|
|
Post by merry76 on Jan 28, 2019 10:58:02 GMT
It was weird and sexist. You’re just digging yourself a hole here, buddy. I’m not saying you can’t say things. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can’t get critique on your statement which basically boiled down to “I am not attracted to Parley”. It wasnt weird, and it wasnt sexist. At least not in how we define the words over here. Sexism is (to my understanding) prejudice or discrimination on a persons gender. Not preferring girls that look like male bodybuilders does not discriminate them, not is any prejudice against them happening.
Now if you define sexim differently (and if your avatar is a bit of a hunch there you do), this may change. But then again, I am probably a homophobe for preferring to not sleep with a guy. Which is all kinds of weird (the classification of me as a homophobe, not my tendency to be straight).
I am not digging any holes here. I am not even sure why there is a critique (which aparently needs facts to back it up, see above) on my statements. But aparently there is. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jan 28, 2019 12:52:17 GMT
And all of this argument stemmed from the design of a character who appeared in only one panel on this page and had no lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jan 28, 2019 14:02:40 GMT
Before you accuse anyone else of being a pedophile, please take a dictionary or encyclopedia and look up what the word actually means. Are you one of those creeps who insist that letching after an underage child is not pedophilia if they've hit puberty? I can spell ephebophile, too, but come on. No. But as your reaction aptly demonstrates, it is a strong accusation we are talking about, generating strong reactions. So in my opinion, it should be used appropriately. Parley is not a child, she should have finished her A-levels by now. |
|
|
|
Post by fia on Jan 28, 2019 14:44:34 GMT
Sexism is (to my understanding) prejudice or discrimination on a persons gender. Not preferring girls that look like male bodybuilders does not discriminate them, not is any prejudice against them happening. ] Look, I am sympathetic to your conundrum: I think this might be a learning moment, if you're open to it. Sexism is not merely discrimination "on" a person's gender. Sexism includes discrimination on the basis of traits that are gender-stereotyped, and discrimination on the basis of perceived or attributed gender roles. Ex., "women should not be bodybuilders" or "body-building women are not attractive" IS gender-discriminatory because it takes a particular set of gendered traits (the female/woman/feminine ones) and says that those are better/preferable/less objectionable for a particularly sexed person than a different set of gendered traits (the male/man/masculine ones). Finally –– no one is telling you you should be attracted to bodybuilders. You can have whatever sexual orientation you like, and that can be one that prefers less muscular or more femme people (and maybe for you that does or does not include transwomen, that's a whole 'nother thing). It is just that your phrasing was actually more insulting than it was 'expressing a preference'. Given the context, expressing your preference here has a more normative force than you think –– it sounds more like, "not only do I not like women bodybuilders, as a matter of fact in general women bodybuilders shouldn't be preferred by anyone, including the writer of this comic, who should know better than to create characters that I find unattractive." So perhaps you feel that those reading your comment have been uncharitable to you, and assumed you are terrible; your reaction might be, "I'm not an asshole! I just have preferences!" Which is fair enough. But it IS very important in a shared social space to take into account the full force of the meaning of what you express, because unfortunately we do live on a planet that tends to be terribly oppressive to people who don't want to fit gender stereotypes –– your supporting the gender stereotypes will and probably should be taken to mean that you don't mind this state of affairs, where people get policed for whether they fit the stereotypes. So you should be extra careful to not just "not be sexist", but in fact to be " anti-sexist". Does that make sense? For some of us this is life-or-death stuff. I'm not kidding. Trans people have decades fewer expected lifespans than non-trans people, for example. And many women literally die every year for failing to meet their expected gender roles of mother/wife/daughter. Some even are killed just for being born female. None of this unfortunately gets to be just the realm of personal preference. We all wish it were. |
|
|
|
Post by merry76 on Jan 28, 2019 16:59:18 GMT
Sexism is (to my understanding) prejudice or discrimination on a persons gender. Not preferring girls that look like male bodybuilders does not discriminate them, not is any prejudice against them happening. ] Look, I am sympathetic to your conundrum: I think this might be a learning moment, if you're open to it. Sexism is not merely discrimination "on" a person's gender. Sexism includes discrimination on the basis of traits that are gender-stereotyped, and discrimination on the basis of perceived or attributed gender roles. So we are in agreement about this. However, not finding someone attractive because of a VERY prominent feature is not discrimination. Now if I would treat a female bodybuiler badly or actually harm her, that would apply. It really doesnt matter that I prefer women who look more round in places. Having people find you attractive isnt a right, so when it is denied your rights are not violated. Ex., "women should not be bodybuilders" or "body-building women are not attractive" IS gender-discriminatory because it takes a particular set of gendered traits (the female/woman/feminine ones) and says that those are better/preferable/less objectionable for a particularly sexed person than a different set of gendered traits (the male/man/masculine ones). Now you are putting words in my mouth, which isnt nice. Just because I have not structured my original sentence like you would like it, you have no right to infer I wrote something different than I actually did. I structure my sentences a bit weird, and sometimes use parenthesis (sp? English isnt my primary language) where I want to introduce a small clarification. Finally –– no one is telling you you should be attracted to bodybuilders. You can have whatever sexual orientation you like, and that can be one that prefers less muscular or more femme people (and maybe for you that does or does not include transwomen, that's a whole 'nother thing). It is just that your phrasing was actually more insulting than it was 'expressing a preference'. No, you arent telling me that I should be attracted to a female Arnold Schwarzenegger. But you call me a sexist for saying that I do find that unattractive. Why bring trans women into this? Parley most likely still is a girl, and will most likely stay one. Are you implying that only males can be Dragon Slayers, and to be one she has to transition? That would be weird, despite her being called George. Oh... Maybe you know more than I do? Given the context, expressing your preference here has a more normative force than you think –– it sounds more like, "not only do I not like women bodybuilders, as a matter of fact in general women bodybuilders shouldn't be preferred by anyone, including the writer of this comic, who should know better than to create characters that I find unattractive." I do not think that I have the power to influence anyone in that manner with a simple statement like that. Nor did I write this. If you think I meant that, please take a breather and examine why you think that. For your own sake, please do not read things into sentences someone else wrote - especially if the person in question clarified about 3 times now that his preference is just that. A preference. So perhaps you feel that those reading your comment have been uncharitable to you, and assumed you are terrible; your reaction might be, "I'm not an asshole! I just have preferences!" Which is fair enough. But it IS very important in a shared social space to take into account the full force of the meaning of what you express, because unfortunately we do live on a planet that tends to be terribly oppressive to people who don't want to fit gender stereotypes –– your supporting the gender stereotypes will and probably should be taken to mean that you don't mind this state of affairs, where people get policed for whether they fit the stereotypes. So there is a country where female bodybuilders get accosted. Certainly its not where I live, because the cross-fit-addicted HR lady next door is left alone. And her goal is to be something like parley (ok, maybe not as much, parley is a comic character, and able to grow as Tom wants her to). She is pretty ok, but knows that I do not find her goal attractive. Because you know, we talk during coffee break. So you should be extra careful to not just "not be sexist", but in fact to be " anti-sexist". Does that make sense? No. It does not. I deceide myself what I want to be. I will not commit violence or sexism in my life, but I do not feel that I have to join a cause because of that. I would have to join so many, many causes if I would follow your logic. I would have to be anti-religious, anti-abortion, anti-homophobe, anti-fascism, anti-communistic, anti-murder.... I am getting labelled by young people all the time, I see no reason to constantly label myself, thank you very much. Its just something we old guys do not like to do. I know its fashionable right now, it is however (like parley) not my thing. |
|
|
|
Post by novia on Jan 28, 2019 17:24:22 GMT
the cross-fit-addicted HR lady next door is left alone. And her goal is to be something like parley (ok, maybe not as much, parley is a comic character, and able to grow as Tom wants her to). She is pretty ok, but knows that I do not find her goal attractive. Because you know, we talk during coffee break. AHAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. As should have been expected, you bring your own lack of self awareness into the real world. Seriously dude, please get a clue. |
|
blackouthart
New Member
Avatar drawn by Shelby Cragg!
Posts: 49
|
Post by blackouthart on Jan 28, 2019 20:35:44 GMT
It was weird and sexist. You’re just digging yourself a hole here, buddy. I’m not saying you can’t say things. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can’t get critique on your statement which basically boiled down to “I am not attracted to Parley”. It wasnt weird, and it wasnt sexist. At least not in how we define the words over here. Sexism is (to my understanding) prejudice or discrimination on a persons gender. Not preferring girls that look like male bodybuilders does not discriminate them, not is any prejudice against them happening.
Now if you define sexim differently (and if your avatar is a bit of a hunch there you do), this may change. But then again, I am probably a homophobe for preferring to not sleep with a guy. Which is all kinds of weird (the classification of me as a homophobe, not my tendency to be straight).
I am not digging any holes here. I am not even sure why there is a critique (which aparently needs facts to back it up, see above) on my statements. But aparently there is. Go figure.
(and if your avatar is a bit of a hunch) lmao now the old straight guy is insinuating things about my appearance in an attempt to make an argument? Oh, buddy. Nice try. Add: you realize that saying I have a wrong definition of sexism because I appear female (which I am not) is sexist in itself? I feel like you’re just a walking bundle of microaggressions, here. I’m gonna stop feeding the troll, good luck to you dude. |
|
|
|
Post by madjack on Jan 28, 2019 21:00:24 GMT
The small joys in life are the most important.
Like remembering forums have ignore lists.
You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by merry76 on Jan 28, 2019 21:25:47 GMT
(and if your avatar is a bit of a hunch) lmao now the old straight guy is insinuating things about my appearance in an attempt to make an argument? Oh, buddy. Nice try. Add: you realize that saying I have a wrong definition of sexism because I appear female (which I am not) is sexist in itself? I feel like you’re just a walking bundle of microaggressions, here. I’m gonna stop feeding the troll, good luck to you dude. Nah, but your avatar looks like a millenial feminist. And your reference to micro aggressions confirms at least parts of that. Its just that words usually get redefined by that crowd, and its kind of hard to keep track what certain words mean to the person you are talking to. Like I was just called sexist for not liking someones look, then attacked and promptly blocked for defending myself. Like you probably just did. Which means you cant read this... Hm. Ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jan 29, 2019 1:57:51 GMT
I would agree that "women should not be bodybuilders" (which nobody has asserted) is discriminatory. And in a bad way.
Discrimination is not automatically bad, though. Earlier today I discriminated against moldy food, by washing a pan of soup down the sink while leaving a bunch of non-moldy food in the refrigerator.
"Body-building women are not attractive" is a statement of personal taste and therefore necessarily comes with (an implied, if not explicit) "to me"...
...although, actually, that particular aspect of personal taste needs one rather less than most. Evolution disfavors both highly-muscular low-body-fat females (such as female body-builders) and the males who prefer them. Seriously, the idea that skinny women are sexy is rather new - it came after food became so abundant, and hard physical labor so uncommon, that poverty and obesity go together. Before that, fat was fabulous, with how much fat being a cultural variable. And even now, most people prefer for those skinny women to have a couple significant and shapely mounds of fat on their chests and a nice padding of fat on their hips.
But in a society where starvation is a real threat, a highly muscular low-fat woman is one who has to work very hard to get enough food to feed herself - whereas a less muscular well-padded woman is prosperous and will have a much easier time diverting some part of that prosperity into feeding and caring for children.
This is so true that, beyond a certain point, human biology will often shut down the menstrual cycle of the low-fat woman. So she won't have to support children when she can't properly support herself. But, in evolutionary terms, that makes mating with her a waste of energy that could be better spent mating with some other woman.
(On average of course - everything about evolution is on average.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Jan 29, 2019 2:36:48 GMT
Not to mention a liiiiiiitle pedophilic. Before you accuse anyone else of being a pedophile, please take a dictionary or encyclopedia and look up what the word actually means. pedophile - (noun) an adult discussing the attractiveness of underaged people or characters as if considering being physically intimate with them. See also, ephebophile ephebophile - (noun) a word used by pedantic people to split hairs over the age of a person or character, even though either way the subject is an adult sincerely contemplating the physical attractiveness of someone underage Very informative, like how looking up bird in the dictionary makes me an ornithologist. The original comment was built on outdated gender stereotypes of what attractiveness should be. People are allowed to be attracted to what they’re attracted to, but desirability does not exist in an apolitical vacuum. There’s historical context for this. Also, comment on how Parley looked was completely uncalled for. At no point in this page or the story as a whole were the readers as a collective really thinking about whether Parley was sexy. merry76 could’ve just said, “Wow, Parley is really looming!” That’s the only context in which a comment on her would’ve been appropriate. Instead it’s “parley’s really looming, I’m sad this girl is not attractive enough for me to view her positively.” It’s not only misogynistic, it’s just a weirdly misplaced comment. Wow. We went from "how dare you find something unattractive" over "you are a pedophiliac if you find drawn teenagers attractive" and "looking like a real buff man is the ultimate female empowerment" to "I want to control your speech". Weird. If you post that you particularly like a joke, drawing, reaction or where the comic is going - everything is quiet. But if you mention that you are not a fan of letting a female teenager look like a 20 something bodybuilder is a bit off to you, you get the screechers out of the woodwork. Its like you are not supposed to state opinions on a discussion board.
I dont want to talk for Tom here (he can to that on his own), but I hail from an age where an artist valued critique as much as praise. It helps you to improve and stay on your edge. Its also better if you can get it earlier, not after whatever you are doing jumped the shark (not that I think gunnerkrigg is in any danger right now of doing that).
lmao come off seeing yourself as some critique who's trying to help Tom improve. It's really pretentious. And yes, discussing the physical attractiveness, not just appearance, of a teenager is sleazy. It doesn't matter if she's drawn. Either way it doesn't work because it's been established that Parley is stacked as a part of her training. There is nothing about her that's supposed to be a normal teenage girl. It makes your comment even weirder that you're acting like this is news. It was weird and sexist. You’re just digging yourself a hole here, buddy. I’m not saying you can’t say things. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can’t get critique on your statement which basically boiled down to “I am not attracted to Parley”. It wasnt weird, and it wasnt sexist. At least not in how we define the words over here. Sexism is (to my understanding) prejudice or discrimination on a persons gender. Not preferring girls that look like male bodybuilders does not discriminate them, not is any prejudice against them happening.
Now if you define sexim differently (and if your avatar is a bit of a hunch there you do), this may change. But then again, I am probably a homophobe for preferring to not sleep with a guy. Which is all kinds of weird (the classification of me as a homophobe, not my tendency to be straight).
I am not digging any holes here. I am not even sure why there is a critique (which aparently needs facts to back it up, see above) on my statements. But aparently there is. Go figure.
idk what you mean by "over here". If you mean in America we can find that weird and sexist here as well. Sexism does cover discussing the attractiveness of a female character apropos of nothing, ignoring the context of her actions and careers. Sexism is making women remain cookie cutter beauties with long hair in heels, makeup and dresses even as you have them engaging in actions where those are all liabilities. Where there makeup somehow never smears and apparently body hair just doesn't exist. You have very backwards thinking to be making semantic arguments over empowerment and "female marine empowerment" when she is in fact a female and someone highly athletic like a marine. It is ludicrous to me that you continue to pedantically argue this, oblivious to both the pit you're digging yourself and how these distinctions you're making are further examples of sexism. Dismissing the attractiveness of buff women, not bodybuilders cuz I've seen body builders and she's not nearly as bulky, is a form of sexist discrimination. It's a part of the catch-22 of women being considered weak and incapable of independence but at the same time being derided as less desirable and less womanly if they are athletic in any way with self-efficacy. |
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Jan 29, 2019 2:58:06 GMT
At any rate you seem fully rationalized about this so I'm going to save myself some headaches enduring what you call logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gotolei on Jan 29, 2019 4:24:18 GMT
And all of this argument stemmed from the design of a character who appeared in only one panel on this page and had no lines. On pg 2101 War was beginning couldn't pass it up sorry not sorry |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Jan 29, 2019 6:49:55 GMT
Alternately:  |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Jan 29, 2019 10:09:07 GMT
The forum rules are in place to outline how people should interact with each other on the forum, they are not there to mandate people's opinions. As long as the discussion remains respectful and free of personal attacks I'm fine for people to disagree, even strongly, and move on as the topic naturally wanes.
|
|
|
|
Post by fia on Jan 29, 2019 17:02:33 GMT
She is pretty ok, but knows that I do not find her goal attractive. Wait, you go around telling your coworkers/neighbors you don't find their fitness goals attractive???  EDIT: you know what, I had a whole post about this, but just forget it. I think it's best that you just sit and think about these words for a while. It may not do anything for you. But to me, they were very alarming. |
|
|
|
Post by merry76 on Jan 29, 2019 20:17:53 GMT
She is pretty ok, but knows that I do not find her goal attractive. Wait, you go around telling your coworkers/neighbors you don't find their fitness goals attractive??? I wonder what label this will earn me.
But: You realize that people do like to smalltalk, or even flirt? I mean voluntarily? Nothing has to come of it, people just like to do that instead of awkwardly standing around trying not to offend anyone and _maybe_ talk about the weather.
It may not be for anyone, I realize that. Introverts tend to hate it, for example. But people do that, and you can normally talk just about everything over a coffee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jan 29, 2019 20:18:43 GMT
The forum rules are in place to outline how people should interact with each other on the forum, they are not there to mandate people's opinions. As long as the discussion remains respectful and free of personal attacks I'm fine for people to disagree, even strongly, and move on as the topic naturally wanes. |
|
