|
Currently on hiatus :-(
 S&W in German/auf DeutschGaia (my fantasy comic) Scarlet (my science fantasy comic) |
|
| Sandra and Woo is supported by our patron natewolf. Thank you very much! |
|
![[0598] Toilet Humor](/comics/2014-07-14-0598-toilet-humor.png "[0598] Toilet Humor")
- Sign: CLOSED
- Cloud: Closed?
- Dorothy Cambridge: Yep! I’ve ordered the closure of all boy’s rooms!
- Cloud: WHAT!?
- Dorothy Cambridge: I can’t believe that there are still public institutions in which boys are allowed to expose their privates just inches away from members of the better sex!
- Dorothy Cambridge: It’s high time to put an end to these repulsive activities!
- Poster: REAL MEN DON’T PEE!
|
Sandra and Woo by Oliver Knörzer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. See the About page for details.
Privacy Policy | Impressum | © 2008 – 2025 Oliver Knörzer
@ Anonymous:
Cambridge simply wants men to become second class citizens. to have no rights. It’s not that rare, actually, there ARE women out there who see men even existing in the same strata as women to be offensive.
Oddly enough in France pink is a masculine colour and periwinkle is feminine. Also municipal camping toilets sometimes only distinguish toilet genders by colouring the doors apropriately. Then tourists visit the camping, and hilarity ensues as men and women from outside France end up in the wrong toilet.
@ Novil:
Not meaning to disrespect you, great author, but didn’t you mean “NOT to be taken seriously” there? Because it seems this is being take PRETTY seriously….
Now someone is gonna do a strip about grammar nazis like me, hehe…. sorry.
@ Jon:
and there have always been men that did the same. still are.
@ Ehrlich:
At this point, to identify as christian is to identify as a supporter of the crass, rude, and extremist “members” of the movement.
Last strip she denied the existence of the boys penises said that there is no difference between the genders. And in this one the boys penises is evil and should not be seen anywhere near the ladies.
All I’m asking for is consistency!
@ TBthegr81:
Novil and Oliver were trying to play her up past the point of believability. When that didn’t work, they made the ‘penises are a social construct’ joke to play it up to the point nobody with half a brain would think it an honest portrayal of feminism. When that didn’t work, they made this comic in a last-pitch attempt to erase any notions of this being a critique of feminism. Naturally, it didn’t work, because anti-feminists will grasp at anything vaguely resembling a straw to voice their hatred of feminism.
@ Geary:
I gave up trying to tell people to just laugh at the silliness a while ago.
Huh? Strange, it’s usually up by now.
Soooo… Does she want them to use the girls room, or the flowerbeds?
Feminism in a nutshell
@ CDRom11_2007:
This is unfortunately too true. Boy’s bathrooms are disgusting. God bless high school janitors.
Invisible dancing bottom wrote:
Yup it’s defiantly Thursday now, not to sound impatient or rush anyone but what’s going on?
*snickers* Bhahahahahahahaha! If that happened in my old high school, that woman would have been tied to a chair duct taped to the bed of a pickup and dropped off at the psych ward outside town! Hahahahahaha!
@ Jon:
You’re not the only grammar nazi here. Also, I’d like to point out that, despite all outward appearances, it’s human nature to consider something like this as a plausible reality.
@ Geary:
I’d just like to point out that many feminists of decades past don’t like modern feminism because it has become a catchall for female griping. I have no issue with women being self-reliant beings, but with a few of the modern trends, such as “free bleeding”, I’m inclined to think the same.
@ Aqua:
You have no idea… One guy I went to school with was frustrated that he had not toilet paper…… so he redecorated the wall. Glad I never met the guy. I’d be in prison and he’d be missing a few teeth. Or a lung. Whatever worked at the time.
@ Mr_Nabby:
‘Cartoony’, yeeaah, not to insult, but, you have a ‘too cartoony’ profile picture..
This disgusts me. I thought more of you. These demonisation and strawman tactics are far beneath you and I am very disappointed to see you stoop down to these levels. What’s the matter, a few feminists too many pointed out that you enjoyed more privilege than you were aware of? That you were bigoted without noticing?
How about you actually go read what SJWs have to say and have a look at the research gender scholars do before you lampoon them.
Demanding a tactful, respectful or balanced parody of your favorite pet-ideology, seems to defy the point of parody or satire.
@ Novil:
So very, very wrong Novil.. But fear not, your loyal ( and perhaps equally insane ) fans will always forgive you.. If you ply them with enough popcorn and Larisa to keep the rabid ones in check at least..
Why should he bother putting up a strip today if people are just gonna take it too seriously?
@ Nachtschattengewächs:
It’s not satire, it’s using strawmen. The ‘conversation between women’ strip was satire and it’s probably my favourite strip; the first strip in this saga was funny satire; this is basically a more refined version of anti-suffragists. Behind this supposed ‘satire’ and ‘fair criticism’, 9 times out of 10 you’ll find people unwilling to admit how the power structure in society tips the odds in their favour repeatedly.
Here’s the thing: SJWs aren’t a ‘pet ideology’, they point out exactly how we marginalise groups in our society to maintain an ultimately oppressive structure, often in subtle and unconscious ways (here’s a good example: https://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml). When you mock (not criticise fairly, not poke fun at, MOCK) SJWs, you de-legitimise and silence sorely needed criticism in our society. This is basically a step beyond mistaking feminism for misandry and/or slut-shaming.
@ An Cat Dubh:
Satire: noun – the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
Strawman Fallacy: An exaggeration, misrepresentation, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument to make it easier to present your own position as being reasonable.
Considering the definition of these two terms, I would argue it largely depends on what side of the debate you are on. I am pretty sure, while the world today see’s Dante Aligheri’s “The Inferno” as one of the most classic pieces of Satire, the officials of Venice and the Vatican would have denounced it as a Strawman, saying the situations for which Dante had them confined to the pits of boiling excrement, and other assorted torments, were much more complicated than Dante had portrayed them. There is a very fine line between the two, and it is often only defined by whether or not you sympathize with the subject being satirized.
Fact remains, the way to combat satire is not to get worked into a frothy rage over it. That’s the whole point of satire…it makes those who are targeted by it either re-examine their positions, and address those positions so the satire is no longer relevant towards satirizing their position, or the target works itself into a foaming wrath, thus verifying the satire to the populace even further.
Personally, I see two flavors of Feminists here. I see those like LaughGirl, who see the satire for what it is, process it as it is meant to be, and decide to work towards neutralizing it, and then I see the other type; Feminists that see a criticism of their ideology, and cannot believe that others could have different opinions than them. In essence, “For shame! Dissenters cannot be tolerated! How can you support the subjugation of women, you sexist pigs?” In quite a few posts, it’s painted in much prettier words, but repeatedly, that’s the feeling I’m getting from posts here.
In the end, it’s important to remember that there is a vast swathe of people that are undecided either way. Unfortunately, the “You’re either with us or against us” rhetoric coming out of the Feminist Movement does much to dissuade moderates from joining up, and if anything, serves to delegitimize their own movement much more than any satirical comic ever could.
The point of discussion is moot. We do not talk about “Fanatical feminism” or making fun of a certain believe group. this person is not deminist she is simply clinicaly insane. i expect the people in white coming round the corner, putting her in a straitjackt and making excuses for letting her get away from the asylum. 🙂
@ Aqua:
There is nothing in the boys room that can not be solved by the application of a flamethrower. Or a dose of Napalm. 🙂
@ Golem:
I disagree. If you enter the political sphere, you will be criticized, you will be satirized, and you will have to defend your beliefs. That is a given, in any political atmosphere. Exempting an ideology or belief system from criticism or dissenters is universally a bad idea, and in every instance it has been instated, has led to tyranny of said ideology shortly thereafter. It happened in Constantinople with Christianity, it happened in Germany with National Socialism, and it happened in Soviet Russia with Communism. I have no reason to believe that exempting an ideology from criticism, whatever it may be, will lead to any other result in the future.
I close with two proverbs for you to consider. “The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing, time and time again, and expecting a different result. – Anonymous” and “If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. – Benjamin Franklin”
@ Nachtschattengewächs:
This is somewhat inaccurate. The radfem distinction between the sex classes is one of oppression, not reproductive ability. They see the defining characteristic of women to be the social upbringing and oppression that women experience as distinct from men.
Because they believe gender to be entirely socialised and based on oppression (despite unethical experiments that prove otherwise), anyone who exists outside this worldview must be lying male pigs who just want to exercise their power and RAPE!
So with this understanding of radfem theory, Dorothy Cambridge is in fact a radical feminist.
An Cat Dubh wrote:
But if this were a strawman, what would the misrepresented argument or position be?
For a strawman to work, it has to be close enough to an actual position of your opponent, that it seems at least plausible at first glance.
Specifically this strip doesn’t misrepresent any feminist argument at all, and is so over the top, that nobody in the comments actually mistook removal of men’s toilettes for a feminist goal.
Or do Ms. Cambridge’s actions seem to be a plausible representation of SJW-goals to you? You may have more experience in this area and recognize such demands from your activism. I don’t.
I suppose you have the statistics for this?
I could now counter that 9 times out of 10 when I question mainstream feminists devotion to equality, and bring up men’s issues, I find unwillingness to question their own double standards.
If you want an example, I can dig out citations from NOMAS-spokesman Kimmel ( hardly fringe ) that domestic violence by women against men should not be considered, because violence against women is apparently a systemic tool of oppression, while violence against men is just violence, without social relevance. Although he is actually moderate. A lot of SJW will simply ascribe any violent act by women to either self-defense or justified outrage over their oppression.
In my experience SJW are quite often amazing hypocrites.
They condemn the objectification of women, but maintain steadfastly that objectification of men are simply power fantasies and serve the patriarchy too. They tell me how terrible and objectifying it is, that men ogle women, when I am positive that women do the same to men. They are quite happy to point at exactly one side of oppressive structures, and are equally happy to redefine similar structures working against their supposed oppressor as irrelevant or even advantageous.
That’s not in itself despicable. It would be silly to expect the lawyer of your opponent to represent your case. But I find it important to keep in mind that feminists, like most social justice groups, are special interrest groups, who may certainly be interrested in equality over all, in the sense that they consider their clients most oppressed, but will because of this prioritize the interrests of their clients, over groups who my be otherwise disadvantaged if a conflict of interrest exists.
They are not, in my opinion, the angelic good guys who are above criticism because they work for happiness and equality.
If you shame satirists and parodists into giving your SJW a wide berth, because the supposed rightfulness of your cause should make you immune to criticism, you are trying to silence one of the most powerful means of fighting back against ideological extremes, especially if those have found widespread traction in society, we have. Ridiculing them.
And again, the point of parody is not to criticise fairly. That’s the realm of discussion.
@ Jozarin:
As I understood it, the defining difference between the sex classes is that one has a penetrable vagina as well as an uterus, ovaries, tubes and the whole shebang and is therefore a potential babymaker, while the oppressing one has the penetrating organ to induce baby-making.
Gender (as opposed to sex) in radical feminist view, however is hierarchy, with maskulinity on top and feminiinity at the bottom. Girls are socialised according to their female biology to be feminine, passive, submissive and so on, boys on the other side are socialized to be oppressors.
The problem now is that if you consider a penis a mere social construct ( or as some of the trans-crowd sometime claims ‘a penis is not a male organ’ ), you can hardly avoid to extend this to testes, vaginas, ovaries, and so on.
If the female-exclusive reproductive capability of carrying babies to term were not a biological reality, but only a social construct, the male/female-dichotomy itself would break down, and take with it the whole class-structure and gender-hierarchy.
I really doubt that any radical feminist would deny their ideological base. It is one of the problems they have with the trans-people. 🙂
An Cat Dubh wrote:
Ok, here Harald Eia interviews actual ‘gender scholars’ & biologists and forces them to confront each others statements. These interviews led to the shutdown of an institute of gender studies in norway:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-in-norway-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news
“What Eia had done, was to first interview the Norwegian social scientists on issues like sexual orientation, gender roles, violence, education and race, which are heavily politicized in the Norwegian science community. Then he translated the interviews into English and took them to well-known British and American scientists like Robert Plomin, Steven Pinker, Anne Campbell, Simon Baron-Cohen, Richard Lippa, David Buss, and others, and got their comments. To say that the American and British scientists were surprised by what they heard, is an understatement.”
@ Tzivya:
Yeah, it amazing how much people like this can ruin the idea of feminism. I know plenty of feminists who do a good job of helping their cause.
But it seems like the more extreme feminists (Or Femi-Nazis as I like to call them) are the more well-known, as they tend to be the loudest, and cause the biggest fuss in order to garner attention. and because they are the ones a lot of us end up coming across, we end up with this negative image of feminists as a whole.
Wow she is just as easy to hate as Delor…es Um..bridge… Dorothy Cambridge…. Delores Umbridge…wearing similar outfits… OH NO wonder she is easy to hate.
Woden wrote:
No. I never ventured into extremists christians echo-chamber either. However, for instance, one of my friends from college was from some quite hardcore christian family. I did not knew that back then, but apparently when she apostasied, it cause quite a bit of trouble. That is for my own personnal experience with christian extremists, which is not that deep mainly because I live in France, one of the most ferociously secular countries. However, even if this is not my personnal experience, I have seen all the Christian extremists coming out when the laws on gay marriages sprung out. And I just need to look at the U.S.A., will all their creationists and everything, to know Christian extremists are very real.
Those “radical feminists” decribed in the comic? If they even exist, they are so nice that I am not sure it is worth talking about them in a generalistic webcomic…
Woden wrote:
Me too. No idea why. I regularly go on some feminist tumblr dedicated to show picture of women drawn in a completely distorted fashion to make them “sexy”, called eschergirls. What is the problem with that?
Woden wrote:
I did not know this blog, but Wikipedia has an article on it. Feminism is barely even mentionned on it, actually. Are you sure you are not just having a problem with the blog and the guy running it?
Woden wrote:
Just did. What the hell did I just read? Is witchwind insane in the brain?
Terion wrote:
I live in France and that is just completely false :D. The usual color code of pink for girls and blue for boys apply in the very same fashion here as in many other countries.
An Cat Dubh wrote:
You do realize that there is a very sizeable minority of self-proclaimed feminists that do have very misandrist views, don’t you? That this “strawman” arc is arguably less extreme than stuff that real-life people who call themselves feminists have said in all seriousness?
An Cat Dubh wrote:
By all means, elaborate on how the “all penetrative sex is rape” arguments, free bleeding, the statistically-invalid usages of the wage-gap studies, the attempts to weaken due process for the accused in rape cases, the “college rape” studies that use nonsensical overly-broad definitions of rape, etc., are “legitimate” and “needed criticism”.
Because it looks to me like you are just making the argument that, because some feminists do good social work, all of them should be protected from any and all criticism. That’s a B.S. logically-invalid position, by the way.
oxayotl wrote:
Oh, I do have a problem with PZ Myers, I’ll freely admit to that; I think that he is a bigoted, small-minded prick who gives the rest of us atheists a bad name, and additionally shames his fellow scientists with his narrow-minded, credulous, and evidence-free views and his unwillingness to tolerate opposing opinions even when politely expressed.
But the blog, despite ostensibly being about his work in biology, had a lot of articles about politics and social issues, of which feminism and atheism were the most frequent. And the userbase, back when I visited, was downright full of radfems, SJWs, and the like… most of whom were, frankly, a-holes to anyone who wasn’t already a regular there.
oxayotl wrote:
That’s a common reaction from reading radfem blogs. I swear that most of them hear about the “privilege” and “patriarchy” concepts without actually understanding them, because the radfems almost always seem to grossly misapply both of them, as well as using them as substitutes for actually having to think about the crap the say. I have seen some cogent arguments from feminists on the topics of privilege and patriarchy, but never from a radfem.
@ Nachtschattengewächs:
The strip poking fun at the Bechdel test was satire, making fun of its fairly arbitrary rules and the inacurate picture it presents (although it does show a very good picture of the state of the media in general).
The first strip in this arc satirises SJWs’ tendency to go flying off the handle at perfectly innocent stuff, which admittedly they sometimes do.
The second strip makes fun of some actual radical positions.
This… this just has nothing to do with SJWs. We don’t want to reverse the power structure, we want to abolish it. We don’t believe only women are getting hurt; just have a look at how men are treated if they complain about being raped, especially by women, and how any sign of perceived femininity in them is poorly received, more often than not. The fact of the matter is, men have most of the power in most of human societies; just look at how many women there are in parliaments and houses of representatives or who calls the shots in mass media around the world in most countries. Also, this is a point that often gets lost when people talk about feminists, we get angry because we believe it can be so much better, and it’s so frustrating when people refuse to make it so. So yeah, this strip isn’t satirising. It’s attacking a strawman, after Knörzer has shown he can do real tasteful satire. It’s disappointing.
Can I punch her? …actually, don’t answer that. I’mma punch her anyway.
@ Gargoil-Cat:
She doesn’t believe that males can be oppressed
@ Avatar the Last Cheesebender:
Social justice warrior? “Penises are just a social construct”?! I highly doubt that.
i hate people like theese. the worst thin is that this is how many extreme feminists think. this has gone so far that they had to invent a new gruop called equalists. that want everybody to be equal.
Wait why is everyone okay with this arc? It likes making all actually feminist issues into a joke and perpetuating the idea that feminists are man haters. You mocked the “gender is a social construct,” a couple pages ago which is a SERIOUS and EXTENSIVE sociological study. Study about how gender is a social construct that is. Im very confused, this comic went leaps in equality stuff and what is this? I guess I can’t wait for the punchline.
Random lurker wrote:
If there was no exposing of privates inches away from the opposite sex, then we would have to reproduce asexually.
Avatar the Last Cheesebender wrote:
I think it’s also somewhat illegal. Then again, if she could get away with bringing in the bondage zombies there…
I would probably be a bit more amused if governments everywhere weren’t already doing this to transgender people… to the point of making it illegal to even think about using the washroom.
@ Gargoil-Cat:
That’s the whole point.
Coming to a(n) university near you!
Are..you kidding me. If anything, men are underprivileged. Do you even realize tha there is not a single legal right that men have that women don’t? Yet there are multiple that women have that men don’t. One example: a woman can rape a man and get pregnant, then proceed to sue him for child support.@ Malcolm:
@ An Cat Dubh:
Several examples have been given of real RadFems that advocate ridiculous ideas like “All PIV sex is rape” and “Women cannot rape men because women have no power.” This is also not new… RadFems have been advocating misandery and even Global Universal Matriarchy for over 100 years.
Just because some people advocate equality and call it Feminism doesn’t mean that all Feminists are beyond reproach. Some of them have some truly ugly and evil ideals and goals.
… i thought men’s room existed so we could let women have a seperate room, #confused
but jokes apart, lets be fairly honest a sad majority lets say 60% of femenist say “self proclaimed” are pretty much in the range of stereotyoes and double standards of femenism that chamged it aims after 70’s that being said, yes a majority is exaclty like described here, therse is very thin line between misandry and femenism, the the thin line is, i dont like sexist to i dont like (insert ethinity) male becayse they are (animal or bad moral) if you are going to generalise and streotype men them what is difference between my barbaric male ancestor and current female? which one should i look up to as an example to be nice person in world?
specialy highlighting “real men dont pee” is not much different from “real men dont hit women even if she chops your hangs and murders your pet dog and then sets you family member on fire” what gives you the rights to decide masculinity of a gender you hypocrites? never saw a man preaching “real women make sandwitch” in my whole life in real world
please dont be butthurt by small strios and comics, learn to accept harmless jokes, if this was joke about a dumb person saying men are superior to women, i did still laugh at foolishness knowing its just comical, but look what happened when it other way arroud.
Thank you a lot for sharing this with all people you actually recognise what you’re speaking approximately!
Bookmarked. Kindly additionally discuss with my web site =).
We will have a link exchange arrangement between us