Irregular Webcomic!

Archive     Cast     Forum     RSS     Books!     Poll Results     About     Search     Fan Art     Podcast     More Stuff     Random    
Updates: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday; reruns all other days
<   No. 1740   2007-11-01   >

Comic #1740

1 Haken: Let us look at this book. Give it here. Schnell! {Prof. Jones hands over the book}
2 Haken: Ach! It is in Latin!
3 Ginny: {walking over from the Joneses' side to Haken's side of the confrontation} I can translate it for you.
3 Haken: Why should we trust you? You keep switching sides!
4 Ginny: It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind.
4 Erwin: <sigh> Ja.

First (1) | Previous (1739) | Next (1741) || Latest Rerun (1656) | Latest New (3781)
First 5 | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Latest 5
Cliffhangers theme: First | Previous | Next | Latest || First 5 | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Latest 5
This strip's permanent URL:
Annotations off: turn on
Annotations on: turn off

I originally wrote this strip with the following punchline:

3 Haken: Why should we trust you? You keep switching sides!
4 Ginny: Would you rather trust a turncoat who doesn't switch sides?
I liked the idea of the puzzle posed by the question: How do you trust a turncoat or double agent?

If you're working with such a person, you know, by the very definition of what they're doing, that they are prone to disloyalty, treachery, and deception as to where their true loyalty (if any) lies. Naturally, this makes it difficult to fully trust such a person.

But the other side of the dilemma is that neither can you trust a turncoat who doesn't really switch sides, since that would imply that they are still loyal to the other side, while only pretending to turn traitor and assist you.

On top of all this is the simple head-exploding semantic parsing of the very concept of a turncoat who doesn't switch sides.

In all, I was quite pleased with this line, as it was thought-provoking on multiple levels. The only problem was that when I re-read it as I was constructing the strip, I didn't think it was quite funny enough.

I mentioned this to someone, and they suggested the alternative you see in the comic, which made me laugh as soon as I saw it. So I sacrificed clever for funny, and put the clever down here in the annotation.

As for the traditional "woman's prerogative"...

Boy, this one is a potential minefield. For anyone who may not be aware of this piece of cultural baggage from what I presume must be the Victorian or Regency era or thereabouts, the tradition states that it is "a woman's prerogative to change her mind". The issue comes up in the somewhat arcane civil tort of breach of promise, but was also applied across other contexts. The basic idea is that a gentleman should abide by his word, and keep all promises he makes, whereas a woman retains the privilege of changing her mind and breaking a promise without loss of honour or status.

I was going to comment here simply that I always thought this custom to be patently ridiculous. The standard of personal honour and integrity that a person should be expected to live up to should be uniform, not differentiated by one's sex*. If a person has a good cause to break a promise, then that cause should suffice for anyone, man or woman, in the same situation.

However, a quick Google brought up several hits on modern science journals, containing research papers on neurophysiological distinctions between male and female humans caused by their anatomical differences. Some of these papers conclude that it is indeed more likely for female humans to change their minds on things than males, because of differences in hormonal activity between the sexes.

Many of you can no doubt see the minefield rapidly approaching. It's not my intention to start any arguments or offend anyone's sensibilities, so I simply hope you will take the information imparted here on board and integrate it into your own knowledge. Whether or not any of those research papers have reached a valid conclusion, and what any ramifications beyond the realm of physiology and into the sphere of social custom might be, is not for me to say.

At any rate, the usage of this line in the strip is intended solely for comic value, and not to present or encourage any particular value judgement on the concept's validity or invalidity. I hereby disclaim any responsibility whatsoever for any inference or conclusion you may draw from it.

I really don't want any hate mail over this. Okay?

* Yes, sex. "Gender" is a bowdleristic euphemism for what already has a perfectly good noun to describe it. Gender refers to linguistic properties of words, not anatomical properties of people**. The modern co-optive usage of "gender" to refer to "social sex-role identification" as opposed to anatomical sex is a recent development that does not enter into this discussion, as I am referring solely to anatomy.

** And yes, I realise the irony*** in this statement, given my past comments about the evolution of language, and the primacy of description over prescription.

*** Oh god****, let's just not go into that one again.

**** I'm using "god" here as a genericised pseudo-expletive, not a reference to a supreme being or deity*****, hence the lack of capitalisation.

***** Don't I have enough disclaimers here already??

LEGO® is a registered trademark of the LEGO Group of companies, which does not sponsor, authorise, or endorse this site.
This material is presented in accordance with the LEGO® Fair Play Guidelines.

Irregular Webcomic! | Darths & Droids | Eavesdropper | Planet of Hats | The Prisoner of Monty Hall
mezzacotta | Lightning Made of Owls | Square Root of Minus Garfield | The Dinosaur Whiteboard | iToons | Comments on a Postcard | Awkward Fumbles
Last Modified: Thursday, 1 November 2007; 03:11:02 PST.
© 2002-2017 Creative Commons License
This work is copyright and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported Licence by David Morgan-Mar.