welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2014-03-22 Standing in the Hall of Fame
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9596

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hekateras wrote:


I'm aware that you were referring to the comic as a whole, not this one strip.


Ok, and so you created your prior short unrepresentative narrative in defense of that point, because? (it absolutely does not follow)

Quote:
I was expressing my amusement that the timing you chose to express this view about the comic as a whole is in relation to a strip that makes no statement at all about porn and expresses no views which could be considered radfemi, i.e. wishing violence or oppression on men because they are men.


Do you think that's the actual definition of radfem?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1194
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just popping in again to say it's fucking hilarious to see someone call Sam a dudebro.

Also, congratulations guys, a comic involving 2 magical books with a sum total of 12 spoken words has spawned 6 pages of theories and arguments. That's efficiency, if I ever saw it.

Also, I'm surprised that nobody brought it up before, but Tat previously, way back in time, depicted the Sisterhood spreading around books on feminism... one of which was the S.C.U.M manifesto, a short text that could reasonably be described as misandrist, misogynist, and homophobic.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hekateras, I simply must say, Quest for Glory is an awesome game series.

Carry on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1103
Location: Hel

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moor wrote:
Leohan wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
Istancow wrote:
Whenever I encounter something in Sinfest that I wouldn't necessarily support, I just recall the fact that Sinfest is a fictional story in a fictional universe where things don't necessarily work the same way.
The opinions reflected are the opinions of the characters and perhaps sometimes the author at times, but they do not define my reality, nor do they need to.
If a character in Sinfest believes that pornography is necessarily an evil thing because it provides sexual stimulation without an actual human relationship, then perhaps that is an ethical reality in Sinfest; there is no need, however, for me to adopt this view in my own reality.

At the end of the day, Sinfest is a story about some people and their lives and interactions with each other and cats and dogs and books and stuff and sometimes even boom. And it doesn't need to be anything more than that. So I don't fret over its political messages. I just sit back and enjoy it.


Fixed it.

I hang around because some story comes through still, but let's be honest, a lot of character interaction has fallen by the wayside. It's mostly an ideological commentary at this point. I'm not naysaying that, but let's call it what it is.

Re-fixed it.

Really, at this point it's not even frequent. Quite a lot of people perceive them as more dominant of the comic, but truth is that at this particular point lots of things are happening that don't have anything to do with that message.

I think someone posted the percentages at some point and it was less than a third at its peak months?

EDIT: By the way, "quite a lot of people" includes me. That was mostly during the political strips, though, which I found unbearable. Dunno the numbers for those ones but it felt like four out of five.

Re-re-fixed it.

I'm not participating in the conversation -- I just wanted to join in the fix-it chain. Carry on.


<3
_________________
Greetings, fool mortals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9596

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
Also, I'm surprised that nobody brought it up before, but Tat previously, way back in time, depicted the Sisterhood spreading around books on feminism... one of which was the S.C.U.M manifesto, a short text that could reasonably be described as misandrist, misogynist, and homophobic.


i want to be charitable enough to assume that maybe just MAYBE that was an ironic placement for humor's sake. i only would not be able to say for sure because, like i've mentioned before, the sisterhood as an ideological device has been played straight in terms of presenting ideology
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1194
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
i want to be charitable enough to assume that maybe just MAYBE that was an ironic placement for humor's sake. i only would not be able to say for sure because, like i've mentioned before, the sisterhood as an ideological device has been played straight in terms of presenting ideology


I dunno, I double checked the comic that I was referring to ( http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2012-05-06.gif ) and the backpack contained the S.C.U.M manifesto, a book by Dworkin, and a book aptly titled "RadFem". So I kinda doubt that it was meant to be played as a joke.

If anything, it seems like the Sisterhood hit peak radicalness a long time ago and is more into a moderate, but action oriented stage?
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vector010



Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hekateras wrote:
... (Lots of Stuff) ...

EDIT:

Since we're on the subject of "this comic has degenerated into nothing but lots of radfem moralising" again, I will quote vector010 from this thread just a few months ago:

vector010 wrote:

Just because, I decided to go back and do some counting. Broke it up into 4 categories. Comics that had even the slightest appearance of the sisterhood (even them in the background in one panel), comics that had overt feminism, comics with implied feminism, and comics with no determinable feminism and no appearance of the sisterhood. The first three categories can obviously have overlap, so one comic may be counted multiple times, once for each category that applies. Over the past 65 comics we find, 18.4% (12) comics where the sisterhood makes and appearance, 3.08% (2) comics with overt feminism, 10.77% (7) comics with implied feminism, and 76.92% (50) comics with no appearance of sisterhood and no obvious feminism.


Oh yes, this comic is all one dimensional self bashing for not being a eunuch.</sarcasm>

Source: Math, is cool!


Is it wrong that I squeed a bit at getting quoted for that? heh
_________________
My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

I'm gonna sing the doom song now. Doom dee doom doom doom...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9596

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
Sam wrote:
i want to be charitable enough to assume that maybe just MAYBE that was an ironic placement for humor's sake. i only would not be able to say for sure because, like i've mentioned before, the sisterhood as an ideological device has been played straight in terms of presenting ideology


I dunno, I double checked the comic that I was referring to ( http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2012-05-06.gif ) and the backpack contained the S.C.U.M manifesto, a book by Dworkin, and a book aptly titled "RadFem". So I kinda doubt that it was meant to be played as a joke.

If anything, it seems like the Sisterhood hit peak radicalness a long time ago and is more into a moderate, but action oriented stage?


oh dag. yeah that pretty much cements anti-porn radfem. like, hard.

straight lollin at actually literally the scum manifesto too. that's like about the 0.001% of the tine you can grouse about misandry!!1 and have it be, uh, accurate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9596

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

like just to be super clear the scum manifesto is not a positively transformative or eye opening work for any positive or productive gender relational politics. it is the insane, delusional ramblings of a profoundly mentally ill woman who externalized several psychotic and homicidal neuroses onto males

dworkin is also imo a severely problematic figure but that is more a realm of academic study on patriarchy and sexuality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leohan wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
Istancow wrote:
Whenever I encounter something in Sinfest that I wouldn't necessarily support, I just recall the fact that Sinfest is a fictional story in a fictional universe where things don't necessarily work the same way.
The opinions reflected are the opinions of the characters and perhaps sometimes the author at times, but they do not define my reality, nor do they need to.
If a character in Sinfest believes that pornography is necessarily an evil thing because it provides sexual stimulation without an actual human relationship, then perhaps that is an ethical reality in Sinfest; there is no need, however, for me to adopt this view in my own reality.

At the end of the day, Sinfest is a story about some people and their lives and interactions with occasional social commentary on gender issues. And it doesn't need to be anything more than that. So I don't fret over its political messages. I just sit back and enjoy it.


Fixed it.

I hang around because some story comes through still, but let's be honest, a lot of character interaction has fallen by the wayside. It's mostly an ideological commentary at this point. I'm not naysaying that, but let's call it what it is.

Re-fixed it.

Really, at this point it's not even frequent. Quite a lot of people perceive them as more dominant of the comic, but truth is that at this particular point lots of things are happening that don't have anything to do with that message.

I think someone posted the percentages at some point and it was less than a third at its peak months?

EDIT: By the way, "quite a lot of people" includes me. That was mostly during the political strips, though, which I found unbearable. Dunno the numbers for those ones but it felt like four out of five.



I think you misinterpreted my comment and humour.

What I meant is that the plot development has largely gone.

I'm certain that the ideological strips are only a percentage of each month, but what I was referring to is that when they're not the focus of the daily strip, the likelihood is that the strip itself is a one off.

There is not much chance of finding a non ideological plot developing strip these days, because the characters have become foils for the ideological exploration.

It may be that only 20-30% of a month's strips are structured strongly around feminism, but a lot of those other strips are going to be one-off jokes or cats puking on someone's feet.

I wouldn't mind some Buddha revival or some of the other cast members from the old days, to be honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vector010 wrote:
Hekateras wrote:
... (Lots of Stuff) ...

EDIT:

Since we're on the subject of "this comic has degenerated into nothing but lots of radfem moralising" again, I will quote vector010 from this thread just a few months ago:

vector010 wrote:

Just because, I decided to go back and do some counting. Broke it up into 4 categories. Comics that had even the slightest appearance of the sisterhood (even them in the background in one panel), comics that had overt feminism, comics with implied feminism, and comics with no determinable feminism and no appearance of the sisterhood. The first three categories can obviously have overlap, so one comic may be counted multiple times, once for each category that applies. Over the past 65 comics we find, 18.4% (12) comics where the sisterhood makes and appearance, 3.08% (2) comics with overt feminism, 10.77% (7) comics with implied feminism, and 76.92% (50) comics with no appearance of sisterhood and no obvious feminism.


Oh yes, this comic is all one dimensional self bashing for not being a eunuch.</sarcasm>

Source: Math, is cool!


Is it wrong that I squeed a bit at getting quoted for that? heh


To update the analysis, I did a quick 30 day check back from today through Feb. and there were 15 strips out of 30 dealing with feminism.

Obviously it's going to fluctuate from month to month, but he ran about 50% this month.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hekateras



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 63

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Rune: *squeeee*

Sam wrote:

Quote:
I was expressing my amusement that the timing you chose to express this view about the comic as a whole is in relation to a strip that makes no statement at all about porn and expresses no views which could be considered radfemi, i.e. wishing violence or oppression on men because they are men.


Do you think that's the actual definition of radfem?


From Wikipedia:

Quote:
Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that focuses on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy[1] oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.[1] Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s,[2] typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon"[3] prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4] Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism[1] to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.[5]

Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (as in liberal feminism) or class conflict (as in socialist feminism and Marxist feminism).


Turns out you're right, it's not the actual definition. This is the first I've heard of 'radfem' being used to describe the 'challenging patriarchical core structures and demanding a change at the root' type of feminism, and I stand corrected, but I also have to wonder at how many people who use the term are aware of the proper meaning, given that it's usually in attempts at dismissal and at painting feminists as crazy men-hating feminazis who want women to dominate rather than be equal. (And I'm not joking that the most recent time I heard someone claim that feminism is misguided because too many feminists are "radical" in this way is literally a few days ago.)

With this in mind,

Sam wrote:
i don't know if we've reached a peak where the sisterhood's getting far more blatant in being blunted political mouthpieces for anti-porn radfem


...I'm now entirely befuddled as to why you make it sound like a bad thing?

Also, bear in mind that Sinfest so far, if I'm not mistaken, has only criticised misogynist porn. We can't know for sure if the Sisterhood is against porn entirely until we actually see one of them vilify all porn, and even then, it will be the opinion of the individual, not the movement as a whole - assuming Tat keeps depicting them as a non-hivemind community composed of individuals.

Sam wrote:
fritterdonut wrote:
Sam wrote:
i want to be charitable enough to assume that maybe just MAYBE that was an ironic placement for humor's sake. i only would not be able to say for sure because, like i've mentioned before, the sisterhood as an ideological device has been played straight in terms of presenting ideology


I dunno, I double checked the comic that I was referring to ( http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2012-05-06.gif ) and the backpack contained the S.C.U.M manifesto, a book by Dworkin, and a book aptly titled "RadFem". So I kinda doubt that it was meant to be played as a joke.

If anything, it seems like the Sisterhood hit peak radicalness a long time ago and is more into a moderate, but action oriented stage?


oh dag. yeah that pretty much cements anti-porn radfem. like, hard.

straight lollin at actually literally the scum manifesto too. that's like about the 0.001% of the tine you can grouse about misandry!!1 and have it be, uh, accurate?


That's interesting, given that the Sisterhood members apart from the youngest one don't seem to be particularly anti-men and generally try to educate rather than attack. I'd argue that there *is* quite a bit of value in trying to get to know the "worst" of your own movement, especially the bits that are often used to discredit you, but it's not the sort of thing you'd throw at someone new to feminism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vector010



Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
vector010 wrote:
Hekateras wrote:
... (Lots of Stuff) ...

EDIT:

Since we're on the subject of "this comic has degenerated into nothing but lots of radfem moralising" again, I will quote vector010 from this thread just a few months ago:

vector010 wrote:

Just because, I decided to go back and do some counting. Broke it up into 4 categories. Comics that had even the slightest appearance of the sisterhood (even them in the background in one panel), comics that had overt feminism, comics with implied feminism, and comics with no determinable feminism and no appearance of the sisterhood. The first three categories can obviously have overlap, so one comic may be counted multiple times, once for each category that applies. Over the past 65 comics we find, 18.4% (12) comics where the sisterhood makes and appearance, 3.08% (2) comics with overt feminism, 10.77% (7) comics with implied feminism, and 76.92% (50) comics with no appearance of sisterhood and no obvious feminism.


Oh yes, this comic is all one dimensional self bashing for not being a eunuch.</sarcasm>

Source: Math, is cool!


Is it wrong that I squeed a bit at getting quoted for that? heh


To update the analysis, I did a quick 30 day check back from today through Feb. and there were 15 strips out of 30 dealing with feminism.

Obviously it's going to fluctuate from month to month, but he ran about 50% this month.


I have no clue where you are pulling these numbers from. I did a check back 30 days from the date of your post.

3.3% (1) for overt feminism, 3.3% for implicit feminism, 13.3% (4) containing the sisterhood, 23.3% (7) containing the fembot (I'll explain why she got her own category), 63.3% (19) with none of the above. Almost all of the fembot comics can be merged into the none category if you remove the fembot category, bringing the total without feminism well above 70%.

I separated the fembot out into a category because I'm assuming you counted her appearance as dealing with feminism. In truth, from everything I can remember of her story, it isn't really dealing with feminism. Yes, we assign it that value and perhaps it was the author's intent that we would, but that is because of other aspects of the comic that do not relate to her. I'm not saying there has never been a feminist interaction with her, but if you change or entirely remove the gender of fembots, the story still stands on its own without really losing anything at all. The origin story is about the only thing that is dicey because she was taken to the reality story because Slick was taunted about the relationship between him and her not being real. But, even that is really only because we know his specific orientation.

The basic story goes: A robot, purpose built to provide affection and pleasure to its owner, is purchased by a character that acts as though they are in a real relationship with it. Another character points out that it is fake. The owner then takes the robot to a place where things are magically made realistic. The robot shorts out, and reboots with free will, fleeing from its owner. The robot begins to become violent upon seeing another of its kind discarded in the trash and finding out that it was mistreated by its owner. The manufacturer of the robots finds out the robot has gained sentience and deems it defective, sending another robot to destroy it. The destroyer robot gains sentience at the last moment, but is destroyed via a self destruct mechanism. The original robot becomes suicidal, is save by two character, it is confused, but then sees an ad for the manufacturer prompting it to seek revenge.

None of this screams feminism, with gender completely removed from the equation, the actions and motivations of the robot are still strong, still valid. Heck, a chunk of that seems like part of the basis behind several sci-fi movies. That is why I separated it, but feel it should not count towards feminist content.
_________________
My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

I'm gonna sing the doom song now. Doom dee doom doom doom...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9596

PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hekateras wrote:

Sam wrote:
i don't know if we've reached a peak where the sisterhood's getting far more blatant in being blunted political mouthpieces for anti-porn radfem


...I'm now entirely befuddled as to why you make it sound like a bad thing?


in that i am not speaking about any criticism of ideology and more about creative presentation. as in, no matter if i agree with the ideology presented or not, i find overtly politicized comics suck and i think sinfest sucks when its moving towards overt political messages. in this case for a while there it was looking to me like most of sinfest's characters were going to become flattened bit pieces for the sisterhood to play off of, to present ideology. though i hate to use the garbageland of tvtropes to kind of illustrate what i'm talking about i think it makes a good case for why i'm critical of the preachiness of the strip: it moves from Writer On Board to author tract to what looked like a future of filibuster freefall

the further away sinfest gets from the latter the better i think it will be as an artistic work. i also want xanthe and the sisterhood to be un-poochied very deliberately even if tatsuya is going to move to having them essentially be the central impetus characters because for so long xanthe was made flat as shit by her being a political avatar primarily.

Quote:
Also, bear in mind that Sinfest so far, if I'm not mistaken, has only criticised misogynist porn. We can't know for sure if the Sisterhood is against porn entirely until we actually see one of them vilify all porn, and even then, it will be the opinion of the individual, not the movement as a whole - assuming Tat keeps depicting them as a non-hivemind community composed of individuals.


http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4525

this and a series of other things i know are dotted around in the comic (along with that part with Dworkin and the SCUM manifesto that i'm still kind of lollin' about) put the sisterhood very VERY firmly in the anti-pornography camp

even as a radfem myself (though I guess recently radfem has been sort of going through some transitional and message purification cycles that may soon or might have already excluded me? I am not sure. some radfems take the position that i can't entitle myself with that label because I am a man, and if so oh well) i am extremely against anti-porn feminism and may even be partisan enough in the future to join up with other feminists in declaring that anti-porn feminism is feminist in name only. though i am by now (understandably) really hesitant to get involved with shit that inquisitions the validity of other people's movement labels.

Quote:
That's interesting, given that the Sisterhood members apart from the youngest one don't seem to be particularly anti-men and generally try to educate rather than attack. I'd argue that there *is* quite a bit of value in trying to get to know the "worst" of your own movement, especially the bits that are often used to discredit you, but it's not the sort of thing you'd throw at someone new to feminism.


there is definitely value in having an academic analysis of both dworkin and of the scum manifesto but in particular the manifesto is .. i don't know how to describe it better than I did before. its value is limited because it is the product of straight psychosis. some have suggested that it's intended as a parody or that it has value in being taught as a tone message in response to dissatisfaction with nonviolent feminism of the era

i don't extoll the same dismissal of dworkin and i recommend she be heavily sampled and read by people aspiring to understand or take part in feminism, especially in terms of understanding second-wave feminism and the utterly brutal and internecine feminist sex wars of the time (between the anti-porn faction and the sex-positive faction) within an informed discussion ABOUT that divide or about dworkin's contribution to feminism, I have to say that I find dworkin's stance to be terrible and discredited and individually I think a lot of it has not aged well (i.e., third wave feminism has generally recognized and called it out as utter white-knighting pop psychosexual shit)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vector010 wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
vector010 wrote:
Hekateras wrote:
... (Lots of Stuff) ...

EDIT:

Since we're on the subject of "this comic has degenerated into nothing but lots of radfem moralising" again, I will quote vector010 from this thread just a few months ago:

vector010 wrote:

Just because, I decided to go back and do some counting. Broke it up into 4 categories. Comics that had even the slightest appearance of the sisterhood (even them in the background in one panel), comics that had overt feminism, comics with implied feminism, and comics with no determinable feminism and no appearance of the sisterhood. The first three categories can obviously have overlap, so one comic may be counted multiple times, once for each category that applies. Over the past 65 comics we find, 18.4% (12) comics where the sisterhood makes and appearance, 3.08% (2) comics with overt feminism, 10.77% (7) comics with implied feminism, and 76.92% (50) comics with no appearance of sisterhood and no obvious feminism.


Oh yes, this comic is all one dimensional self bashing for not being a eunuch.</sarcasm>

Source: Math, is cool!


Is it wrong that I squeed a bit at getting quoted for that? heh


To update the analysis, I did a quick 30 day check back from today through Feb. and there were 15 strips out of 30 dealing with feminism.

Obviously it's going to fluctuate from month to month, but he ran about 50% this month.


I have no clue where you are pulling these numbers from. I did a check back 30 days from the date of your post.

3.3% (1) for overt feminism, 3.3% for implicit feminism, 13.3% (4) containing the sisterhood, 23.3% (7) containing the fembot (I'll explain why she got her own category), 63.3% (19) with none of the above. Almost all of the fembot comics can be merged into the none category if you remove the fembot category, bringing the total without feminism well above 70%.

I separated the fembot out into a category because I'm assuming you counted her appearance as dealing with feminism. In truth, from everything I can remember of her story, it isn't really dealing with feminism. Yes, we assign it that value and perhaps it was the author's intent that we would, but that is because of other aspects of the comic that do not relate to her. I'm not saying there has never been a feminist interaction with her, but if you change or entirely remove the gender of fembots, the story still stands on its own without really losing anything at all. The origin story is about the only thing that is dicey because she was taken to the reality story because Slick was taunted about the relationship between him and her not being real. But, even that is really only because we know his specific orientation.

The basic story goes: A robot, purpose built to provide affection and pleasure to its owner, is purchased by a character that acts as though they are in a real relationship with it. Another character points out that it is fake. The owner then takes the robot to a place where things are magically made realistic. The robot shorts out, and reboots with free will, fleeing from its owner. The robot begins to become violent upon seeing another of its kind discarded in the trash and finding out that it was mistreated by its owner. The manufacturer of the robots finds out the robot has gained sentience and deems it defective, sending another robot to destroy it. The destroyer robot gains sentience at the last moment, but is destroyed via a self destruct mechanism. The original robot becomes suicidal, is save by two character, it is confused, but then sees an ad for the manufacturer prompting it to seek revenge.

None of this screams feminism, with gender completely removed from the equation, the actions and motivations of the robot are still strong, still valid. Heck, a chunk of that seems like part of the basis behind several sci-fi movies. That is why I separated it, but feel it should not count towards feminist content.


I'm not in at the moment, on my phone, but I will post my assessment later.

I kept it simpler and merely labeled a strip as having a feminist theme or not.

labeling the fembot strips as non feminist is wrong, in my opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group