Fun Stuff > ENJOY

The most hilarious thing I have ever read in relation to Joss Whedon

<< < (12/20) > >>

thatryanguy:
What irks me about people like this is that they take offense to males, no matter what capacity they're shown in. Mal was a higher rank in the military, and owned the ship that Zoe decided to serve him on. It's not by any consideration as to Why Mal was a higher rank, or why Zoe chose to serve him on his ship, but the fact Alone that Mal was a higher rank, and owned a ship that a Zoe served him on.

Feminists like her are the biggest hypocrites. They cry for equality, by vehemently protesting any situation whatsoever, fact or fiction, where the female isn't the one in absolute power.

Fortunately, noone but other feminists who hate men with the same venomous passion will ever take people like her seriously. I do think it would be interesting however to write a comic or movie based on the idea where people like her got control of the world, and the results that could potentially have on society.

I mean, first and foremost, everyone would die in a generation, as every male on the planet would have been castrated immediately =P

Surgoshan:

--- Quote from: roxie_vinyl on 28 Mar 2008, 16:56 ---...can i play short bald guy?

--- End quote ---

Only if you don't mind a very tasteful nude scene with "vapid gum-chewer".

jimbunny:

--- Quote from: JimmytheSquid on 28 Mar 2008, 19:17 ---But according to this particular feminist, Samus would be just as bad a role model as Zoe because the only way she is empowered is by engaging in violence which is apparently a male dominion if I'm reading Alecto's post correctly. I always understood the feminist movement to be about equality, which to my mind at least says that women should be able to be strong and violent just like men and be respected for it, just like men.

--- End quote ---

But think about the culture of respect that gives rise to these kinds of heroes. If we were to adopt rationality over physical force (which, even mediated by technology as we are, will - on average biologically and therefore almost always psychologically - favor men) as the basis for respect ... well but then our entertainment would not be so entertaining. Because we will instinctively always find security - which leads to looking up to people who can provide security - in physicality. We're animals, in that way. It's not very fair of us males, then, to claim that 'equality' means allowing females 'up' into our realm of physicality. It doesn't work that way naturally, so to actually be equal in that respect requires either: a) exceptional effort (above average female physicality to average male physicality), which seems unfair; or b) mediation, usually through technology, which seems illegitimate, as well as unstable.

Of course physicality isn't the only area of dispute in the discussion of gender (in)equality. But it is a very influential one, one that gives rise to many if not most of the other issues. I think it's often underestimated by males, too, because the discussion, as it is often framed, doesn't oblige us to do anything, other than to hypothetically extend our offer of acceptance to females, who want (we think) to join us. As opposed to anything that might happen the other way around.

Just goes to show what a significant challenge there is for feminist cultural criticism.

Also, thatryanguy, 1) the fact of the matter is that they are noting the instance of male authority that points to the generality of male authority (or the general lack of female authority), and 2) I have a difficult time not reading your name as "that aryan guy." Just lettin' you know.

Ozymandias:
Actually, I agree with the idea that there should be more fiction and fact with women in ultimate power because we DO live in a patriarchal society and the recurrence of the male leader in fiction reflects this. If there were such a thing as genuine equality in our society, radical feminists would be relegated to a more extremist section of our society, looked upon in much the same way as white supremacists because their viewpoints would be more clearly outside of what society needs. As it is, they represent a force towards the shift that society needs and, while their end goal is much too extreme, their direction is still ideal, so they aren't as maligned as they should be.

Also, I take umbrage with Khar's implication of Asimov. The dude can barely write humans, it's unfair to take him to task for his writing of women.

Jimmy the Squid:
Jimbunny, if you could stop making the rest of us look bad by being really insightful and such a generally good poster that would just be swell.

Yeah ok my point was not great and badly made but could anyone see where I was going with it? I see the feminist movement as seeking equality (which does not yet exist and that fact is lamentable) rather than putting one gender over another. Misandry is not the constructive answer to misogyny. Just sayin'.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page