deliberately).

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Angelastic » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:18 pm UTC

PsiSquared wrote:
scotty2haughty wrote:I doubt the earth will be around in the year 3000 in the first place, so we'd better get moving.


Quite frankly, I never understood this argument in favor of space exploration.

If we can't even maintain our own planet properly, going to other planets isn't going to solve anything. We'll just screw them up just like we screwed the earth.
We don't even need to screw them up; they're already far more screwed up (in terms of being inhospitable to human life) than Earth is likely to be at the time we go to them. If we can't even terraform our own planet once we've screwed it up, trying to terraform others isn't going to work very well. In a similar vein, once we learn to manage finite resources well enough to keep humans alive all the way to another star, we won't need to go to one.

But it sounded to me like scotty2haughty was saying the Earth actually wouldn't be around, i.e. it would have been smashed to pieces by a giant meteorite or engulfed by the Sun or swallowed by Galactus or something, in which case we wouldn't be the ones who screwed it up.
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Klear » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:22 pm UTC

On the other hand, if we really screw up Earth beyond repair, a lot of technologies we will be forced to develop to survive might be useful for colonisation. And vice versa.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Kit. » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:49 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:But it sounded to me like scotty2haughty was saying the Earth actually wouldn't be around, i.e. it would have been smashed to pieces by a giant meteorite or engulfed by the Sun or swallowed by Galactus

Or mined by Google for storage back-end to Google Earth.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby eSOANEM » Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:29 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:I'm distinguishing MRAs (the jackasses who describe themselves as such, talk about being friendzoned, complain more about false allegations of rape than that women are afraid to report rapes etc. etc.) from people who care about gender equality and are interested in men's issues stemming from that

I think I agree with what you're explicitly saying, but some of that part in parentheses seems like the kind of unnecessary antagonism that I'm concerned about curbing. Specifically, pitting concerns about false rape accusation against concerns about women being afraid to report rape, as though these were causes in conflict with each other. Both of those are bad things, and someone fighting against one problem isn't necessarily dismissing or perpetuating the other problem. Someone can focus their energy on fighting one in particular and not the other, without becoming an enemy of those focusing their energy fighting the other.

I'm reminded of a video I recently saw, just some raw footage of some conflict between a self-described feminist group and a self-described MRA group protesting on opposite sides of the street somewhere. Both sides had some very angry people shouting at the other side, and I noticed that the message was basically the same from both sides: "If you're so concerned about gender equality, why do you oppose our cause? Why are we your enemies? Shouldn't you support us? We're not advocating any of the things you're fighting against!" This from both the feminists to the MRAs and the MRAs to the feminists. And I just couldn't help but wondering why people in either group can't just be "good work fighting against that problem there, I'm over here fighting against this problem here, our causes are complementary but separable, I wish you luck in that endeavor but I'm focusing my energy on this one".

That seems to me a specific example of a wider problem I notice with many social justice movements: there is often a very strong us-vs-them mentality where if you're not actively part of the solution you are seen by default as part of the problem. Any time there is some form of aggression, violence, or exploitation, you've got four groups of people with respect to that: the perpetrators, the victims, the defenders, and the bystanders. It seems like many victims and defenders want to divide the world into them together on one half, and the perpetrators and bystanders together on the other half. The conflict between the truly egalitarian parts of both feminist and "MRA"/"masculist" movements looks to me like it's a side-effect of this: each side sees the other as standing by and not joining their fight, and therefore as part of the enemy camp along with the perpetrators of the aggression they're fighting against. If everyone could just stop thinking of bystanders as "more enemy than ally" but just completely neutral and potentially friendly parties instead, I think a lot of these different movements could get along much better.

And of course it could help if everyone would accept a neutral umbrella term like anti-sexism or gender egalitarianism and frame feminist and masculist issues as complementary subtopics within that broader movement, too.


Agreed. My point is however that MRAs tend to focus solely on the issues affecting men even when there is a very closely related issue affecting women which is vastly more common and damaging to the victim (as is the case with false allegations of rape and unreported rapes).

I agree as well about this attitude being a common problem in social justice groups, particularly those which seem to be particularly active on tumblr. The main problem I have with the term MRA adn masculist/masculinist is that men do not need protecting to anywhere near the same extent as women from injustices in the world because they face fewer; furthermore, there is no history to the term.

In short, there is no reason for a gender egalitarian to declare themselves an MRA or masculist/masculinist; there are a few why they might want to declare themselves a feminist. Because of this, MRA groups, to a much greater extent than feminist groups are dominated by sexist elements who play up perceived injustices where none exist/demonise "them"/work to extend and perpetuate their own privilege.

Like I say, I think there will come a day when gender egalitarian is a better term than feminist, but I do not think this is that day.

Kit. wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:My post was not worded clearly however, as I have acknowledged. This is because I initially intended to post a stronger statement but thought that it wasn't properly valid. I didn't rework my post thoroughly enough once I'd decided to make that change however.

It still bears the marks of that "not properly valid" statement, though. And that's, I believe, what most are objecting to.

Besides, I hope that we can agree that it's not your definition that matters, as the discussion about "-isms" was started not by you, but by cmyk:


Yes, I misunderstood his statement based on my past experiences with the term ism. I have moved on from this and responded using the definition you all prefer. There is no reason now to keep dragging up the fact that I initially used a different conception of the term other than idiotic point-scoring.

Kit. wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
cmyk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:My university is doing a campaign at the moment where they get people to write "I need feminism because..." along with a reason on a whiteboard, they take a photo and put it on their website. I've already done one, but I'm very tempted to do another with today's comic drawn on it.


I fail to come up with any reason why anyone, anywhere, needs any kind of "-ism".


While proisms and antiisms are not needed (and they are generally unhelpful), feminism (at least as I, and almost all non-misandrist feminists use the term) is not a proism in favour of women any more,

There is nothing unusual in it for proisms. Communism didn't end up as pro-communes either.


True. At that point, it fits the ideology model where the name is potentially broadly irrelevant. At that point, I think blanket statements such as that cmyk made become pretty meaningless (it can be used to argue that no-one needs science because science's most fundamental principle is empiricism and apparently, there isn't anyone, anywhere who needs that). As such, I restricted my discussion using the broader "ism" definition to true proisms and antiisms because the statement is obviously phrased far too absolutely for the other types.

Kit. wrote:Now, enough with formalities, let's go straight to the point: it's not the egalitarians who benefit from calling egalitarianism "feminism". It's just the opposite, i.e. chauvinists of all sorts. In particular, both male and female chauvinists are interested in presenting gender egalitarians as a kind of "female chauvinists", and that's exactly what this labelling does.


Again with the read my posts:

eSOANEM wrote:I agree with this entirely. Feminist is not a good name for the movement. I use it because I feel like, at the moment, society is still imbalanced enough against women that the good done focussing it on women (and therefore distancing it from the MRAs who don't get what egalitarianism is (not, I'm distinguishing MRAs (the jackasses who describe themselves as such, talk about being friendzoned, complain more about false allegations of rape than that women are afraid to report rapes etc. etc.) from people who care about gender equality and are interested in men's issues stemming from that) outweighs the bad of making the movement appear misandrist.

At the moment, my preferred approach to dealing with misandrist calling themselves feminists is to call them out on it. Sadly, as a man they're likely to ignore me or just shout back angrily. Maybe in a decade or two's time when gender equality is more of a reality I might consider it worthwhile to start identifying as a gender egalitarian instead but, in my mind, that time has not yet come.


There are legitimate reasons why an egalitarian might want to use the term feminist. The history is, by and large, incidental; the main one is based on the fact that the equivalent terms to feminist have been co-opted by anti-egalitarian MRAs and it is important for egalitarians to distance themselves from that movement. Working under the broader umbrella term "gender egalitarian" would make it easier for MRAs to claim unity and try to legitimise their position of trying to perpetuate and extend their privilege. If the term MRA and masculist/masculinist had not been co-opted like this though, I would certainly prefer the term egalitarian.

Furthermore, I feel like it is important for gender egalitarianism to present a united front. If there are feminist groups and MRA groups and egalitarian groups all lobbying separately, it becomes easier for people in power who want to ignore such lobbyists to say that these groups are small and do not represent the people. Ideally, I would prefer it to be united as a gender equality movement, but given the current status quo I believe it is best to unite behind the feminist label (there are lots of things I feel similarly about i.e. X would be the desired outcome, but getting to X would cause too much harm to be a good thing, it would be better to do Y in the hopes of achieving X over a longer time period).

Using the term feminism does not benefit me, but I feel like it benefits the movement (as with many things though, its effect is not simple and it is entirely reasonable to take the position that the name creates the us-and-them mentality which gives rise to MRAs in the first place and that this harm from continuing to do so outweighs the benefit from distancing the movement from the MRAs that do exist).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

project2051
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:20 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby project2051 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:08 pm UTC

PsiSquared wrote:
scotty2haughty wrote:I doubt the earth will be around in the year 3000 in the first place, so we'd better get moving.


Quite frankly, I never understood this argument in favor of space exploration.

If we can't even maintain our own planet properly, going to other planets isn't going to solve anything. We'll just screw them up just like we screwed the earth.



That because our manifest destiny is to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before, and fuck them up.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:24 pm UTC

project2051 wrote:That because our manifest destiny is to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before, and fuck themup.


Fixed that for you...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby addams » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:26 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:
Klear wrote:Is that what he did? If so, I apologise, but my interpretation of the discussion is that it's about what "-isms" are generally thought to mean. He didn't say that for the purpose of this discussion he considers "-isms" to be X and not Y as usual, he said that in his opinion only X are ture "-isms" and excluded Y altogether.

This almost makes sense if you put an X before each variable read them as chromosomes.

Feminism attempting to reach gender egalitarianism assuming a male-dominated culture: Let's consider XX, not only think about XY as usual.
Anti-male attitude people sometimes think of and are annoyed by when they think of feminism: Only XX are the true people; let's exclude XY altogether.

Yes. This is both the belief system and the behavoir code of Some People.

Exclude! Exclude Who?
Men? Men are XY.
Women are XX.

http://www.google.com/search?q=xy+chrom ... 43&bih=412

Well?
What a genetics profile on Everyperson?

What would we learn?
We would learn that Sometimes The Profile is Wrong.
It's faster and more fun to Wing It.

Humans are Experts at Winging It.
Make a guess about Five People in Your Life.

Design a gentics profile for Those People.
How would You do it? Exaustive Labor?

Just Look at 'em? Really?
99% Bananna?

A wonderful Fairy Tail.
Each and every Human has more in Common with a Bananna that it has in common with What?
A Coodie carryeing Rock?

Who are Our Men?
aXY? Our Men?

Their Men are xXY.
Sissies. Those xXy guys are Sissies.

Who's men are the yYY's?
Those guys can be difficult.
Ever met one?

Back to You Bob.
It's genetics.

Remeber the Heady Days?
It was so exciting to me.

visual X.
visual Y.

Yes. Women and men noticed the Broken Leg. Right?
Sad story. The Chromosome on the Y of what was assumed to be Normal men had a broken Leg for a while.
So, Sad. Right?

Well; It has sense been explained.
Who is better, Now?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

InfinityOrNone
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:14 am UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby InfinityOrNone » Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:01 am UTC

Boys and girls go to Jupiter to be killed en route by an insane computer program.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby addams » Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:36 pm UTC

InfinityOrNone wrote:Boys and girls go to Jupiter to be killed en route by an insane computer program.

The Music was delightful, before the computer woke up to its 'Real Mission'.

2001 Space Odyssey.
The waltz is still such a delight.

Spoiler:
Poor Computer. ''Dasey Dasey.''
Not such a bad way for a computer to go out.
It came in Singing Dasey; It went out Singing Dasey.

That was a scary Movie!
How did it end?

Youtube tells me it is as weird, now as it was then.
A different sourse told me Sagan did some of The Work on that project.
Bad Sagan. Bad.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
cmyk
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere beyond the sands of time... In other words, Detroit MI.
Contact:

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby cmyk » Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:06 pm UTC

Can't spell "schism" without "ism"!

In all seriousness, I find labeling along sociopolitical grounds almost as bad as religious dogma. It may go to serve a purpose, in all good intentions, to some end. But labels have a (demonstrable) way of intrinsically discriminating, for good or bad, due to human nature in general.

As a rule, I tend to avoid them. I find it disheartening for anyone to ever declare a "need" for an -ism, perceived pro or con, as definitions of such are ultimately plastic and abusable by the most egregious of us just looking for an umbrella to position over their uncritically thinking head and band together on shifting social or political sands.

IOW, by design, it tends to polarize.
Image

"If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit." —Doc Brown

"I... can't describe it. This... means something... this... is important." –Roy Neary

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby eSOANEM » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:34 pm UTC

Your beef then is with people using the term?

That's fair enough. Although, in that case, it seems to me that your issue isn't that people don't need feminism (as your first post seemed to imply) but rather that saying "I need feminism" (rather than, for instance, "I need to be treated with respect"/"I need equal pay" etc.) is misguided and helpful.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
cmyk
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere beyond the sands of time... In other words, Detroit MI.
Contact:

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby cmyk » Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:03 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:My university is doing a campaign at the moment where they get people to write "I need feminism because..." along with a reason on a whiteboard, they take a photo and put it on their website. I've already done one, but I'm very tempted to do another with today's comic drawn on it.


Bolding mine.

eSOANEM wrote:Your beef then is with people using the term?

That's fair enough. Although, in that case, it seems to me that your issue isn't that people don't need feminism (as your first post seemed to imply) but rather that saying "I need feminism" (rather than, for instance, "I need to be treated with respect"/"I need equal pay" etc.) is misguided and helpful.


Not using the term, per se; only the claim in needing it.*

It's more in the idea of a campaign encouraging people to write "I need feminism," rather than something more appropriate like, "I support...", "I choose...", etc.

To be clear, I'm all for movements or organizations that promote, encourage, and empower sociopolitical/economic equality, whether it be gender, race, sexuality, religion, or any other asinine discrimination, and in no way am I disparaging feminism itself as it stands today.

*Unless I'm missing a finer grammatical or semantic point (i.e. it's not necessarily essential as it is convenient), is it feminism's view that people need feminism as a fundamental ideology for gender equality to prevail? I believe 100% in gender equality, does this make me a feminist? Is this something I need? For a comparison, I'd say I identify strongly with humanitarianism, but needing it as opposed to just being a humanitarian, suggests I can't be one, unless it's recognized as some organization or movement first.
Image

"If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit." —Doc Brown

"I... can't describe it. This... means something... this... is important." –Roy Neary

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:13 am UTC

Re: the footnote: I love, therefore, I need love. Is love an organization? = )
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby elasto » Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:14 am UTC

Is love an -ism?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:42 am UTC

No, but I think cmyk's logic regarding his example of humanitarianism is a non sequitur. "I need feminism" doesn't mean "I need someone to tell me how to be more gender-egalitarian," but "I need people in general to be more gender-egalitarian," at least with the example we saw. So needing humanitarianism and being humanitarian really are already two very different things.

And yeah, feminism is more like an ideology than like a single ideal, so words like choose and support would have been more accurate than need, if less striking, in this case. But it's also the movement we have, so whether or not feminism corners the market on egalitarianism, it can still be given credit for the contributions it makes. Anyone who says he or she needs money really means he or she needs the ability to convince others to provide him or her with goods and services, absolve debts, etc., but we wouldn't ordinarily question the statement.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby eSOANEM » Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:10 am UTC

cmyk wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:My university is doing a campaign at the moment where they get people to write "I need feminism because..." along with a reason on a whiteboard, they take a photo and put it on their website. I've already done one, but I'm very tempted to do another with today's comic drawn on it.


Bolding mine.

eSOANEM wrote:Your beef then is with people using the term?

That's fair enough. Although, in that case, it seems to me that your issue isn't that people don't need feminism (as your first post seemed to imply) but rather that saying "I need feminism" (rather than, for instance, "I need to be treated with respect"/"I need equal pay" etc.) is misguided and helpful.


Not using the term, per se; only the claim in needing it.*

It's more in the idea of a campaign encouraging people to write "I need feminism," rather than something more appropriate like, "I support...", "I choose...", etc.

To be clear, I'm all for movements or organizations that promote, encourage, and empower sociopolitical/economic equality, whether it be gender, race, sexuality, religion, or any other asinine discrimination, and in no way am I disparaging feminism itself as it stands today.

*Unless I'm missing a finer grammatical or semantic point (i.e. it's not necessarily essential as it is convenient), is it feminism's view that people need feminism as a fundamental ideology for gender equality to prevail? I believe 100% in gender equality, does this make me a feminist? Is this something I need? For a comparison, I'd say I identify strongly with humanitarianism, but needing it as opposed to just being a humanitarian, suggests I can't be one, unless it's recognized as some organization or movement first.


So is it the term "need" that bothers you then?

I think the main reason that term was used is that encourages people to give reasons that are personally relevant to them whereas "I support feminism because" would encourage people to make more general, idealogical statements. I think it's good to encourage that degree of personal-ness because otherwise almost every board would be along the lines of "equality wooo". As it is, we get people sharing their own experiences of everyday sexism; gender stereotypes and binaries; sexual assaults and double standards. This campaign highlights the specific issues that affect feminists where as a "I support feminism because" would not so much.

I think the contention is not that people need feminism in order for gender equality to prevail, but rather that people need gender equality at all. Policies to fix this are feminist policies and so any action to improve gender equality is a feminist one. This is what it means when it says "why do you need feminism"; it does not mean that they believe you need to label yourself as such (although the fact that many people consider feminism to be a dirty word is worrying).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Kaelin
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby Kaelin » Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:25 pm UTC

I've taped this one on my office door. It's not the best comic Randall's written, but it's the best one related to the workplace (college, math dept.) that's relevant and appropriate enough to share. And what it lacks in immediate "ha ha" power it makes up for in staying power.

Thank you, Randall!

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1202: "Girls and Boys"

Postby mathmannix » Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:37 pm UTC

Kaelin wrote:I've taped this one on my office door. It's not the best comic Randall's written, but it's the best one related to the workplace (college, math dept.) that's relevant and appropriate enough to share. And what it lacks in immediate "ha ha" power it makes up for in staying power.

Thank you, Randall!


"Purity" is appropriate enough (disregarding the alt-text, which I am assuming you wouldn't print out)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 111 guests