Sandra and Woo notice repression

One of my favorite web comics is Sandra and Woo, which comic notices that cute funny animals are still inclined to eat other cute funny animals, and that little girls develop a sex drive at a disturbingly early age.

Recently the comic committed an act of political incorrectness. I fear they will be brought to heel as Sinfest was. Sinfest has never been funny since they turned politically correct. The entire Sinfest premise is gutted if the comic cannot make fun of sluts hypergamy female sexual autonomy.

But, get your Sandra and Woo while it is still funny.

teacher says the unspeakable

Oh, no, it is the moral police

97 Points on the privilege meter

This will not end well

What will happen to Sandra and Woo if little girls remain perfectly uninterested in nookie until they reach the ever increasing legal age?  Pretty much what happened to Sinfest when they could not say the word “slut” any more.

Those poster girls pompously listed by the Commissar are:

Margaret Cavendish: A very ordinary female writer who wrote some rather stupid things on scientific topics.

Laura Bassi: A very ordinary female university science professor, who made absolutely no scientific discoveries – doubtless due to an evil male plot to steal all her research.

Caroline Herschel: She was allowed to assist a great scientist since she was his sister.

Countess Elizabeth Báthory: Believed herself to be a vampire. Tortured hundreds of young girls to death and bathed in their blood in an effort to preserve her beauty. The basis of numerous stories about a hot lesbian aristocratic vampire doing hot kinky nonconsensual sex on hot teenage peasant girls.

I think that the vampire chick is inserted in the list to parody it.

Ada Lovelace: Not the world’s first programmer.

Marie Curie: She was allowed to assist a great scientist since she was his wife. Note that Pierre Curie got the radiation burns, not Marie Curie, which suggests that Marie Curie’s work largely consisted of washing his bottles. Supposing that she was indeed the one that did the work, the discovery of radium was similar to but considerably less important than the discovery of radon, and no one remembers the man who discovered radon. That we make a big deal out of a woman who allegedly discovered radium, while we don’t remember the people who discovered the other hundred elements shows that a woman doing science is like a bear dancing. We pay attention to a dancing bear not because it dances well, but because it dances at all.

Lise Meitner: Supposedly the discoverer of fission – because she corresponded with the man who actually discovered fission, the correspondence consisting of him sending her a letter telling her he had discovered fission, to which she replied such a thing was impossible.  Not even his wife or sister.

Emmy Noether: Emmy Noether is the real thing, a truly great mathematician who will live forever, but that the list is padded with so many fakes tells you that the real thing is in short supply.

Dorothy Hodgkin:  Science bureaucrat.  After other people discovered the method of resolving complex molecular structures by Xray diffraction, she applied this method to one complex molecule after another.  The scientific equivalent of HR.  Boring.

Rosalind Franklin:  Same story as Dorothy Hodgkin.  Even more boring.

Ada Yonath: Same story as Dorothy Hodgkin.  At this point the feminist compiling the list of which this is a parody passed out from boredom.

22 Responses to “Sandra and Woo notice repression”

  1. […] Rosalind Franklin’s work was undoubtedly important. However, the attempt by the left to elevate her status above her actual contribution is transparent revisionist history. If she was such a genius, rather than a talented lab technician, why didn’t she figure out the structure herself? She had the pictures and could have interpreted them. I think Jim described this best: […]

  2. […] the great scientists of history. Compare his contributions (or pretty much any other minority or female “scientists” praised by leftists) to the inventions by old white males and it […]

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:


  4. zimriel says:

    The author deleted the “Celebrate Diversity” poster he’d originally intended. And he’s moderating off comments which point that out, and incidentally which reference THIS humble blog.

    He’s a German. That means he’s sensitive about that PC stuff; maybe not about the gender issues, so much, but definitely about any hint that he might be siding with the Right on other issues.

    • jim says:

      Ah, I fear that Sandra and Lisa are about to experience a sudden loss of interest in sex, much as the female characters of Sinfest suddenly ceased to be hypergamous sluts.

      Artists often innocently believe the left is tolerant. One day they ridicule what they think of as the crazy minority within the left, then the wrath of God descends upon them. Thereafter they lecture in strict accordance to the left line, rendering their art boring.

      • Anonymous says:

        Poor Mr. Ishida. I wondered why his comic went from being at least occasionally amusing to being just another vehicle for the same tiresome PC angry-lesbian agitprop I could get by turning on the televitz. I guess the Social Justice Warriors got to him too.

        Not that I pity him very much; his comic was previously about 50% shock-the-bourgeoisie (“oh look, God’s smoking dope, how edgy and provocative” “oh look, the cute talking cartoon pig said ‘fuck,’ how very transgressive and defiant, watch out guys, this is a real avant-garde genius we’re dealing with”), 25% fart jokes and other miscellaneous uninspired slapstick, with maybe one strip in four being worth the time it took to wait for it to load. Now that he’s bent over and let the Pod People shove their unlubricated collective fist up his ass and use him like a Muppet, it’s more like zero strips in four.

  5. zimriel says:

    “She was allowed to assist a great scientist because she was his sister.”

    This was *almost* perfect alliteration. Try this:

    “She was permitted to assist a scientist since she was his sister.”

    Sounds like steam escaping!

  6. nydwracu says:

    /reads the entire archive to practice German

    [predictably, the first joke doesn’t translate]

  7. sunshinemary says:

    Nearly every field has a woman who was the first woman to break into the field and thus is disproportionately famous relative to her actual accomplishments. Amelia Earhart is a prime example of this. I read a biography about her years ago and was surprised to learn that she was actually not a very good pilot at all and was prone to both errors and temper tantrums in which she blamed her errors on mysterious mechanical problems. She’s only famous because she was a female (and a bad-mannered feminist before bad-mannered feminists were common).

    • jim says:

      Nature or nature’s God created women to do the most important thing, which was to bear children, look after them, and make a home for them.

      Men, the expendable sex, get to do the higher status but less important and more dangerous task of building and maintaining civilization.

      Hence when women follow the male life plan, seldom works out well for them.

  8. Jake says:

    I really don’t know why you continue to bring up the fact that girls develop a sex drive earlier than boys; everyone knows that girls hit puberty first and generally mature faster. Males take somewhat longer to mature so they will be in a better position to support their family when the time comes, but females are meant to marry while they are young and fertile. To portray this common knowledge as a suppressed hidden truth reflecting poorly on womankind is rather silly.

    • jim says:

      everyone knows that girls hit puberty first and generally mature faster.

      Not everyone knows that girls develop an interest in boys well before menarche – well before they show secondary sexual characteristics or are capable of becoming pregnant. This is never depicted in the mainstream media, which presents a world in which girls are not interested in sex until their secondary sexual characteristics are fully developed.

      This is a remnant of the Victorian left doctrine that women are naturally chaste and pure, and all undesirable sexual activity is the result of evil males imposing on them.

      The comic strip “Sandra and Woo” ridicules this doctrine with Larisa Korolev, the very underage sexual predator.

    • Dave says:

      17 years ago, when I was a single 27-year-old with a good job, a coworker’s beautiful 15-year-old stepdaughter told me she was totally going to lose her virginity at 18. I passed up the opportunity, and she was pregnant less than a year later. She’s probably an obese welfare granny by now.

      I would have received a lot of ridicule from coworkers and family, but should I have wifed her up anyway? Ignore for a moment that her mother and slightly older sister were both obese white trash, and her stepdad was a pervert and convicted sex offender.

      • spandrell says:

        Hard to ignore all that. Sheesh.

        Try again if you meet a 15 year old from a decent family saying the same thing.

      • peppermint says:

        obese white trash and sex offenders might be a genetic strategy that you might not want your children to pursue

      • Dave says:

        I recall the stepdad complaining that his wife (an old hag with six children by various other men) never cooked meals; the family diet consisted entirely of “snacks”. Maybe if I taught this girl to prepare proper meals and snack on fresh fruit and veggies, she wouldn’t become a land whale like the others.

        How much is this “white trash” thing cultural versus genetic? If cultural, can a 16-year-old virgin be reprogrammed? I suspect she could be, if the social matrix supported me, which it probably wouldn’t.

      • doombuggy says:

        Seen it. About half such women can be “saved”.

        Best to start farther right on the curve.

  9. […] JIM: “That we make a big deal out of a woman who allegedly discovered radium, while we don’t reme… […]

  10. peppermint says:

    Now, the funny thing is, the only decent women scientists are from the beginning of the twentieth century. Why is that?

  11. Baker says:

    So we have Noether who is the real deal; Marie Curie who is more or less the real deal. Anyone else to add?

  12. Athrelon says:

    I’d encourage readers to read the wikipedia article on the scientists mentioned – pick one that’s close to your field and independently try to assess the significance/awesomeness of their contribution. Reading the wiki page on Rosalind Franklin, for example, was an eye-opener considering revisionist historians typically try to elevate her to Watson-Crick level.

Leave a Reply