Chaotic Greedy
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It's something TV Tropes does to long anything, and despite popular demand doesn't make an exception for potholed links.
Well that's pretty dumb.
Well...that
certainly came out of nowhere.
Please dear God don't develop Sinfest Syndrome.
We had a thread for Sandra and Woo? Cool!
And yeah... Oh God please do not go all Sinfest... Please let this be just a joke...
What does Sinfest have to do with anything?
Hi
I doubt very seriously that S&W will get Ishida'd but this is a damn weird swing.
Chaotic Greedy
Nah, it'll probably be just as long as the Mistaken for Junkie arc.
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Sinfest used to be fun and then out of nowhere the creator decided that hardcore straw feminism was always right and everyone else was an evil penis demon of the patriarchy. All the characters became 1-dimensional cut outs of themselves to fight for/against the patriarchy or just disappeared. And it's been like that for what I'm pretty sure is years now. Every story arc is about how Xanthe and the Sisterhood are always right and are going to win/all men are sexist scum.
edited 7th Jul '14 4:19:04 AM by BaronPraxis
I get the feeling that this is more a criticism of knee-jerk feminism, where even hinting that there's a difference between the genders is seen as horrible.
Beyond that, though, this strip is basically Calvin & Hobbes. I really don't think it's going to wind up turning too serious. It's always going to remain primarily a gag-a-day comic.
X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
Hope so,but it started innocently with Sinfest too. We see where it starts to go in next strip
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
Um...why does the replacement teacher mention Elizabeth Bathory? She wasn't a very positive female figure.
Not Three Laws compliant.
The woman's name seems to be a reference to Dolores Umbridge. I don't think she is meant to be a positive character.
(that said, I personally always been skeptical to "males have larger variance in IQ" thing. Seems a convenient excuse to have men to retain privileged status while allowing they are not inherently better)
Chaotic Greedy
But just as the teacher was about to say, larger variance just means "more geniuses and more morons". I don't see where one can use that to justify any privilege, because just because the distribution changes doesn't mean YOU are on the upper end.
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
It means that, since there is more intelligent men than women, it is perfectly natural that men would end up in intelectual positions/ positions of power. Sure, there is also more stupid men, so one gender is not really superior to anothernote , but men still belong in the top.
To be clear, I am not doubt the statistics in itself. I have no knowledge on the matter to truly judge. But it does seem awfully convenient to me.
Eh, those kind of people need to be taught the scientific definition of "significant".* There's math involved, so I forgot the exact formula, but I believe it basically comes down to "A difference was found between the test and control group, and both groups were large enough to eliminate the possibility of random chance messing up the results". It doesn't say anything about how large the difference is, just that it's there.
And looking at the graph, about slightly below half of the positions requiring high intelligence should rightfully be filled by women. The same goes for jobs normally filled by people of low intelligence. Since neither is true, one can not use this fact as a reason to support the idea of "males should be in power."
I have seem people use that fact to justify why there is more male scientists (or whatever), actually. I usually assume those people are full of crap.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
The way I've seen it described is that it's why there tend to be more men on the scale of Einstein, Tesla or Hawking (not many, just more) than women, but when you get into "genius but not a ridiculous outlier" level, it should be roughly even.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Way I have understood it, men are more likely to have "ridiculously genius" more often than women, but at the same time, more likely to have "Dumber than the left sock left in sewer for a week".
On average, they are equal, but men are more likely to have outliers.
Slightly more likely.
Haven't seen the data, so can't say but looking at the graph (assuming it's correct), yeah, slightly. AFAIK significant in this context means "No room for random error", rather than "major difference"
EDIT: Never mind, got back from a stupid internet argument, and subconsciously tried to start another fight.
edited 8th Jul '14 8:53:44 AM by Kayeka
Detective Sandra is here to solve some mysteries.
http://www.sandraandwoo.com/2014/07/11/0597-social-construct/
Okay, yeah, I am 99% sure there ain't a danger of S&W going Sinfest route. More along "Let's mock the extremist"
Bleh. I think it's something tv tropes does to long links.
The sentence uses three meanings of the word buffalo: the city of Buffalo, New York, the somewhat uncommon verb "to buffalo" (meaning "to bully or intimidate"), as well as the animal buffalo. When the punctuation and grammar are expanded, the sentence could read as follows: "Buffalo buffalo that Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo." With the use of synonyms the sentence could become "Buffalo bison that other Buffalo bison bully, themselves bully Buffalo bison."