Grrl Power #197 – Feminist v. feminist
Told ya Dabbler would bring the dirty. Boy I could write a dozen pages like this, and probably will eventually, but not in this scene. I’ve put myself on a schedule to page 200 which has kept the writing from to get too tangential, the result of that is all the pages till then have mini comics under them. Trying to keep myself on track just makes me compress in addition to cutting.
It’s interesting trying to write both sides of the feminist coin – honestly I had never considered Dabbler’s take on that expression before I wrote this page, but it wasn’t to hard to come up with it once I thought about it instead of having the usual gut reaction of “well obviously that’s sexist” and also “hur hur” (because people are complex that way.)
Eye rolls are hard to draw. Without animation, it makes someone look like they’re trying to look at their own forehead or they’re having a stroke. Maxima’s eye roll reference courtesy of Liz Lemon.
Coming up next page… the biggest reveal in the comic yet! Ok not really.
ComicMix is doing their annual webcomic faceoff. Their page is slow at the best of times so be patient with it. They’re obviously severely overloaded at the moment – that or some script they’re running on their page is wrecking Chrome. You don’t need to log in or create an account within the brackets, you actually vote below all the brackets with inconveniently non-alphabetical list. Vote for as many comics as you like, so have at it if you’re sufficiently patient to put up with their site. As I recall last year, Grrl Power made it either to the quarter or semi finals, losing finally to Ava’s Demon. It’d be cool to at least match that this year!
<– If you enjoy the comic, please consider supporting it so I can continue my hobby of drawing comics for a living… or something like that.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Why would you want her to be like a whore in the bedroom? That sounds jolly expensive.
Oooo nice. Next time somebody says that saying I can say , “Well, alright then…just be aware I’m not cheap. I have base rates and I also get paid on commission, so…I hope you’ve got a healthy cash flow.”
Pillow talk costs extra, there’s a surcharge if you cry or say “thank you” at any point, then there’s the usual obligatory fees to cover taxes, rustproofing, etc. There are discounts for providing multiple orgasms and light spanking.
And you do not want to see the extra charge for a positive reply on “was it good for you too”. “It was fine” has a hefty price tag, but if you want to hear “it was fantastic” you either have to win the lottery or start saving now.
Most. hilarious. thread. ever.
… It was supposed to be funny?
It succeeded.
But everybody has a different sense of humour. Some have none. Whilst others might stifle things, that would otherwise make them laugh, if it seems politically incorrect to do so.
Re: this sequence of posts: There are other words that describe similar female abilities, without the baggage associated with “whore”. For example, “courtesan”. And pretty much the same thing, more than a thousand years previously, “hetaera” (in ancient Greece).
Or the divergent word derived from the same root as “Prostitute” because the professions were one and the same back in the good ol’ days. That word is “Priest”. (Etymological trivia FTW!)
I am luck enough/unlucky enough to have all senses of humour. I laugh at offensive jokes that I do not want to enjoy…
Rustproofing?
If there is anything (other than bed springs) subject to rust in the bedroom, I’d be very nervous! (Handcuffs are stainless, so that doesn’t count!)
Can confirm, I have charged the weirdest extras and fees, especially to guys that are assholes or have the really weird fetishes :D
That seems a bit too lengthy. The next time I hear that comment, I’ll just fake a shocked expression, point at the offender and respond with “Wait, the only way for ~you~ to get sex is if you pay for it?”.
and the “no kissing” rule kind of ruins it
That depends, paid or unpaid…
Is it me, or is Maxima cross-eyed in panel six?
It goes with the stereotypical male “hur hur.”
Just watching a fly with super speed.
No one said only humans get powers, did they?
flies past
Woof!
Travelling at ‘yorp’ speed? o_O
No, it is just the after effects of eating table scraps from Sydney.
No one got the joke? vorp/warp :(
I got it, but you can keep it.
I appreciated it :)
I was just having too much fun flying, to slow down long enough to comment.
Now am wondering if ‘yorp’ is a measurement of the speed of your flight, or simply the sound it makes (instead of ‘humming’ it periodically goes ‘yorp’, kinda like how some cars used to go ‘putt-putt-putt’ :D)
Yorp Factor 9 Ensign!
Welcome to the flight club. (Mile High Club is extra) Do you use jet pack or have hidden wings?
*floats by* Counter-gravitation
Alternatively, failing your acrobatics check to hit the ground.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying”, said Ford, “or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
“Showe licences to ignore the “laws” of reality”
Just make sure that your license doesn’t get, um, suspended.
That certainly would take some suspension of disbelief!
Constant subconscious teleporting.
So… if I’m getting Harem’s sub-comic joke right, and she shares a split consciousness, wouldn’t that get distracting?
I mean… that’s sort of the reason why 69 sounds good in theory, but rarely works out well in practice.
I think Harem is suggesting that she has tried… doesn’t mean that she has…
She is a the master troll
How is that much different than masturbating?
Because even a masturbating contortionist couldn’t do all the varied and sundry positions that Harem can. ;)
Cause it’s gwen, not another harem, see the who’s who sidebar
Technically Merf is right, because the ‘suggestion’ came from the character on our right, who is Harem. Although it might be more appropriate to say ‘covering up’. But she is devious and sneaky, so it is more than plausible that the ‘cover up’ was deliberately transparent, for the purposes of suggestion.
You correctly identify Gwen, but her “EW!” is an expression of disgusted realisation, rather than a suggestion.
Yes, knew it was Gwen, the question is still: how is self cunnilgus any different from masturbating? Is it the fact that one Harem is doing it to another Harem? Or just the act itself even if between two different non-cloned bodies?
Gwen might be a bit old-fashioned about such things. or like a Bisexual ex-girlfriend who quite frankly, didn’t like the taste.*shrug*
The question wasn’t really aimed at Gwen :D
This will work much like masterbation except the choice of body parts and positions.
Remembering the wedgie, she can feel exactly what each other feels.
This means she is too connected to even tickle herself never mind sex feeling like two ( or more) individuals.
But suppose that each of Harem’s bodies are receiving good (or at least above average) cunnilingus. Wouldn’t that set up some sort of feedback loop, each enhancing the experience of the others, so that they all have a mind-blowing orgasm? Wow, we are SUCH nerds, discussing how superpowers affect sex. X3
Of course, now the question is: does Harem use 5 seperate partners lapping it up at the ‘Y’ at the same time? or can she use just 1 for the feedback loop?
Look up “daisy chain”
I know I would…
I think Harem only needs a few minutes of daisy chaining herself to get the mother of oral orgasms
Also, there IS another (psuedo)argument against the saying, though with this crowd of characters it might be harder to justify.
It’s the idea that men can just be REALLY awesome at one thing, and achieve a level of success, and even general greatness, while women often need to be polyglot ninja badasses in numerous areas to achieve on similar levels. It’s definitely gotten better, but it’s still out there. Just think about how many female politicians get criticized on their looks, or that they aren’t also taking care of their kids, and you get the basic idea.
Unfortunately, we have certain branches of feminism to blame for that particular mindset. Prior to the “Equal rights” movement, the male and female roles were quite rigid, and woe be onto anyone of either gender that defied them. Then the “ERA” came, and we, as a society, got the idea that it’s stupid to say “you must be this way” as a man, and “that way” as a woman. Then came NOW, and the “you can have it all” mindset was sold to women, and any woman that isn’t trying to be a polyglot ninja is not only cheating herself, but insulting women everywhere, and frankly, I’m sick of hearing it.
*raises leg and pees on political correctness*
I second that sentiment Yorp. Political correctness is just another oxymoron to me: Being politically correct…Isn’t.
Actually, the biggest problem I see with “equal rights” (and the argument I never see represented ANYWHERE) is rather than RAISING women and men to equal status, society takes the easier route of lowering the bar on responsibilities for whichever side is more convenient. Rather than saying “don’t slut shame girls” I say “definitely make sure you slut shame the guy too”
Ultimately, it’s a lot easier to push for “equal rights” when doing so involves telling one side they have LESS responsibilities rather than telling the other side that they have MORE.
Rather than going “a woman should be a genius in the lab, and athlete in the gym” it should also be going “and for the man who desires a lady like that, he should be a tireless machine at his job to provide for her, her knight/bodyguard when going out, her butler/mechanic/plumber/electrician/caprpenter/IT tech/general handyman inside the house, a priest around other women, and a gigolo in bed, etc”
There are things that I expect from my partner, but in return, I expect the same level of commitment from myself.
Unfortunately, in matters such as this, many men have no shame to be shamed. Some would even be proud of being manwhores.
I stay out of feminism debates, simply because I find them pointless. If there are injustices present in any situation they should be corrected. People should behave politely and respectfully to each other. You do not need to use words such as ‘feminism’ or ‘equal opportunities’ to comply with either of those rules. Those phrases just rankle individuals, like myself, who dislike political correctness.
The point I am stepping in here to make though, is that generalisations are bad. In this case you are making sweeping statements that have little validity due to the exceptions. And only open yourself up to counter-arguments that it can be applied selectively to members of any gender.
+1, Yorp
“Be excellent to each other”
Bill & Ted
+1
“generalisations are bad”
You do realize that statement is self-contradictory?
=oP
I could not agree more. Well said.
“, he should be a tireless machine at his job to provide for her, her knight/bodyguard when going out, her butler/mechanic/plumber/electrician/caprpenter/IT tech/general handyman inside the house, a priest around other women, and a gigolo in bed, etc””
Except that we DO have a great deal of this attitude, historically. Guys were expected to protect their women (knight/bodyguard) drive and fix the car at the drop of a hat even without tools and in modern times, tech the computer and other gadgets and anything in the house that needed fixing. I’ve run into quite a few women who expected me to be able to lift or fix anything, despite the fact that physically I am not impressive, and am only trained to fix computers, and have a talent for fixing dinner.
I feel that the real problem is expecting people to behave a certain way, or have certain TRAINED skills and talents merely because of their gender. I couldn’t fix a car to save my life, and know enough about electricity to know to call an expert before I fry myself, my house and/or my car.
I always wanted to advertise to women I would please them first last and always instead of the usual men first last and “did you enjoy it” kind of put off. So far no luck in getting a chance to. Maybe one day…
Also DaveB only religious believers have an aversion to sex where it is an obvious religion or a substitute one like Communism run by Puritanical dictators like Lenin, Stalin & Mao. To them carnal is a bad thing. Yet they still reproduce like rabbits.
To me thinking sexual relations are bad and “dirty” are an addled thing people embrace. Makes for a much screwed up world. Not the sole thing but high up there.
I do like Dabbler’s view on sexuality.
Considering Harem is probably doing it herself right now, what she’s doing could be described as the least dirty. After all, who know better where and with whom she’s been than herself?
Very curious where you got this idea that Mao thought carnal was bad.
Considering… the multiple wives….
And his attempt to practice Tao-ist sex magic.
I suggest reading the book by his personal doctor ‘The Private Life of Chairman Mao’ by Li Zhisui.
That idea came from his own press releases, and the policies he enacted in China, specifically banning ALL art, especially all forms of “indecent” literature, sculpture, etc that MIGHT be interpreted in an erotic manner, like nudes. The only art that was “tolerable” was propaganda art, and that was a “necessary evil.”
It’s not at all uncommon for a dictator to practice without any sense of shame the philosophy of “Do as I say, not as I do.” It is almost a prerequisite for the job.
re. North Korea
I suspect you’re trying to suggest the cultural revolution and other such events are involved here, but that (and policies before and after) did not crack down on anything carnal. It’s stated goals were the bringing into line of ideals and concepts of thought with communism.
At the time this involved an attempt to physically re-write our culture simply because it had a huge and long standing Imperial standard. The Arts did suffer, but not because they featured carnal acts or by virtue of being nude, but by virtue of being too Western.
The Operas for example were widely encourged, but Western art modes and styles were heavily discouraged (and the prime thought of what ‘Western’ and ‘non-communist’ constituted at this time were thoughts of what Shanghai used to be pre-WW2).
And Shanghai in the 30s was very much a hedonistic place.
How about an Atheist who feels there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s just something intimate and private which is improper to discuss in a public setting, where “public” depends on the situation, but can generally be concerned “among people not currently or prospectively involved in the intimate acts.”
Nope, obviously must be religious repression, right?
The “hurhur” actually sounds like it could be the name of a punctuation mark, right there with the tilde and the ellipsis.
It looks like an 8 with offset dots inside each circle, like the eyes of someone doing the face Maxima’s making in panel 6 except even more derpy.
The aside with Achilles murdered me. Now I have to explain myself in a classy bar for laughing out loud…
Panel 6? I think they are Super Hiro and Math.
I’d take the quote and make it, a woman should be a lady in the parlor, a maid in the living room, a chef in the kitchen and a whore in the bedroom, that way her man doesn’t realize she runs his life…after I type it all out not sure how well it works, oh well.
Sounds about right
In civilized society even back in the days when women were legally second class citizens, women generally prided themselves over their ability to control men, typically without said men being too aware, by making them believe they were the ones in control. Seduction and manipulation were the arts of the most feminine of women, and made them damned powerful in almost any circle.
Yet modern feminists will have you believe that all women, even today, are helpless sex-objects who hate sexual contact of any sort and need to be saved by strict laws and social reformation that either lift them above men or drop men down below them on the ladder and say that makes it equality. When society essentially formed as a way to protect and provide for women, and it has been part of being a man ever since.
Your description of a modern feminist is really an anti-feminists straw man depiction of feminists. Yes, there are fringe extremist feminists who say that all sex is rape or whatever nonsense you like, but they’re like 1 in 10,000 among those that consider themselves feminists. A non-fringe feminist (which is the vast majority) generally believes women should have the same rights and opportunities as men, and that’s basically it.
When women get special laws to protect them, it’s because people are generally shit and will abuse any power over another group when they can. The reason we have the 19th amendment is because even though the constitution doesn’t explicitly exclude women from voting, every single state excluded women from voting, hence the need for a law forcing people not to be dicks about it. Most woman specific laws exist for the same reason.
+10
Well, Max, way to be a damn hypocrite. Complaining about sexism and then turning around and spewing out a sexist stereotype of your own, without even realizing you’re doing it. Why is this nut in charge? Maybe it’s just me, but if I had someone who’s so vindictive/insecure/looking to get pissed off, that she parses through phrases that – outside of Denny Crane – haven’t been widely said in the last decade, just to give herself reason to go on an angry, bigoted rant, I definitely wouldn’t give that person any kind of military authority.
What do you say, Max, to the double-standards regarding rapists and sexual attackers, when the perpetrators are female? What do you say to the universal judicial bias in favor of women, or the institutionalized presumption of male guilt in any criminal situation, which has already led to innocent men being murdered by police while the actual criminal looks on? I expect silence or deflection.
How pitiful and saddening it is that the most powerful superhuman in the world, and the leader of the world’s first anti-supercrime initiative, is so obsessed with being a victim. Maybe she’d get the respect she believes she’s due, and stop being seen as an object or sex doll, if she actually behaved like someone worthy of respect instead of constantly dredging up quibbles in an attempt to start battles.
Calm down. They were obviously in a conversation before this page started where the expression came up.
Actually I don’t think she was trying to make herself out to be a victim…. She was just merely objecting to the idea that a woman MUST be all those things for a man, espeically if that said man basically saw her as some sort of servant turned wife. It basically objectifies women everywhere.
She was most likely saying that a lady could be anything she wanted to be, both for herself and her husband.
Dabbler on the other hand, tends to see that saying more positively….so this is simply just a debate between two feminists of sorts… it’s not about victimizing women everywhere or making out all men to be assholes. so you can calm down.
Where do those double standards come from? What supports them? What should we target to bring that whole suite of attitudes crashing down?
(And why is it that the people who make these particular complaints are so often opposed to feminism, mocking it as ‘professional victimhood,’ despite their stated complaints being in accordance with the aims of feminism?)
Unfortunately, there ARE militant feminists out there that specifically portray all men as monsters and all women as victims. PERIOD. They specifically target any women in healthy, heterosexual relationships and brand them “traitors” or “slaves” (if they’re happily married), and frankly any woman who is pregnant is an abomination to them, UNLESS the pregnancy can be justified by some ultra-left political point (like say Ellen De Generess and her female lover french kissing in front of their adopted son). As for the double-standard, it is quite prevalent in many cultures, both patriarchal and matriarchal, mostly stemming from the misconception that a woman raping a man is physically impossible because he must be “aroused” first, and that automatically guarantees consent. Never mind the overwhelming anecdotal and medical evidence showing that erections can occur for reasons OTHER than arousal, such as terror resulting from threat of grievous bodily harm, or artificially raised blood pressure. (Otherwise Viagara wouldn’t work.) For an exhaustive list of examples, the tropes page under “Double standard- Rape, female on male” has quite a list in all forms of media. I can specifically point to the ending of “Otamori Himori,” a harem series with supernatural elements. The main character comes out of Ayakashi (demon) induced coma, surrounded by the many women in his Unwanted Harem (many of whom forced themselves INTO the harem by threat of grievous bodily harm/ death if he rejected them, or were part of arranged marriages of which he was initially unaware) naked with no idea what happened. When two other females (also in the harem who did NOT participate in this presumed orgy) happened upon the scene, they IMMEDIATELY beat HIM senseless (to the point that he’s covered in bruises AND sporting a cast), and then insulted him by calling him “the worst” when he HONESTLY told them that he had no idea what happened. This is all played for laughs. This is not a recent development either. In the late 70s/early 80s, the show “Fantasy Island” also had an episode where a VERY pregnant woman, who used a “shotgun wedding” to get at her husband’s fortune made this comment regarding her pregnancy and the means by which it came about. “It is very hard to rape a man, especially on a repeated basis.” (The child’s parentage was in doubt.) This was on a “family” show and was played off as a joke, but now, in hindsight, that is REALLY creepy. It seems like she was speaking FROM EXPERIENCE. Now, according to the raws, the manga “Freezing” is on a plot where a psychotic woman with super powers is using the threat of deadly force to secure sexual favors from a boy while his romantic partner (whom she had JUST CRIPPLED) is forced to watch helplessly, and some commenters on the forums are saying that he’d enjoy the experience if he wasn’t also maimed in the process.
Where do those double standards come from? What supports them? What should we target to bring that whole suite of attitudes crashing down?
(And since when did a minority of extremists justify opposition to an entire movement which is in agreement with the goals you claim to hold?)
Feminism is concerned with the advancement of women, not equality and simultaneous uplifting of men. If it was about equality, then feminist ideologues would be opposed to policies insisting that men are always the unfit parent, policies that insist men are always the aggressor, and the double-standard that a woman forfeits her right to consent while drunk but a man can never be too drunk to forfeit consent.
Feminism, if it were about equality, would be focusing on uplifting our working class as a whole and training women in trades so that they could work dangerous jobs alongside men, instead of teaching our boys that they’ll grow up into rapists. Feminist leaders see Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and argue that women should be uplifted into those echelons of wealth, ignoring the sacrifices and risks the men undertook and the hundreds of thousands of men left destitute by risking it all and losing. Barbara Corcoran took a $1,000-dollar loan and turned it into the multi-billion-dollar Corcoran Group through taking a risk, not by demanding others uplift her.
Dr. Erin Pizzey, founder of the world’s first domestic violence shelters, discovered that the women she took in were often just as violent and sadistic as the men she sought to protect them from. In her book, “Prone to Violence,” she submitted her findings that domestic violence was, by and large, reciprocal – that is, both sides willingly abusing one another – and that the majority of one-sided violence was perpetrated by women. For her revelation, Dr. Pizzey was hounded by feminist ideologues who managed to file suits to get her shelters repossessed by the UK. As if that wasn’t bad enough, she was stalked and her entire family threatened with death, their homes vandalized, and their family pet ritualistically eviscerated on Pizzey’s front lawn.
But I’ll bet you’ve never heard of “Prone to Violence,” nor of the riots at the University of Toronto where feminist groups attacked fellow students and police in order to stop Dr. Warren Farrell from speaking about the challenges that face our men and boys. That’s because feminism is the law of the land, and dissent is censored as often as it can be. You can say that the minority of feminists are extremists, but they’re the ones steering national policies and those who call themselves feminists without knowing what they’re supporting are still complicit; ignorance is no excuse for supporting apartheid.
Finally, you’ve deflected and ignored my arguments just as I predicted Max or any other feminist would, instead trying to steer the conversation somewhere you think you might have an advantage in the debate. That alone speaks volumes, just as the response to the article “The Myth of Rape Myths” demanded that the article stop using logic and demanding empirical fact. Look it up; I’m tired of providing links.
…Well, maybe just one more, an act of such savagery and madness that it truly would seem appropriate to Dachau: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/maryland-girls-tortured-autistic-boy-sheriff-office-article-1.1718983 Following this act of pure evil against a handicapped little boy, the younger girl is simply in a juvenile detention center and the elder has been released on her own recognizance. Can you honestly tell me that if the genders were reversed there would be so little controversy? That if the torturers were male the elder would be released without even having to pay bail?
Stop trying to aim everything back at men; the evil in this world comes from those in power. One only has to look at who gets away with heinous crimes, who gets to censor thought and who gets to control information. If you can’t tell who has the power, you’re deluding yourself.
Actually, it probably has less to do with the genders involved and more to do with the fact that the boy was autistic. Abuse and crimes against those who are autistic are are under reported, under prosecuted, and under punished pretty much everywhere in the world. In France autistics pretty much don’t have rights at all, no matter how mild the autism is.
No equality movement is concerned with the simultaneous uplift of both disadvantaged and advantaged groups – that would be a maintenance of inequality movement.
It’s true, feminism doesn’t address the entire suite of labour issues, just like the civil rights movement didn’t address gay rights. Therefore both are not at all about equality. Or they were targeted at specific issues so that it was possible to get anything done.
We don’t teach that boys will grow up to become rapists. In fact we teach that they absolutely don’t have to, and there is a way to *not* become a rapist. That’s why the evil, “misandrist” posters saying “don’t be that guy” didn’t say “YOU WILL ALWAYS BE THAT GUY!!!!!!” – and it’s why occurrences of rape drop when men are educated about the importance of consent, and what it actually is, because men are not destined to be rapists unless they’re taught that’s it’s alright as long as it’s not the caricature. We believe that men are free to be what they want to be as long as they understand how to be it, which includes not being a rapist. Men are so much better than you give them credit for.
Feminists see men like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, and argue that women should be taken as seriously as a man of similar ability, and not held back by the refusal to invest in profitable ideas simply because the one making the proposal in considered less capable merely because of a chromosome. Not given fewer and smaller research grants for important scientific projects because of the presence of a uterus. Not offered smaller starting salaries when the only difference on the application form is the pronoun.
Yes, some individuals have managed to make it, some always do, and some always will no matter what barriers are in their way. The point is that there’s no rational reason for those barriers to even exist, and a few individual examples who find a way through do not provide such a reason. Such barriers don’t allow “the cream to rise to the top”, as has been claimed many times, merely those who can find ways through the barrier – if you release a bear onto a mined 100m sprint track before a race, the winner will not be the best runner, but the best at avoiding bears and mines, though I will grant that they’ll have some ability to run as well.
Yes, people in abusive relationships do believe that they’re responsible for it. I know, I’ve been in one, and I absolutely believed that I provoked her – even that I was worse to her than she was to me – but the fact is that I have scars, and she has none. It’s been a long time since I last saw that paper, but I recall being unconvinced by it. Maybe a study could be done on this subject without self reporting? Something objective.
You think this is an argument against feminism, don’t you? Confirmation of your claim? A woman abused a man! Feminism must come crashing down! Meh. All women are human. Some humans are scum. Therefore some women are probably scum. Says nothing about all women, nor about the validity of feminism.
What arguments? The tedious, ignorant and, frankly, irrational rant? I saw a question, which I answered, but no arguments. Why waste time addressing a misdirected rant when you can address the actual problem?
I love that you’re tired of sharing links before you provide the first one btw.
Yes, some women are terrible examples of humanity. Yes, there are double standards, and a handful of them even hurt men more than women. That’s because the dreaded ‘p’ word doesn’t mean what any of you guys think it does. Nothing about conspiracy, nothing about benefiting all men, just social attitudes that were old and irrelevant a thousand years ago. If only there was some way we could look at this, get to the bottom of the problem… find a solution? Oh! Oh! I have a question:
Where do those double standards come from? What supports them? What should we target to bring that whole suite of attitudes crashing down?
TLDR
ADHD much? Not all discussion can be boiled down to “10 second sound bites,” as what TV does to people. True intelligence can best be defined as “considering ALL relevant info,” not “embracing ignorance by choice.”
Thank you so much for writing this. I tried to come up with a response but could not articulate it as well as you did.
Somebody was wrong on the internet. It was my duty! :P
Also, he impugned my intellectual honesty. I haven’t developed the ability to let that go yet. At least not when it’s regarding important issues – I can totally walk away from being called dishonest when discussing early 90’s Saturday morning cartoons… as long as it’s not Bucky O’Hare.
Quoting from something someone said in a discussion elsewhere, but I think it fits here, particularly regarding the issue of power dynamics and who is ‘really in charge’…
“So when boys are required to get parental permission to use condoms (they might be allergic to latex! it’s for their protection!), and when they get prosecuted for jerking off because that’s a “proto-baby” being wasted, and when they have to get ultrasound wands shoved into parts of themselves before they’re allowed to have a vasectomy (so they can *see* the body parts that will be affected! If they could just see their vas deferens, they’d never harm them!), when politicians get formally censured for saying “testicle” on the House floor, when we’re all subject to mandatory organ donation (because “it’s not just your life!”), and when there are politicians trying to cut off poor men’s access to prostate exams because (in addition to detecting prostate cancer early and potentially saving their lives) they might enjoy it and start having anal sex outside of marriage, heaven forbid… well. *Then* we can all sit down and have a nice, polite discussion about it. “
Or there’s the young woman being tried for murder… because her baby was stillborn.. Because she used drugs. It’s not bad enough that her life is so crap that she was using drugs at 16, that she was pregnant at 16 (and was quite possibly below the age of consent at time of conception), and it’s not bad enough that the baby was stillborn… they have to ruin what’s left of her life.
And even if you have no sympathy for her, I fail to understand how not wanting surgery of any kind (in this case, a c-section) should mandate taking a child away from the mother.
But this is the shit women deal with. Amazing that they allow it, if they’re the ones in power.
All excellent arguments ringing with truth. Unfortunately there are a lot of feminist shills here who, rather than looking for truth, are looking for reasons to defend what they want to believe and ignore the parts about it that prove those very beliefs wrong.
They even deny the double-standards in how society treats men and women. At this point of the modern era, equality is less about taking away from men and more about what are we going to get to put us on equal footing with women where it counts?
I would suggest that you look at the situation objectively yourself. You will find that, as a community, we weigh evidence, on both sides of an argument very carefully. And where compelling information shows a hypothesis or stance to be incorrect, we give ground appropriately.
However the body of evidence for a continuing disparity against females, to this present day, is significant. Whereas the naysayer’s arguments fall apart easily, under examination.
normally i agree with you ( at least before the last 5-6 years happened) except now we have things like feminists in Australia trying to ban Fathers day because, quote” men don’t deserve it” the screaming feminazi’s don’t appear to be the minority anymore. or if they are it’s in the same way as Nazi Germany, they maybe the minority but they are the minority that is in charge.
Coming in a few years late, but I think the biggest issue here is the difference between the letter/spirit of the law and the application of the law. Many countries have enacted a whole heap of extra laws to give special protections to the rights of women, and also various ‘minority’ ethnic groups, precisely because society isn’t providing these groups equal treatment, with the result that now these groups, at least legally, have MORE rights than e.g. white males. Feminists and equal rights campaigners are still complaining because they still don’t have equal treatment, because society is slow to actually adopt these changes, so the laws aren’t always being enforced consistently, but there are growing anti-feminist and anti-(minority rights group) groups based on the legal imbalance than now DISadvantages majority groups like white males if you assume all the laws will actually be applied when they should be.
My personal view is that most of the laws that need to be enacted to provide equal rights have been. Not all necessarily, but most. And some of the laws that have been passed will need to be revised or repealed in time. We need to focus on cultural equality, not legal, so feminists and equal rights advocates need to stop talking about legal changes to boost their agendas and work more on education and social change. It will take time, but push the legal avenue too much and you tip the scales the other way and create a breeding ground for resistance to your ideals. We’re already seeing it start to happen.
Love this page, though I can’t get over Max looking like Bert from Sesame Street in panel 7, lol.
Max isn’t in panel 7, that’s Dabbles
Given how Bert looks like it is pretty obvious that is panel 6 :)
Hahaha I meant panel 8 :)
Be careful what issues you highlight. If you’re not, someone may stick you on a panel at your next convention appearance where your Y chromosome will be treated like a bright red bull’s-eye. Just because you agree with someone doesn’t mean they won’t shout you down on principle.
We have dropped to 5th people.
You are slacking off.
sigh… Several days ago.
Also it is almost a week since we dropped from around 450 daily votes to least than 200.
We used to have slightly more average daily votes than “By the Book” (the next above us, 4th place). Now it has almost twice daily votes than us, so its advantage is steadily growing.
Beside that them all are more uniform that us. Grrl Power has constantly gone up and down between 500 to 160 daily votes. This is our main issue.
Huh. That is odd. Every time I count it, it always comes out the same. More than one.
I am not sure I understand. Could you explain?
Some mathematically primitive tribes have (or had, I doubt there are any that have remained isolated enough for it to still be true) a very limited number system. One and ‘more than one’. Of course, most societies can get up to ten easily enough by using fingers and thumbs. But dogs lack those!
Ok :) I think the first time I take it as “More than once“
Are you planning anything for comic #200?
Nah, it’s going to end on #199 :P
Nothing other than putting up a regular page… but something exciting should happen on it. Actually, I’ll have a little bonus mini comic as well.
Yay!
I don’t think it’s difficult to see why that phrase pisses Max off, and what it is that Dab doesn’t get (or doesn’t care to get*) about it: it’s a man’s way of telling women how to act FOR HIS CONVENIENCE. It’s “children should be seen and not heard” spoken to a full-grown adult; it’s my lazy-shit supervisor waking up in the middle of his eight-hour paid nap to stumble out and tell me I’m not working hard enough.
*Dabbler seems nice enough, but it’s not like sexism is a problem for her and I don’t get the impression that she can be troubled to give a damn about anyone else’s problems. Max, on the other hand, is probably watching all the online dudebros feeling sorry for poor Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair while his victim deals with threats and career-ending reprisals from the Good Ol’ Boy System because she doesn’t have magic or superpowers.
Actually, I could do without the “whore” part myself. Whores are, by definition, unfaithful. They are also often dirty, unhealthy, bitter, and considerably less than thrilled by their sex partners, or by the idea of sex in general. Not something I want in MY bedroom, that’s for sure.
Point, slut would be a tad better but there’s still the unfaithfulness factor there. Nympho might fit, but again…unfaithfulness factor. I don’t really know any terms for a gal who enjoys sex but won’t cheat. Fun?
Nympho is the term you are looking for. Granted it probably leads to promiscuity, but it is possible for a nymphomaniac to be monogamous. They need merely find a partner with similar appetites and sufficient endurance.
I saw less evidence that “Dabbler didn’t get it” than “Dabbler is trolling Max”
The facts of the matter will always be up for interpretation, but it’s difficult for me to believe that a 3 year consensual affair which the woman wanted to result in the General’s divorce from his wife and marriage to her is a credible situation in which the General would be sexually assaulting the woman. Why would she want to marry a man who was using coercion to extract sexual favors from her? It doesn’t make any sense.
Gotta love the facial range of expression Maxima goes through on this page. And how Dabbler is so apt in spinning Maxima into a sure fire frenzy.
Dabbler has, from early in the comic, displayed amusement by yanking Max’s chain. Blatantly cranking up her Glamor & using her invisible arms to “goose” Max, when Sydney was describing her power orbs is just one example. I don’t see any real deviation from that general attitude in the restaurant.
BTW: I find Harem discussing this with herself quite… confusing.
Uh, she’s talking to Gwen in that mini-comic, not herself.
To be honest, it is easy to make that mistake
Right, pretty look alike cleavages.
Was actually going by the hair
Oh, sorry.
[insert “they have hair?” joke here]
Nicely put.
Plus very non-PC, so +1
You beat me to it.
(And, until I read the comments, I thought Harem WAS talking to herself. Probably stems from my distraction and confusion over not knowing the significance of “paralytic cunnilingus”)
I think we all had to work through that one. It was not the most fluid gag to pick up on. But worth the effort. If only for the mental imagery. ;-)
I’ve always thought the “it only has that power if you let it” argument was pretty weak. It’s basically just saying that we get to keep treating you like you’re less of a person than we are, and you should just be the bigger person. Meh. There may be truth to the statement, but it’s putting all the responsibility in the wrong place – it should be those who put others down who strive to be better people, not their targets, and reinforcing the idea that it’s up to the target to rise above is merely reinforcing the underlying power differential, even if they’re successful in disarming that particular tool.
…anyway…. *recloaks*
Agreed: why should the one getting metaphorical beat down have to ‘rise above it’? That’s basically saying they only have themselves to blame for being a victim
… because the metaphorical beatdown, as you describe it, simply doesn’t occur if the “victim” refuses to recognize it as such.
As a small, obnoxious, smart geek in school, I got bullied. A lot. The physical abuses put upon me were pretty substantial. Those were dealt with as I started working out and when I put a solid 30# of muscle between 9th & 10th grade. One thing I never had to deal with though, was psychological/emotional abuse. I refused to let it bother me, and the commentary slid off my back. Nothing shut down a heckler like looking him in the eye in front of all his friends, arching an eyebrow, and saying “Really? That’s all you could come up with?” and just going about my day. It wasn’t long before they didn’t even bother anymore.
Like I said, there may well be some truth to the statement. It’s still putting the responsibility in the wrong place.
Do people without the emotional fortitude to refuse to let it bother them simply deserve to be miserable? If so, does this extend to physical abuse, or is there a point where responsibility shifts to the actor?
Again, agreed: it is still putting the emphasis on changing/growing on the victim and not the one being the bully
Just because you manage to overcome it doesn’t stop/change the bully, they simply move to another, possibly easier, target
For me, it had nothing to do with responsibility or whose “job” it was to stop the behavior. I had the power to choose my actions and behaviors; I did not have the power to choose others’ actions and behaviors. I chose to work out and not listen to the barking of dogs and hissing of snakes.
I agree with that line of thougth.
There is abuse, it is a bad behavior, we need to stop it.
There are suffering persons, it is a bad thing, we need to stop it.
Each problem has solutions of its own. Plus each particular case has solutions that could not be general but solves that particuar case.
It is not about putting the blame here or there, the problem is focused ourselves in just ONE aspect and claim that every other view is wrong.
It is not only to pursuit perpetrators, it is not only to support victims, it is not only to grow up yourself over it. It is trying ALL of them plus whatever else you can think about.
If someone suggest a solution, even a limited one, welcomes it, thanks them and add it to the pool, maybe it is the one that will work in the next situation.
as much as I would like to agree with you, It’s not really possible to “stop” bullying completely. Physical abuse sure people can intervene (break up a fight, fight back etc) but as for using hurtful words there’s not much that can be done. people will always be ass hats if that is what they want to do. it’s not like we can censor them. we can tell them to stop but we can’t physically enforce it.
Well we can. We could just execute them. That stops it dead.
It is just a matter of how badly you want to stop misbehaviour, and whether you can convince the rest of society that it is the way to go.
Sure, as I’ve said twice now, there may be some truth to the statement. It is possible for some people to do things to solve the problem on their own. It is not possible, however, for everyone to do those things. Some people are physically disabled and cannot work out so that they’re strong enough to fight off the physical abuse. Some people have emotional disorders and cannot simply refusing to listen to the barking of dogs and hissing of snakes. For those who cannot make those choices and perform those actions, that statement is just a big “fuck you, be miserable.” Even for those who can, you’re expected to sacrifice your own self determination on the altar of another’s whims. If you’re changing yourself so that others cannot control you, they already control you. Fuck that.
That’s easier said than done. Some of us, the psychological abuse was as bad, or worse, at home, and after years of hearing how worthless, stupid, fat, lazy and klutzy you were, it starts to define who you are.
I think that’s kinda the point of whats being said. It cannot define who you are if you do not allow it to. I myself was placed in a therapeutic group home for 5 years due to the physical/emotional/spiritual abuse I suffered at the hands of my step-fathers (plural) and fellow school mates. One important thing they taught us there was that words (unlike physical actions) can only effect you if you allow it. @Athywren The expectation to “sacrifice your own self determination…” as you put it is solely to benefit and empower YOURSELF not the other person. Your act of being the bigger person in no way benefits the bully, only you. and as we all know Gain without effort is meaningless.
Bravely said. Thank you for sharing your circumstances and conclusions.
thank you for the support
It’s not that it’s saying a woman should be *only* those things which makes it problematic, it’s that it’s saying *every* woman should be *all* of those things, no matter their own needs and priorities. As if every woman has a *responsibility* to be a good fuck, and to cook for people, and to be meek and reserved in conversation. Fuck all of that.
Yeah, well, when bringing up any kind of points about what a woman “should” be opens up the proverbial can of worms, doesn’t it? How can a short statement contain all of the relevant permutations? Only a short list of “should be’s” can be specifically mentioned because verbal/written language isn’t made to describe a whole human being in a small amount of time. Such statements are short because they HAVE TO BE short.
It’s this very same reason why the US Constitution contains the 9th Amendment; The Founding Fathers knew that they couldn’t list ALL of a citizen’s Natural Rights at one time.
Again coming in years late, but the simple fix to this is to add just two words to the saying. “A woman should STRIVE TO be…”
Granted, there’s other issues with the saying, as has been picked apart in numerous other threads here, but adding these two words removes the implication of failure as a woman for not being all of these things, instead portraying them as an ideal to aim for rather than a baseline minimum.
Is it just me, or is Ari holding a playing card in panel 1? Either Ace of Clubs or Ace of Spades, and seeing how she is speaking with her mouth half-full, is she eating the card itself? Or simply using it eat the food in her bowl? By the way, it looks like she is eating salad
I think that’s her fancy phone which she can’t set down, even when eating. The little ‘ace’ is probably her camera eye.
Probably, don’t have one of those things, and it looks awfully thin
They do nowadays. I have even seen one that doesn’t plug into the wall!
Have a cell phone, just not a ‘smart’ phone
On panel 8, the part with “I’d like if more if” doesn’t sound correct
Yea, it should read “…I’d like it more if…”.
How come dabbler has a square jaw that give her a somewhat manly look in her last panel??
*uses brain bleach* this is not happening this is not happening this is not happening *more brain bleach* aw, still did not work. Dabbler has retroactively lost her charms on me.
Cause drawing faces from weird angles is still challenging for me. I like the profile shot of her, but all the other pictures of her on the page still leave a little to be desired from the art standpoint, though personally I like how she looks in the second to last panel even if there are little tweaks that could make it better. There’s always room to improve.
It’s said that an artist never finishes his work – he abandons it
The key to being a good artist? Know when to call it good enough and walk away.
Do we say that?
Hmm quite
Wow, it has been exactly one year since DaveB turned me into a Deviant.
*throws confetti* Happy first birthday!
“Throws marbles”
You post or just browse?
I do post, but only extracts from here, to date. Sadly my artistic skills are too lacking to actively participate. When I can afford to repair my camera, I will upload photos though. :-)
My dad used to be a professional photographer, and trained both my brother and I how to pick out good shots, from a very early age. I have even won some competitions with them. Just small-scale events mind, nothing professional. But one gave me the opportunity to send my parents on a overseas holiday. I only felt it fair, as I would not have won without the tutelage my dad gave me.
Happy 1st birthday, Yorp. In dog years, that means you’re fully adult with all of the rights & privileges that go with it.
:D
So does “I want paralytic cunnilingus” refer to the ability to perform it, or the reception of said ability?
Yes? Actually I think her ability to perform said act isn’t in question, just the availability of someone to deliver it to her.
Fairly sure it means being the recipiant
I wish I had the actual ability to deliver that effect. I really have no use for being on the receiving end, though…If the term was broadened to the more general “oral sex,” I’d be satisfied with being on the receiving side.
from daphne it means both at once for the unique experience to add to her list.
I think, judging from the “eww”, that Harem was talking about performing it on herself, so both
also Harem is right, I’m a guy and if I was a 19 yo girl who can create multiple copies of herself, that would probably be one of the first five things I’d do (no points for guessing what #1 and #2 would be)
I believe woman are awesome, strong, and determined. Can do what ever they want. Also slightly off subject, I am writing this with a scary red head over my shoulder.
Are red heads ever not scary? Even when they are beautiful and attractive?
been there you have my support.
You’ve been there twice at least (well, 3 times, if you count that one time with a clone, and then back to the original)
and last I check he was with an almost as scary platinum blond.
Are they still together? Have stuck with the Wolvie side of things
no clue. my last comic was like 8 years ago.
Right, pretty look alike cleavages.
Just realised something concerning Gwen and Gothette: maybe Gothette was referring back to the Maximum Wedgie incident where Bodie got the wedgie but Gothette, Berry and Abbey felt it as well (Blondini was not shown being a recipient so was probably ‘in storage’ during that occasion), and how just one being on the ‘receiving end’ of the ‘Paralytic Cunnilingus’ would pass on the effect to the other 4, multiplying it by a factor of 5
I wonder how much that meal cost? Max must be making big money at ARK cuz the services don’t pay well…. and they are eating steak!
Unless it’s that mancy-schmancy beer-feed ‘wushu’ beef (or whatever the hell that beef Oprah feeds her dogs with), don’t see why eating steak has to be expensive (even that angus beef isnt that schmancy anymore, you can get it on a McDonald burger)
Except that the McDonald’s “Angus beef” is really kangaroo.
Why would they even feel the need to call their hamburger meat “all beef” if there wasn’t the distinct possibility that it actually wasn’t? Have you ever ordered a steak and then told the waiter/waitress “Oh, and I’d like that to be an all beef steak”?
And while I’m aware that the kangaroo story is an urban legend, that doesn’t change the fact that McDonald’s hamburger is the most mealy, gristle containing hamburger I have ever eaten. Which is why I gave it up as a bad idea a long time ago.
We don’t have kangaroo over here, try next door, with a side of wombat pie and emu wings
Can I haz panda burger, pls.
Don’t have pandas either
Panda’s too fatty. I want Mamba Parmesan please.
*sniffs DR.REVENGE, looks puzzled and sniffs again *
I am getting a bit of marsupial, probably from that acrid hint mmm… dasyuromorphia order but that makes no sense. It clearly cannot be from dasyuridae , the twist to their smell is unmistakable for any member of that family. And I am familiar with the Numbat aroma, which eliminates the myrmecobiidae by itself.
Hang on… the only other possibility is something from the thylacinidae family, and they are all extinct! Have you been cloning extinct species just to eat them!? Is that a Tasmanian Tiger burger you have there?
That is morally reprehensible. And you did not offer me a bite!
“Orders 1 for Yorp”
You have seen the reports they used “Pink Slime” up until just recently right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCqKl4Q3hW4
Maybe in the US, but down here, they have always used real beef (or lamb, they sometimes have lamb burgers)
That….was disgusting. But as much as I am no fan of McDonald’s, I have to wonder if YT did any kind of real research for this piece. People the world around use all kinds of bit and parts of an animal, and that includes parts near the bone and even just straight up blood from the animal (blood pudding, anyone?), which the YT mentioned was the reason this chemical was needed, and those people don’t require ammonium hydroxide (or any other chemical) to kill the bacteria in the meat or blood. That’s what cooking the meat is for! McDonald’s doesn’t seem to serve anything other than well done beef, so all the bacteria should be killed in the process of cooking the hamburger patties.
The distinction being using bone scraping and attempting to pass it off as pure meat. Yes, it remains from the animal. But the industrial techniques used in extraction have various drawbacks which degrade the quality and introduce a moderately higher risk to the product. Hence the stringent European regulations which (per that YouTube clip anyhow) required McDonalds to serve a higher quality product in European restaurants. I had not picked up on that, specifically as I do not follow anything other than major business news, but it has enough basis in European regulation that I find it highly credible.
The EU does tend to set higher standards than the USA. Take genetically modified crops, as an example. In all of the EU there are less than a handful which have been licensed, of any sort. And many crops imports, from the US, are outright banned because there is no way to guarantee that the shipments will not be adulterated with unlicensed mutant plants.
“A person should be a professional in all he or she does.”
I think this should be expansive enough and cover all areas (even the “whore in the bedroom” part, but with less stigma).
Well technically the difference between a professional and an amateur is that of being paid. So, if that is taken literally, it would not be a figure of speech but lead to becoming an actual prostitute.
Or remaining celibate. But to do that professionally (to keep true to being “a professional in all he or she does”) would require finding a job where you get paid for that…
Mmm, out of curiosity, does “NN1” stand for Nun Number 1? Because if you are a Mother Superior, that would be really cool. Go on, you can confess. We wouldn’t tell anyone!
Being a catholic priest would cover that in principle, but not in practice :P
Not only won’t we tell anyone, we also won’t hold it against you :D
I know I shouldn’t let it bother me, but I have been reading this comic since 2012-2011, from the bank scene to be more specific, and the more self aware and meta it becomes, the more I think in my moments of peace about this issue, which are in the end truly just another “it’s a comic plot” subject.
This are the questions:
**Why until know supers are “revealed”? Maxima stated that many countries have supers (and many she had killed) in the east, why haven’t they come forward?
**Why would be america the one to brake the masquerade? Why not Iran/Pakistan/China/South Korea/ Japan? Hell, Why not the other western powers? Was there some kind of agreement and U.S.A just broke it? Do somehow won the right to harness this secret? Or it just decide to say “screw you guys I can do whatever I want”? How do they explain all the massive battles both in war zones and in civilian population? What about the criminals that were scared of maxima? How long the crime syndicates and the freelancers had existed with connection with this abilities? How do the governments around the world maintained the bail of secrecy? Since Maxima destroyed a Moske, shouldn’t the news know about this from way, way long? Why didn’t the Muslim government didn’t raise hell for this desecration and broke the masquerade before this conference?
**Why make the masquerade in the first place? Why wait until the end of the millennium since hey had existed since the civil war and worked directly under the president? What about the second world war? You would think that the worst war in human history would have been a perfect time for some good old fashioned patriotic symbols? Do the allies and Nazis have their own group of super humans? What about the rest of the wars, conflicts and armed conflicts? How about martyrs or figures of power that they would have been excellent for hundreds and hundreds of issues, from political to religious? Why not use it then?
** If super heroes have existed for easily over a century and worldwide, how do the comic industries was born? Why has that mythology become, if overblown, so accurate of what they do? Why created it? Why allow it? Do all superheroes are based in U.S.A trending? Were they based in actual super heroes, if it so, why hasn’t the cover blown then?
** This is… silly, I know and probably goes with creator provincialism, but why is Maxima the most powerful super in the world? With over hundreds of countries and origins, why make the military feminist patriotic super basically a walking god? I mean, she is basically superman/Doctor strange without the strings of “no killing” or the continuity reboot leash, so why make her basically the Deus Ex machina of the comic? Why make her basically invincible, just because she is american? I mean, and man this sound so much like winning, but why not make her simply one of the top with several supers that could and have go toe to toe with her around the world? She pointed out that she had personally killed the strongest supers from enemies countries and had come pretty much unscathed Why make her so much like a Michael Bay movie?
** If she is so powerful and basically and entire army unto herself, why make her to only destroy mines? She could have, without using lethal force, destroyed entire terrorist cells, avoiding the thousand upon thousand of causalities by her lonesome that were lost in armed conflicts, shootings, bombarding and abuse from the military? She could have saved billions of dollars, let alone with the power of the rest of the team? What would they use it as a glorified mine detector when she can pulverize thanks with a flick of her finger, stop bullets mid flight at other targets and can fly match 5 at will?
This are some that bother me the most and mostly, because the comic had made so many critics at the inane of the comic industry of DC and Marvel. They are not important and whether they are answered or not, I will continue to watch this great webcomic. Is it perfect? no, not really, but its a good premise and great characters, like empowered but without the slow meta critic and hidden horror of the super community.
Hoping for the next page, have a nice day.
You have a lot of good, valid questions to ask in there. I have already done one huge post today though, so will not be able to respond to each in the depth that they would deserve. Perhaps it might be an idea to raise them a bit more selectively in future posts, when they are more likely to receive the individual attention they deserve? As it is, this page will shortly get covered by the new one, and the comments here will drop off to nothing pretty fast. From past experience.
In general though the single biggest factor is the rarity of super-powers in this setting. For much of the time there have been so few heroes/villains that their actions could easily be either covered up or mistaken for something else. Was Einstein a genius, or did he possess super-human intuition?
Religion is a big factor too. Up until recently magic, evil and the devil (I am talking western culture here, obviously, for simplicity), went hand-in-hand. Super powers would either be viewed as the work of the devil or of God. If a power appeared to be the latter, then it would be taken as a miracle, not a super power. And the powers that be (the Vatican or otherwise) would have strong vested interests in enforcing that assertion. One way or another (in good faith or not, as may be the case).
However, if circumstances made the former more believable, then the individuals would have been wisest to keep quite or face being burnt at the stake! Witchcraft was still on the statue book as a crime in England within living memory, in case you think I am talking of the dark ages. Whilst it did not carry the death penalty, that is not true of various countries which still have such laws and a few are even today executing people for the crimes.
In a slightly different history with hidden supers, that law would have been there for very good reason. To allow the state to execute those with super powers who did not conform to their control. Any government with strong religious ties would be unwilling to be the first to step forward and acknowledge that they had what amounted to state sponsored witches and wizards on the payroll. Even though, like any weapon, if your enemy has it and you do not then you will loose.
Bare in mind, religion played a much greater role in world politics up to and including the Second World War than we might appreciate today.
And since then we have had the Cold War which was mechanism enough to cover up any such issues. Plus we know that habits formed by the intelligence community and states in the area of secrecy tend to self-perpetuate. So long as any killing is done secretly and/or discretely then no one wants to rock the boat.
So why now? Mobile phones with cameras. No other reason needed. YouTube footage of supers will be abounding. Too many for debunking to convince anyone except the close-minded.
As for the Maxima issue, why does the USA get so many Olympic gold medals? Because they have a big population, are good at recognising potential when they see it, and have the resources and capabilities to make good use of it when they do find it.
Plus bear in mind that she is only amongst the most powerful, as opposed to the situation with Super Man, where he was totally in a league of his own. And, more importantly, that it is limited to their knowledge. Due to the secrecy, up until now, there may well be several who are actually more powerful than her (either in a broad sense or with specific specialised powers).
Part of her gambit was to draw such individuals out into the open. A risky strategy using herself as bait. But even if they are stronger than her, she has built a good team, which will hopefully be able to back her up and make the difference.
As to her personality, that is just a strange question. Somebody in the world will be the best at any particular thing you choose to name. And they will have a personality of some sort. Maxima’s happens to be what you see.
I seem to recall that somewhere in the press-conference it was stated that there are more female supers than males. Given that the current generation of supers is drawn from a generation of liberated women, it is hardly surprising that one, or more, will be feminists. As to the degree of her feminism, she is a super. Would you expect her to do anything in a small way?
The comic has only given the smallest hints as to what Maxima did during wars. There is certainly no implication that all she did was destroy mines. But do not underestimate how profoundly that can influence desert warfare, even if it was the case. One thing we do know though. Whatever she did, it was done quietly and discretely enough that it could be concealed from the public at large.
And I can assure you that mosques, and churches for that matter, routinely get violently damaged. Sometimes in peace, often in war. I can think of half a dozen that were bombed or shot at in the last year alone, off the top of my head. But that is because I keep abreast of a lot of world news. If I relied on just evening news headlines, I may not be as well informed. Although, doubtless much would have been made of that incident on Al Jezera, if it was known to have been perpetrated by the US.
However it is possible that whatever happened could have been attributed to natural causes or some kind. Which seems more likely given her sheepish look when mentioning it. Ie, she made a mistake. but not one which sparked an international incident. Either she was lucky and was not observed, or they managed to cover it up somehow.
“Sorry that our low flying aircraft damaged your mosque roof. We will cover all costs in repairing it and fund the building of a new hospital to show our good intentions to the community.”
Of course the latter a very optimistic view of what the military or the US government might do. But, at the end of the day, we are talking about a comic. ;-)
I hope that English is not your first language. And regardless of whether it is or is not, there are browsers available which perform automagic spell checks, and you might want to look into using one of them.
I answer to most of your questions, the power level of Maxima or any other member of the team is pretty much irrelevant unless the comic revolves around slug fests between superheroes. Which so far, it hasn’t. A lot of story can be told which has absolutely nothing to do with the power level of the characters.
If you doubt, go check out Doc Future (https://docfuture.tumblr.com). In that story several of the characters have vast amounts of power, far, far greater than anyone in the Grrl Power universe who we have seen to date. Flicker in particular is in essence a living goddess, able to move so fast she makes the Flash seem like he’s a geriatric old man using a walker, and having the power of an extra-dimensional plane being funneled into her. And yet the story does not focus on her simply tearing apart other supers like they were nothing, and instead focuses primarily on interpersonal story lines and the real world issues which super powered people would face. And it still has a lot more “action” than Grrl Power does.
I know this probably isn’t a big deal, but what happened to the little x’s on Dabbler’s ID choker thingy? They were there in the bathroom, and they don’t have a reasonable cause for being gone, like the ID being super small or behind something more important.
Someone did question that in the comments earlier, but I do not think DaveB noticed it. Which I just tested with a CTRL+F5, which would update the image if he had changed things. Normally he would correct such straight off. As the moment though, he is probably working on the new comic.
To the Harem Girls…Yeah, you’d all if you could and you KNOW it. Don’t pretend. >:D
*Ahem*
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerPerversionPotential
Wait, there’s a misspelling here. And I hate to be that person, but in Panel 8, it says “I’d like if more if we struck…” and should be “I’d like it more if we struck…”. You know?
Whoops, fixed it. I encourage people to be that guy, since my own spelling and grammar skills are obviously marginal.
I’m completely in support of Maxima.
Nooo! I must resist the wordplay. It would not be received well. But that mental image. Once you have painted it, however accidentally, it is so hard to dispel!
sounds like they all need a date with gary from menage a 3
This whole conversation would be going in a different direction with the addendum of a simple phrase at the end of the addage: “…or none, if she so chooses”
I’m feeling really stupid because I don’t understand the reference. It just works out in my head as “oral sex preformed on a paralyzed woman”.
I think that’s supposed to mean “oral sex so good that it paralyzes the receiver”.
Doesn’t it always?
sadly…no.
I’m conflicted because I agree with both Maxima and Dabbler. I mean, mostly I agree with Maxima, but I also agree with some of Dabbler’s points. …I guess this is why I’m so ambivalent about third-wave feminism. It tries to be both sides of the argument at the same time.
You know, reading this years later I think this might have been part of the “Make Max Say” bingo.
Replace “woman” with “person” and you’ve got a non-sexist saying. Actually then it sounds just like the quote from Starship Troopers (the book) about how humans should be generalist and leave specialization to insects, except for the bit about differentiating between people and insects. Turns out differentiating between broad categories of people like men and women is how you sexism.