Grrl Power #734 – Three’s a conversation
This page takes place after about 30 seconds of recovery, hemming and hawing and Sydney saying something like “Upon reviewing this new data, I temporarily suspend my dating… thingy I said earlier.” But I thought I’d skip over that.
Sydney obviously took this better than some might have expected. One of her hallmark characteristics is that she bounces back from stuff quickly. She just has big reactions, which makes it appear she’s far more invested in any given event that she actually is once she has a moment to process. She’s disappointed by this outcome, yes. She figured Leon was a lock, but who knows, maybe she’s not out of the game yet.
I had intended to start this page with a bunch of the team trying to look like they’re not listening in from the next room, but I had to cut it for space, so just pretend that’s going on.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. $1 and up, but feel free to contribute as much as you like.
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.
Let’s see…what characters from other media would be Leon’s Type?
I nominate Radical Edward (Yes, she’s a girl)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL5L0RZFXUw
Whilst Edward is indeed quite radical, she’s also a child (13, if memory serves). Maxima would have words. CAPITAL words.
@Dix – well, Cowboy Bebop aired 21 years ago, so she’d be about 31 years old by now.
Meant 34 years, of course.
I meant 34 years, of course.
weird thing about edward. we never see the planetary a.i. she befriended who drew a picture of her in a landmass as they flew away with her on board for the first time
You never see the A.i.s themselves, only their terminators.
I meant 34 years, of course.
Capital as in Capital punishment, entirely by accident of course.
Leona Osaki, now… she’s no hacker, but she has shown strong mechanical skills, drives a custom tank, and could handle herself around ArcSWAT. Also short, confident & fiery when needed.
Well if we’re going with some Tank Girls, Eriko Kusumoto might be a bit more Leon’s type, since she designed (and pilots) the MADOX-01 “slave trooper” battlesuit (Think a very small mecha, not much bigger than a typical power armor suit) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydVMxczmOGc&t=262s
Given our limited data points, I’d definitely go with Leona as a top pick, while Kusumoto is way more badass and… I don’t know, corporate? In any case I would have binned her with Kanuka Clancy from Patlabor rather than the Leona/Noa camp.
That said, holy crap, someone else who knows who Elle from MADOX-01 is! She’s in my “hottest anime characters of all time” list, but nobody else has even heard of it.
Eh, not for me. But, the animation gets points for having the closest to someone with my build I’ve ever seen in any animation (short guy, barrel chest, broad shoulders).
If we’re going to be talking Tank Girls with that being capitalized, what about Rebecca Buck? Ok, admittedly she probably wouldn’t be a good fit for ARC, Leon, or probably anybody in the comic… She’s pretty chaotic neutral… with a strong emphasis on chaotic…
Doesn’t that describe Sydney?
Nah, I’d go with Chaotic Good or even Neutral Good for Sidney if we’re going classic. She wants to do the right thing—heck, she’s a superhero and a fan thereof—so Good is a guarantee. She just has no filter whatsoever and no particular affinity for rules, hence the Chaotic end of it.
And even that one is debatable, since she doesn’t abhor rules, she just has no attention span and filter. So Neutral Good (only wants to follow the rules if they make sense to her) probably fits better, and she could even just be a screwed-up Lawful.
Okay, jumping in on this thread. Let’s see. Tesstarossa from Full Metal Panic. Skuld from Ah My Goddess, though that might be the same problem as with Ed? What about that hacker girl from Persona 5?
How old is Leon, anyway?
Heh. I guess he will just have to make do with a threesome.
I take it all back, Leon has the survival instincts of a frog in the rain on the highway.
*cough* *cough* (foursome) *cough*
A man can dream, though… A man can dream.
The final panel shows that to most definitely not be on the cards. Sydney and Krona are not happy that Leon has even thought this, let alone voiced it! It is suggesting that even both of them together would not be enough for him!
As for actually getting a threesome that would both take somebody with a lot more skill* than me, and someone less shy (sexually speaking) than Sydney, to pull off successfully. Although her space adventures have emboldened her, so Leon may be in with a chance, given the right circumstances.
* Timing, mood setting, charismatic bravado and whatever else.
Oh, so you are in the incorrect LeonCameUpWithItHimself Camp, rather than the correct SydneySuggestedItFirst Camp
No, he’s in the LeonActuallyAgreedWithItOutLoud camp.
A big part of those exchanged looks is “oh boy, he didn’t understand it was sarcasm and actually took it seriously?” Turning a telling off into a suggestion, by doing that shows a poor understanding of social interactions. Which does not bode well for a budding relationship.
Leon might have been trying to carry on the joke, or at least could try claiming so. Whether he’d be believed is another matter, and unconnected to whether it was actually the case…
Welcome to page two of the Issue #734 discussion, with music for your contemplations and ruminations.
Next up: The Knack singing My Krona
Nah, I just realised that if I gave Leon the same treatment I gave.. now how do you call them.. oh yeah, Giant Squidly Things, then Archon would need a new building and I don’t need the flak from that just yet.
When you have Harem and Dabbler as friends and teammates, you have to already know a bit about Polyamory.
You should consider updating the Cast page… or just removing it…
Shouldn’t Leon and Krona have been at the damn welcome party to begin with? They both cared about Sydney a great deal and I feel like they would have been out there celebrating her return instead of canoodling in the office.
I GUESS they could blame that on her being an hour early and them being to, AHEM, busy to get the memo she was back?
If you look at panel three on the previous page, you see the box of cake pops.
The door was open and they are right next to the elevator.
They are literally right there. And this is the literal sense of literal. As long as you count being in the same set of adjoining rooms as being at the same party. At any party in a large enough space people are going to spread out. For some ‘alone together’ time, as seen here, or just to get away from the crows. Not everyone is an extrovert and can stand being in a crowd for long periods of time, after all.
Also, it’s been established that Sydney is an hour earlier than expected. The news likely didn’t travel that fast or people respond that quickly.
This is the same Archon that put Sydney’s bodyslam self outing on the recroom tv while it was still
Live, I find it far more likely that the rest of the team was stalling because they knew about Leon and Karona and were trying to give them time to ahem get decent. Granted they are Probably standing at the door needing a collective jaw recovery.
That or someone won 5$….wonder who.
It may turn out that Krona has some kind of half-Morian-were-androsphinx-demigod romantic prospect back with the Semper Vigilantis. Since Dabbler (a psychic-genius-purple-furry-mutant-alien-succubus-military contractor-sorceress) exists, I don’t think there’s a limit on how many creature templates you can stack onto a single hypothetical character in this ‘verse.
I can’t blame Max for trying to get time manipulation out of someone named “Krona” with reality hacking powers. Even if her powers arbitrarily (or it just seems arbitrary since NOBODY understands them) don’t work that way.
Leon may need to review this PSA. And always remember your ABCs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FmtiDbg4xY
Here’s hoping he doesn’t have to worry about D.
(Seriously, how did that one ever become a trope?)
Rule 34.
For some reason I cannot comprehend, step-sister, step-daughter, and step-mother porn seems to be very popular at this time. The allure of the forbidden, perhaps? Most of this is just squick, because I’m going to guess that 99 or more out of 100 step-daughter/step-father encounters are abusive as hell and probably involve statutory rape, but there you have it.
Castor has chromosome pairs, yes? Or the exceedingly rare XXY chromosomes, which would scientifically be a third gender and still not female. Females have an XX chromosome pair, it is a measurable fact, not a philosophical grey area.
No it wouldn’t be a third gender in science. What you’re talking about is a genetic disorder known as Klinefelter syndrome. Those affected grow as males, though typically infertile ones at that. Here’s some further reading:
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/klinefelter-syndrome
Remember that gender is not a fixed term in english, the meaning and use of the word will change based on who uses it, A biologist, a doctor, a psychologist, a sociologist, a layperson, etc. All use the same word but mean different things.
However, if as a layperson, one chooses to define “gender” as the binary presence of an XX or XY chromosome pairing one could indeed make the circular argument that one’s gender is a measurable fact under those terms.
Which as pointed out immediately breaks down when confronted with other, known and naturally occurring combinations. (XXY, XX Male, XY Female, X only, Triple X, Quad X, XYY, etc)
Similarly one could make the case that gender definitions are based on the reproductive capabilities of the individual, in which case it, again, breaks down as a definition when presented with all the exceptions and natural examples that break that simple binary formula.
Perhaps it would be simpler then to just treat people as people and not worry about the other bits. Be they Male, female, masculine, feminine, blue, green, purple, furry, scaly.
I agree that people should be treated as people and with respect. I agreed that people should be treated as societally masculine or feminine according to their self identity. The problem comes with things like sports. A trans woman that isn’t on testosterone suppressing meds from adolescence on is going to have the same unfair advantage that an XX woman who took testosterone supplements would have, and should be banned from the sport just the same. If medical gender is fluid, then that shoots Title Nine to shreds and pretty much all gender specific legislation.
Yeah and it is only getting worse (in a good way, I think, but I admit most people aren’t going to like it).
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/men-pregnant-womb-transplant-dr-richard-paulson-transgender-a8037201.html?fbclid=IwAR0C_56yo7v15eUG2UVldEO9D7xw9mXNMWBp_LdNKD9vM9m0SyJ8EtHT61k
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/04/penis-transplants-anthony-atala-interview
The only thing left now acting as a barrier between now and literally being able to choose your sex is gene therapy, but even that won’t be long as a Chinese scientist finally went ahead and broke the taboo on gene-editing humans. And it is the very element of choice that strips the binary system apart at the seams.
And yes, that means gender-and-sex-specific legislation is going to be an utter hell to deal with. Personally, I am looking forward towards this new era.
Wouldn’t even need gene therapy. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190502143437.htm points out that skin cells can be turned into embryonic stem cells, which are tantamount to fertilized eggs in apparent viability. Just Crispr a second X into a male skin cell, or a not-color-blind donated Y into a female skin cell, and convert to embryo. New clones with the almost the same DNA and different equipment.
Currently, this is quote monstrous unquote (especially for the God-fearing types and the Pro-Life movement). I doubt if it will stay “monstrous”. (I’m certain that the Pro-Life movement will split into “Humanity by natural fertilisation only” and “Clones are people too” movements. I suspect that the Pro-Choice crowd will likewise split, but I think “cloned bodies are spare parts” is a “bridge too far” for most.)
I, myself, am somewhere between “clones are people” and “cloned bodies are spares”, with a hope that clones without brains are viable as far as spare part functionality goes. While I’d love to see what 5 of me (different upbringings, of course) would be like, dying only from stupidity is preferable.
Oh, I forgot the most important part.
Sex cells have minimal telomere issues. Do stem cells from old skin? Or will an extended progeria (aged early, but aging normally) be a modern clone-user’s fate…
A good reason to wait a few years. (“New from Adon-dite! Gene therapy for cloned spares!”)
The exact opposite in fact, Title 9 isn’t about giving one gender more or better treatment, or some sort of “separate but equal” nonsense . It’s about ensuring that [no] gender is treated worse that another. In which case if it’s being used properly it doesn’t matter what gender the individual is, all you have to do is ask ” if this person was [any] other gender, would they be given different treatment? If yes, you are in violation, if no, then you are in compliance. As for sports? Again thats purely social, much like the weight classes in boxing. In a more objective world we would divide sports by performance, not arbitrary selected physical traits.
Besides, the studies that link between testosterone and performance aren’t the highest quality. One might as well go all Harrison Bergeron and make tall basketball players slump over, since basketball performance is height linked, right? Or make all runners wear weights so that they all weigh the same.
Have never heard of this ‘Title 9’ (is it the sequel to “District 9” or “Plan 9 from Outer Space”? o_O), butt believe Aboo may have meant: how do you protect someone from gender discrimination or inequalities if they are simply able to change their gender?
People changing nationalities is already a quagmire, and now you want to add changing gender to the mess? o_O
Hmm i suppose some clatification is in order.
In this context, Title IX referes to US federal law [text below]
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
So the argument being made is that, if you do not rigidly define sex you cannot enforce this particular statute or a similar one.
Which is a bit of a falsehood.
If the Law said something along the lines of women cannot be denied access that men have, then yes the statute would be difficult to enforce if people can declare thier gender.
However the way anti discrimination laws are written [ for the most part] negate that argument.
For example, if I am a biological male that self identifies as female, and I am denied access to a program because of either gender male or female, it triggers the anti discrimination Clauses. Whether I identify as male or if I identify as female, and whether or not I am biological either gender, is irrelevant to the law. Because all genders must be provided equal access to the program.
Thank you
Yeah, if there are no genders, or no ‘rigidly defined’ genders, then gender-specific laws should be tossed (specially the anti-discrimination ones)
And again, gender and sex are not the same thing
Other way around.
Anti descrimination laws as written are gender neutral. It doesn’t matter what gender you are if its used against you its against the law.
The only way gender fluidity would be an issue would be for laws that specifically target one gender or another (which would in and of themselves trigger the anti discrimination laws [hence their importance])
Strictly legally, yes, but that’s not how it’s enforced. Title 9 is abused black and blue by feminist activists.
Not particularly, I mean you get MRA people suing bars over ladies nights, sure. But i’d argue 99.9% of cases are about the discrimination the law was put in place to prevent.
I disagree. This is where the system breaks down. “Self-identification” isn’t (to my knowledge) a legal definition and allows people to game the system for unfair advantage.
As a thought exercise: Take a 500 seed male tennis player who decides to announce that he “identifies as female” and will now be playing in the woman’s tennis circuit. How is this fair to female tennis players who already have to deal with the reality that woman’s tennis purses (an unfortunate term perhaps) aren’t as high as men’s tennis purses? The man will be moving from a higher paid system where he couldn’t make much due to not being one of the top players into a lower paid system where he is likely to be one of the top contenders.
I’m all for systems which prevent discrimination, and I could give a rat’s ass who uses which bathroom. But I do see huge issues with the current system and a need to tighten up the legal aspects surrounding genders.
There is actually an X variant discovered in humans that allows for XY females that are perfectly healthy and can have children normally. Any YY fertilized eggs don’t develop any from lack of genetic information. Birds have W and Z chromazones and work differently, ZZ being male and ZW female.
NO! Pixel is MINE, damnit!
Hur, hur, male dumbness. Tim Allen and Homer Simpson and stuff. I’ve never called anyone a cuck before, but it’s a good time to start.
“I’m not looking for a girlfriend that might turn into a giant furry anthro at highly inconvenient times.”
(See, you could have said that instead, but no,,,)
And find that Pixelicious is standing behind him? o_O
I’m insulted.
That would be an obvious lie.
No, some people would find that a turn off
Pixel (and shape-shifters of most other types) may take that as an insult to their self-control. One would expect that a voluntary change would be fully deliberate, and “might … at highly inconvenient times” could easily be misinterpreted as implying an inability to control their own body.
He has a good thing here Sydney, don’t ruin it for him!
Ruin it? Add in Pixel and the fun times are starting! Leon can become Harem King!
Sexy time with Leon and Krona was started by…
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, Boobs, Ass, Start.
Leon calls it the Krona/Me Code.
And here it is, 10am on Friday and I am sitting in the DMV waiting area, suffering my usual phobias about space and too many people…and I read this and laugh so damn hard I can’t breathe and cause quute a commotion…and type this out hiding under bench, still laughing me patootie off…
Really there’s no reason for Sydney to be upset. She never dated him and wasn’t in love with him. No reason to get upset that he’s taken now.
Remember, your talking about Sydney and her inner reality….
I’ve got to say that I absolutely love the art on this page, in particular. Krona & Sydney are delightfully depicted and really show how desirable they are.
Will there be little pink and blue werekittens running around Arc-Light?
Where would the blue come from? o_O
You mean Frix being the daddy? O_o
I was thinking something similar. The woof and the werejag getting together unexpectedly…
…though I’m still shipping Sydney and Frix, long-term…
That statement about Maxima’s responsibilities… Sydney is gonna end up being the leader of Archon someday, isn’t she?
Probably not.
I would think she will get a Mary Sue ending, and become a Cosmic Superhero, traveling the starlanes.
Don’t acknowledge sister side-eye.
eh, I think I already gave the advice about doubling-down and going for the absurd limit of what you were already doing. If you disregarded that, or you tried it and it backfired spectacularly, then I’m afraid you’re fucked.
Plan B: Deadpan and keep your military bearing, no matter what happens next. Shoulders back, eyes forward, breath steady. I can’t emphasize that last part enough.
Leon ain’t military
Leon has NO idea what he just got himself into….
Pixel, looking like she’s not listening, hears her name taken in vain, and rushes in to hotly protest… something. Being left out? Being included? Being objectified?
Does Sydney remember Krona’s reaction to the orbs’ level-up system? Now that she can make it happen at will, that could be incredibly important to bring up. A better understanding of Sydney’s powers, AND a better understanding of the universe’s coding?
…
Too convenient to actually happen, of course.
Looks to me more like they are glowering at each other, but I might be reading their expressions wrong.
I’m surprised it wasn’t brought up that someone at Archon was going to be going over all Krona’s code and coding practices to make sure nothing she has written has reality ending potential. It would seem that the Leon would be a natural selection for that, along with Dabbler. Put the three of them together for two months and I’m sure Dabbler would have suggested hooking up.
Am I the only one that finds pixel attractive in both forms?
Based on Sydney’s supersonic “Squeeeeeeeeeeeee…” when Pixel first demonstrated her shape-shiftiness, obviously not.
Remember how Sydney reacted to Pixelicious’ non-fuzzy form?
The exact opposite in fact, Title 9 isn’t about giving one gender more or better treatment, or some sort of “separate but equal” nonsense . It’s about ensuring that [no] gender is treated worse that another. In which case if it’s being used properly it doesn’t matter what gender the individual is, all you have to do is ask ” if this person was [any] other gender, would they be given different treatment? If yes, you are in violation, if no, then you are in compliance. As for sports? Again thats purely social, much like the weight classes in boxing. In a more objective world we would divide sports by performance, not arbitrary selected physical traits.
Besides, the studies that link between testosterone and performance aren’t the highest quality. One might as well go all Harrison Bergeron and make tall basketball players slump over, since basketball performance is height linked, right? Or make all runners wear weights so that they all weigh the same.
Agreed for all the first part. I will quibble about the bit starting “In a more objective world we would divide sports by performance, not arbitrary selected physical traits.”
At the ends of the bell curves you can find some unfair instances in both the current system and your proposed alternative. One for the latter being that if we did split the strength affected sporting world into two groups “the stronger” and “the weaker” (have fun coming up with some platitude alternative name category) it would be extremely embarrassing for weak men to be required to compete with women. Likewise some women would not be happy being pushed into the (formerly) men’s category.
This though is not too different to the proposals to recategorise folks due to testosterone levels, in terms of problems (as opposed to what criteria you used to determine when it would apply). The huge one though is if someone manages to significantly improve their performance through means other than having an inherent physical advantage. Whilst many western countries have both the facilities and the tradition to allow the talented to train full-time and with coaches and all the other perks, not all countries do. So if someone managed to get all those advantages, their performance would increase significantly. Enough that they would likely be re-categorised.
Which would then be unfair, because, despite putting in intense training day in day out, they would then have to compete against individuals who could maintain that level of performance with less dedication. Especially unfair if (as is often the case in our less than fair world) if the men of that country did have easier access to better training. As such the recategorised individuals would have little chance of getting into medal positions, even if they would be considered champion female athletes under our current system.
And that is just looking at system flaws. It may be that someone simply figures out a smarter way to either train or perform. It does happen from time to time (albeit less likely in long established sports). Take the Fosbery Flop, as an example. Let us say that a sportswoman discovered a technique in her sport which gave her a similar game-changing advantage. All of a sudden her performance would be such that she would be required to compete against men instead!
With the unfairness that she may never win a competition, as it may not be enough to make up the difference due to gender advantage. Further, by the time the bureaucracy and/or rules got re-examined, all her competitors will have had the chance to learn and practice her technique (given that the Fosbury Flop changed its sport forever) and she will once again be back in the middle of the pack. A clearly unfair outcome, from beginning to end.
Believe Orz meant doing away with ‘Mens’ and ‘Womens’ sport divisions, and just rank them on their performance
Regarding your ‘game-changing advantage’: restricting it to one gender would be a form of discrimination. Both gender were able to use the Fosbury Flop after it was developed
The woman from you example wouldn’t be competing against all men, just those in her category (whatever category is used for athletics)
And you claim unfairness regarding training access being easier for certain athletes: that already happens!!!
Take the 80’s, the Soviet Union and China were dominating the world of Gymnastics because they had schools dedicated to training kids from kindergarten age (butt it was easier to blame it on steroids and other crap). And marathons and other long distance running was dominated by Ethiopians, either due to genetics or because there wasn’t anything else to do butt run every where so they developed the stamina from an early age to excel at endurance events
The unfair outcome from your last sentence would be her keeping that advantage to herself
Then why say “… we would divide sports by performance … (emphasis added to highlight key point). If this is meant instead to create leagues, these already exist in sports such as football (a.k.a. soccer to Americans). Yet they also have the sport divided into mens and womens leagues. So what would change by this version of the proposal? Just banning the male & female divide in the league? Thus potentially discouraging many female competitors who currently enjoy fair competition with other women.
Personally I am in favour of the current set up, even as a feminist, for those sports where the larger average size and strength of men do give a noticeable performance advantage.
Mind you I am also in favour of allowing exceptions, where a woman wishes to compete in the more challenging male leagues. Whereas I would be less favorably inclined to champion the converse. As mediocre male performers may seek to exploit their advantage to rise to a high position in a female league. And I believe players in both leagues should be compensated at an equitable level (although I understand that if one version is more popular with viewers, than the other, then salaries influenced by advertising or ticket booth revenues may diverge).
Don’t know what Orbz meant, was just making a guess
Sports are already divided by performance, that’s why there are divisions within leagues
Just because you remove the gender barrier will not mean there will suddenly be a huge influx of competitors, or a decrease in the current numbers. There will be a spike in interest from those who may previously have though it was impossible, or those simply curious. In less than half a season (one full season at tops) things will settle down
Fairly much every negative you said already happens!
To be honest, not sure how it would work, maybe ‘traditional’ league(s) and a ‘mixed’ league, with the same option to switch between as there is now for ‘changing codes’ (ie going from Rugby Union to League, or Netball to Basketball, or heck, even both if they are played at different times, plenty of top athletes have played more than one type of game at the same time, Jeff Wilson was both an All Black and a Black Cap in the same year)
Boy you really got the wrong end of the stick on that one! I was simply proposing what might happen if the next big innovation in sports happened to be developed by a female competitor. She would have an advantage for a season or two, until her rivals (and those in the male sport) managed to copy the technique and level the playing field again.
There was no suggestion that this should be limited to just one gender or the other!
Simply that if a system had been set up whereby the sport was divided in to weaker performers versus stronger performers, then that innovator would be re-categorised from the weak league to the strong league (formerly known as “womens” and “mens” respectively).
Her inability to thereby capitalise on her fair advantage would be apparent to all, but the rules (under the hypothetical system proposed) would necessitate the change. Whilst the sports governing bodies might meet to try and find some compromise, the bureaucracy involved in such takes time, by the end of which her advantage would have been lost, regardless of how they decided to resolve the matter.
What difference would it make if the next ‘game-changer’ was developed by a woman or a man? The Fosbury Flop was being used by everyone, both men and women. Heck, we were being taught that at highschool (before then we were doing the old ‘scissor jump’)
The “Fosbury Flop” was a total game-changer, because it allowed people to jump higher, even the pole-vaulters started using it, it wasn’t kept a secret or a restricted advantage: he developed it for everyone
No it was not being used by everybody. At first it was only being used by its inventor, Dick Fosbury. During which period he gained a great advantage. And rightly so. He found a way to get the human body to do something in a more efficient way than anybody had thought of before. So deserved to get the medal rewards that resulted.
Subsequently, yes, everybody got to use it, and he thereby lost the advantage. However he did have the enduring achievement of getting everybody in his sport to change their techniques to the one he used. Something for the history books, but lacking in medals on the mantelpiece and the corresponding more tangible rewards, such as increased sponsorship and enhanced fame, which can lead to better sales of autobiographies and other commercial deals.
The example I gave showed a flaw in the system which Orz proposed (as I interpreted it anyhow). One where if a woman did such innovation she would not get the rewards for her idea and work. Whereas a man (or someone who was already in the stronger league) who did such would get the medals, just the same as Dick Fosbury did. They already have the inherent physical advantages necessary to be in that league and there is no higher league to go up to. So any extra advantage they gain they get to benefit from.
So this is why the proposed change creates a system which is less fair to women, despite the good intentions of some imagined idealised future society.
If there was some easy fix to the issues we are currently (in world terms, rather than any specific nation) a liberal and good intentioned enough society to have tried them already (somewhere in the world). What stops it is that closer examination usually finds flaws, and often very serious ones. Whilst I am sure that such problems can be solved they will require new systems with better safeguards. Thus are more complex than a simple one-line statement of intent can provide.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed by your proposal that a female innovator would not get any medals, as though there are games in which women compete for medals or other rewards
My argument is sound. Clearly you are failing to even grasp the basic premise of it, despite me rephrasing it several times!
If a female competitor was forced to stop competing against females, and had to compete against males (in a sport where males have a significant advantage), then the innovation that they had introduced MAY (and most probably) not be sufficient to overcome the inherent advantage that men have in that sport. As such they would not win any medals.
Clearly if their innovation was so massive that it could beat both women and men and superman, then great, she has done well and will get loads of gold medals. However I was posing a far more realistic scenario.
If a woman manages to invent a high-jump technique which allows her to increase her jumping height by more than a foot, to overcome the male advantage in this sport, then she deserves a Nobel prize as well as her Olympic medals!
Please inject some common sense in your debate, rather than just arguing because you feel like it!
The Fosbury Flop wasn’t just some innovative secret training technique (like wearing ankle weights all day prior to competing), it fundamentally changed the entire sport
Yes it did change the sport. But not until Dick Fosbury had managed to thrash his opposition consistently and win his Olympic gold medal (and set an Olympic record, in the process).
Do you think that someone can just see a new technique and copy it on their next jump, and thereby negate any advantage? They have to retrain themselves and practice the new technique before they will be good enough to use it reliably, or at all, at competition level.
And, yes, if developing an innovative new technique, competitors in numerous sports do conduct that training as secretly as they are able. They want to ensure that they are the ones who have that advantage, when the sports season begins. Once that happens it is indeed done openly. However that innovator will be able to retain their advantage for some time, until their rivals have managed to change their own training sufficiently to replicate the technique.
This is not hypothetical, just look at history (courtesy of extracts from Wikipedia):
“… but lacking in medals on the mantelpiece and the corresponding more tangible rewards …”
Just to clarify, the hypothetical female athlete, in my scenario, is the one who would be lacking in these medals, and the subsequent benefits. They would not be referred to as “multiple gold medal olympian” rather, at best, they might be “the controversially badly treated athlete” or some such lackluster alternative.
Sorry, i was typing that on my phone on break, didn’t get a chance to be more clear. So the issues are twofold
“it would be extremely embarrassing for weak men to be required to compete with women” – Sexism
“Unfairness” – Harrison Bergeron-esque
But basically i was saying that in some sports we divide up the athletes based on their performance, one example of this would be boxing, where athletes are divided up by a trait defined by the sport (in this case weight) which directly correlates to the ability to give and receive impacts.
Or for say inanimate competitions Engine CC in racing. Using a 500CC engine on a 50CC track would give you a ridiculous advantage, so in (most) racing events Vehicles have to have a narrower range of output.
Basically you would establish a clearly defined metric for the event. So say for track and field, just like the boxers getting weighed, the individuals are put to their paces and sorted out accordingly in an objective non competitive environment, this would determine your “weight class” as it were.
(i of course would be in the couch potato class) this allows people to compete against people of similar skills, making the race much more competitive. (for example, me vs Usain Bolt would be meaningless i’m going to lose no matter what, Me Vs. the pizza guy on the other hand, i might beat them in a footrace) Your gender would not be a factor, [only your ability to run].
The question is, what is the goal of your sporting event.
If it is a divided event where you are selecting a trait and only allowing those traits to compete with each other, (whites and Blacks), (Brown eyes / blue eyes), (right handed people / left handed people), (Men / Women) then that is your event and you can enforce your arbitrary limitations thusly, because the most important part of your event is [what] people [are], rather than what they do.
However if your sporting events goal is “who can run the fastest” or “who can swim the fastest” or who can [Adverb verb], etc
then only the end results matter and it is better to place people in competitive categories based on “[what] people [do]”.
It’s almost (but not quite) hearkening back to the arguments about equality vs equity. What i (personally) find frustrating is the idea that one should bring people “down” to the most common deviation, Instead it would be more “fair” to allow people to compete against other of the same level of capability, else one could make the case that all runners should wear weights based on their muscle strength so that no runner has the advantage of a “thrust/mass” ratio!
Still a little rambley, hope that clears things up a little (or probably makes it less clear)
Boxing is already broken down as you suggest. However it also has men and women competing separately. And for good reason. A woman of a given weight does not have the same chance to win a boxing match as a man of that same weight. Their bodies have different proportions of their weight devoted to muscle mass. Plus there are other harder to measure aspects, such as bone structure (leading to bigger frames, more able to soak up punishment).
Evolutionarily men have been the hunters and women the gatherers. So guys have several subtle edges in physical contact sports. It would take very complex (and to the average viewer seemingly arbitrary) algorithms and measurements to try and put people into categories with those of similar physiques. Which, granted, could be done. But it would need to be far more complex than a simple weight class. One which we avoid by using our current system, and still having something that is relatively fair in the vast majority of cases.*
Conversely you have chosen a poor analogy by citing motor sports. Simply because they (mostly) eliminate any gender advantage and thereby should not have separate competitions. However, in some highly weight sensitive race types their may be a difference (ultra light weight vehicle competitions, for instance). In that lighter competitors may have a competitive advantage. And women lighter, on average, than men.
However, if there is no other gender advantage, then this is indeed a situation where weighing the competitors, and putting them in an appropriate class, would actually be fair. For the motorised sports, how much of the mass is subcutaneous fat, versus muscle, is fairly insignificant. So whilst there would be a higher proportion of women in the lower weight classes, this should not bother anybody (sensible).
* Setting aside that females still get paid way less than their male counterparts and often have far less preferential treatment, say in training venues or travel arrangements (again speaking world-wide, rather than limited to a single nation).
No, Orz correctly used motor sport because it is not determined by drivers gender butt by the drivers ability and skill
And, again with boxing, even within the same weight-class, you have some boxers who have a clear advantage over other boxers and completely dominate their class. Yes, men have a perceived natural advantage, butt that is primarily because it has been viewed as a ‘manly sport’ and thus those women who might otherwise show an aptitude for it are steered away, sometimes politely, most times aggressively
You bring up hunters and gathers: you claim that it is evolution that has determined that men where the hunters and women the gatherers, which is rubbish, the only advantage a man has over a woman is how much weight they can individually carry, if that was the case, then men would make even better gatherers because they could carry more berries. Hunting for a tribe is not an individual endeavour so it doesn’t matter how much one can carry individually as you are part of a group (plus there is the added bonus of being able to construct something to help drag the prey if it is too big physically to carry)
To put it in a canine viewpoint: wolves do not hunt alone, they hunt in packs, females (not nursing or otherwise carrying for pups) are included, and they hunt prey much much larger than themselves, and after bringing it down, they divide it amongst the hunters before bringing it back to the rest of the pack
That IS what I said:
You may wish to read a bit more carefully, before deciding I am wrong.
Oh yeah, almost forgot something about Boxing: the primary goal of boxing (or any other contact sport), is to hit your opponent and not be hit in turn, so a lighter woman (or man) has a slight advantage because they can better manoeuvre around their opponent and wear them down
Yes, a bigger man may have the stronger punch, butt they still have to connect
Take another contact sport for example: wrestling. Yes, most of it is ‘fake’, butt that is just the results being scripted not the abilities of the performers, and one would naturally assume the bigger competitors would dominate and yet, you had smaller athletes able to ‘stand their ground’ against the ‘giants’ (look up Rey Mysterio Junior and his matches against heavyweights like Big Show)
Again, yes, the results have been pre-determined, butt you still see the ‘little guys’ perform plausibly well against the ‘heavy weights’
Whilst I agree (from another post of yours, in this thread) that women have been dissuaded from boxing, you seem to be under the impression that they do not box at all. Which simply indicates that you are ill-informed, as it does exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_boxing
It is however small scale, not particularly popular and still suffers from macho boxing organisations who refuse to condone, promote, recognise or support it.
Should they be allowed to fight against men? Certainly, if that is their choice. Please petition your local boxing organisations if you wish to see this. Personally I do not, as I choose not to watch any form of boxing. Should we force women to fight against men? Certainly not. You may consider that the advantage of generally bigger guys, with more muscle mass not to be an advantage over the mobility of female fighters, but I would dispute that.
If your argument held water then we would not have separate weight classes. Mohamed Ali was a heavyweight boxer, but he also famously had the mobility you vaunt. “I float like a butterfly, but sting like a bee”. As such he would have posed a severe threat to the safety of any lightweight or bantamweight fighter he may have been put against. Similarly any female boxer.
I cite him because (in addition to me having been a fan of his, when I was younger) his daughter wants to fight against men. Which I believe should be allowed. But I do not think that making exceptions, for exceptional individuals, should also mean that all typical competitors should be required to fight on an uneven battleground!
And I have already indicated, in a previous post, why females of like weights to males do not have the same builds/muscles and thereby advantages.
Finally if there are exceptional individuals who can hold their own against boxers in a heavier weight class, please note that they do so at a considerable risk to themselves. Their edge only exists whilst they dodge, and anytime they fail they are being hit by someone with a lot more mass and muscle than themselves! These do not just affect the offensive side of the equation, but the defensive too.
Take it to the extreme to understand the point. We do not punch or hit babies, because they will be massively damaged. They do not have the mass, bone structure or other aspects of physique to be able to survive such mistreatment. Similarly, as a society, we abhor larger individuals picking on smaller ones, as they can cause disproportionately heavy damage.
So why are you championing this being enforced, as a rule? Is there a reason why you want to see smaller, lighter, less muscular opponents being beaten up?
Finally please realise that exceptional individuals should not be used as the basis for rules which also cover average people. The rules need to protect the safety of everybody.
Again, just to be clear, the point is that, for the most part, dividing up events into gender specific events are a social and arbitrary choice. Not an objective choice.
So focusing on running (as an example)
We “could” focus on 4 basic components
Weight, Surface area, Ground Reaction Force, and Endurance.
These four values would allow one to “objectively” parcel out individuals into competitive categories.
Take as an example if one were to compare weight and GRF only (for the sake of brevity)
Let’s say 1 is our baseline weight, and 1 is a baseline GRF (we’ll treat this like a idealized physics problem for acceleration and mass, I.e. F=MA or F/M = A)
Someone with a .5 weight and 1 GRF has a much better ratio than someone with a 2 weight and a 1 GRF.
Similarly someone with a 1 weight and 2 GRF is going to be better off than someone with only .5 GRF. (again all this is grossly oversimplified.)
The point you’re missing (it seems) is not that there are no differences in gender (as you seem to misunderstand the motor sports analogy) but that when we start separating out competitors by traits not directly related to the competition at hand we lose out on objective fairness.
“Gender” is an incredibly poor and arbitrary division point for competitions.
Take for example the average human height of 5’8″
Each gender’s “normal” weight range is [Female 126-154 lb] and [Male 139-169 lb] Note that there is ~30lb difference inside each gender class, and that they share 15 lbs [139-154].
When it comes to divisions by weight (and weight alone) there’s more than enough overlap to make gender specific comparisons inefficient.
Again what you seem to be missing is that this isn’t about gender, it’s about ability.
People of the same ability should compete with people of the same ability. It is a bit of a strawman to claim that the idea is to see “smaller, lighter, less muscular opponents being beaten up” Since if the divisions were based on objective metrics, that would never happen.
So yes in boxing, you’d see some of the more petite builds of men fighting mostly women, and some of the more Amazonian women fighting men, but that would be because that is where their ability puts them. Not due to an arbitrary decision of gender.
Running would just be a break down of how much force you can exert vs your mass and your endurance with the resistance from air factored in. So a strong heavy person might race against a weak light person and the race would be [competitive] so long as they were properly slotted into the right divisions.
Lo and behold, gender wouldn’t matter at all!
And lo, before you can compete at your pre-school sports day, you have to boot up your computer, weigh and measure every contestant, then find out that the bus taking the kids to the wind tunnel got lost, so they will not get back until after lunch. Then try and sort out the technical errors that are stopping the computer working right, then announce that it is too late in the day to do any actual sports. But all genders can be equally frustrated.
Ah yes, cause that’s exactly how it works now….
Strawman argument at best.
You can always invent a specious argument to try and disprove a general case. Clearly it would be done just like we [already do] in boxing and racing and other sports.
Non-competitive / Non-commercial events? do whatever
Competitive/Commercial events? Get your weigh-in’s done before the deadline.
My point was you have constructed a complex system. One that would require very specialised equipment not readily available at ANY school without an advanced science facility. Whilst still ending up with competitions where the bulk of the boys will be competing against boys and most of the girls against girls.
Whilst adding hugely to the cost of running even simple sports events. Let alone making the selection process so complex that most of the competitors will not understand it. Especially as it would be weighed to YOUR decisions as to what makes an ideal participant for any given sport, and the handicaps that would apply for deviating from that.
So rather than the unfairness stemming from ones genetic lot, we would replace it with problems stemming from flaws in your algorithms.
We already have Google and Facebook f**ing up the world with their algorithms. Any chance we could keep sport out of it?
Why doesn’t Sydney have her choker on in this panel when in the last panel she did
Artistic error (a fairly common one unfortunately), one that will remedied when DaveB turns this into a physical book (just like the early ‘errors’ about Maxi’s rank)
…Threesome is looking more and more likely. Alternatively?
“You know, we could just ditch him and date each other!”
*Both laugh*
*BOTH THINK IT OVER*
:-D
*paw print of approval*
*starts putting pennies in the piggy bank, to save up for “Grrl Power After Dark, dead tree edition”*
A threesome is unlikely. They may both be interested in Leon, but neither of them have ever shown any interest in girls.
Now Sydney may be okay with a MMF threeway involving her, Frix and Leon.
Nah.
I recall the two of them envying what Hiro’s girlfriend gets.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/comic/grrl-power-524-importinent-questions/
They might go spend time with the maliens while Cora’s ship is here..
Maybe if that was all they were interested in, which would make them just as superficial as most men (guess that wasn’t the sort of ‘equality’ the feminists were looking for :P)