First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Why are you a feminist?
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 5/14/15 , edited 5/14/15

narfington wrote:

Personally I think the feminists have a point when it comes to the portrayal of women in the media. There need to be more strong, assertive, kickass female characters out there. Then again, that's just what I'm into....so make of it what you will.


Well, the funny thing about that is it's a thing that's been tried in film and television before, and while sometimes it went alright, most times the characters just came off as unnecessarily abrasive, aggressive, and uncooperative. The key thing to keep in mind is that important characters need to be well-rounded. An action heroine should be competent enough to do things on her own when the occasion calls for it, but should also be capable of cooperating with others when the occasion calls for it. She should be assertive enough to stand her ground on important issues, but doesn't have to be abrasive in order to do that. Most of all, the story shouldn't bandy about declarations of how amazing it is that she's done this or that because she's a woman doing those things. The focus should be on her actions, not her sex. If she delivers a compelling speech, that should be the focus. If she rescues the hostages, defuses the bomb, or captures the villain, that should be the focus.

Also, it is okay to have female characters which are sexy and proud of it, incompetent, relatively unimportant, or focused mainly on their love lives. Writers shouldn't feel they have to process and can their female characters. The aim here isn't to stifle artists' creative voices, but merely to offer a suggestion on an alternative way to construct female protagonists and antagonists.

Edit: It is worth noting that screenwriters are getting better at this, and this is something which deserves recognition.
Posted 5/14/15 , edited 5/14/15

BlueOni wrote:


narfington wrote:

Personally I think the feminists have a point when it comes to the portrayal of women in the media. There need to be more strong, assertive, kickass female characters out there. Then again, that's just what I'm into....so make of it what you will.


Well, the funny thing about that is it's a thing that's been tried in film and television before, and while sometimes it went alright, most times the characters just came off as unnecessarily abrasive, aggressive, and uncooperative. The key thing to keep in mind is that important characters need to be well-rounded. An action heroine should be competent enough to do things on her own when the occasion calls for it, but should also be capable of cooperating with others when the occasion calls for it. She should be assertive enough to stand her ground on important issues, but doesn't have to be abrasive in order to do that. Most of all, the story shouldn't bandy about declarations of how amazing it is that she's done this or that because she's a woman doing those things that male action heroes have been doing for decades.

Also, it is okay to have female characters which are sexy and proud of it, incompetent, relatively unimportant, or focused mainly on their love lives. Writers shouldn't feel they have to process and can their female characters. The aim here isn't to stifle artists' creative voices, but merely to offer a suggestion on an alternative way to construct female protagonists and antagonists.





....


This is just guesswork, but I think he might have meant that there aren't enough in those roles that he loved, hence why they are overshadowed.. of course, quality is important and care not to make a caricature of women is a sensitive issue, but moreover than this user I don't think most feminists want heroines to mock real women by shallow innuendo.

I agree with his preference as well. I prefer these types of protagonists to the more boring, dainty ones better suited to supporting characters.

39464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 5/14/15

Sarah_Blight wrote:

Feminism is a positive movement overall. Almost every group has extremists. Conservatives get Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

Feminists that aim for equality are true feminists imo, and I think it should continue to exist to uphold and maintain the progress it has achieved for equal rights. Separatists and other extremists are what ppl these days associate with the word feminist and the feminist movement.
They're not going anywhere, either feminists or feminazis, its up to the intelligence of the people to be able to differentiate the two.
There are male feminists just as there are women anti-feminists.





I agree with most of what you said, but can we please stop diluting the term 'extremist'...it's just plain wrong to use the same word for political pundits that we use for monsters who blow up buildings and behead people. Timothy McVeigh was an extremist. Coulter is a rude, insensitive loudmouth.

By the same token, I wouldn't call a feminist who has never even committed an act of civil disobedience an extremist, regardless of how misandrist and unpleasant her rhetoric is.
Posted 5/14/15 , edited 5/14/15

Acoleth wrote:


Sarah_Blight wrote:

Feminism is a positive movement overall. Almost every group has extremists. Conservatives get Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

Feminists that aim for equality are true feminists imo, and I think it should continue to exist to uphold and maintain the progress it has achieved for equal rights. Separatists and other extremists are what ppl these days associate with the word feminist and the feminist movement.
They're not going anywhere, either feminists or feminazis, its up to the intelligence of the people to be able to differentiate the two.
There are male feminists just as there are women anti-feminists.





I agree with most of what you said, but can we please stop diluting the term 'extremist'...it's just plain wrong to use the same word for political pundits that we use for monsters who blow up buildings and behead people. Timothy McVeigh was an extremist. Coulter is a rude, insensitive loudmouth.

By the same token, I wouldn't call a feminist who has never even committed an act of civil disobedience an extremist, regardless of how misandrist and unpleasant her rhetoric is.


ex·trem·ist/ikˈstrēməst/
noun
a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

Its a matter of degrees, sir,. Extremism might be the wrong term. lets go with radicalism then. Coulter is tolerated by the GOP for the publicity and often pushes the limits of what is acceptable and appropriate for them. Politically I'm not taking a side. The topic is feminism though, not politics. I do see your point but lets please not confuse the issue in otherwise making an effective analogy.

14743 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/14/15 , edited 5/14/15

Sarah_Blight ex·trem·ist/ikˈstrēməst/
noun
a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.


"A fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts after he has forgotten his goal." - George Santayana

(Which, like Coulter, or most of the Republicans male and female, certainly applies to the more extreme groups/pundits who feel the enemy is not their political oppressor, but their own critics who call them bad people for it, and must be BROUGHT DOWN!)
39464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 5/14/15

Ejanss wrote:

"A fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts after he has forgotten his goal." - George Santayana

(Which, like Coulter, or most of the Republicans male and female, certainly applies to the more extreme groups/pundits who feel the enemy is not their political oppressor, but their own critics who call them bad people for it, and must be BROUGHT DOWN!)


I apologize for veering off the subject, but this is a great example of what I'm talking about. You label "most of the Republicans", a significant portion of the population, as fanatics, simply because you disagree with them. "Most Republicans" have never given a single political speech, participated in civil disobedience, or committed an act of violence in the name of their cause. Most Democrats and Independents haven't either. Most of us hold our differing opinions peacefully with one another. We have faith in the democratic process and civil debate, even if the debate gets heated and abrasive at times.

It may be emotionally satisfying to label everyone who disagrees with you as crazy, extreme, or radical, and that's what REAL fanatics do. The Islamist, for example, sees the corrupt west as radically, extremely opposed to the will of Allah, and it is of course crazy to oppose the will of God. He also doesn't believe that things can be changed through debate and democracy, and what he can't change he's willing to destroy. That's what makes him an extremist.

But when you're dealing with civilized people, who may call you a nut on a message board but would never dream of lifting finger to harm you, throwing around words like fanatic and extremist is just counterproductive and excessive.


75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 5/14/15
How about radical then? I now of a least one group of self described radical feminists who think transfolk are an evil male plot against womanhood. I find them relatively extreme.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 5/14/15

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

How about radical then? I now of a least one group of self described radical feminists who think transfolk are an evil male plot against womanhood. I find them relatively extreme.


Alot of 2nd wave feminism did not look to kindly on transfolk. The arguments that 2nd wave feminists use against transgenderism are frankly disgustingly regressive, I remember Janice Raymond had a quote comparing transgenderism to rape by "appropriating womens bodies" that I found to be completely and utterly vile. 3rd wave feminism is much more progressive on this front.
14743 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/14/15

megahobbit wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

How about radical then? I now of a least one group of self described radical feminists who think transfolk are an evil male plot against womanhood. I find them relatively extreme.


Alot of 2nd wave feminism did not look to kindly on transfolk. The arguments that 2nd wave feminists use against transgenderism are frankly disgustingly regressive, I remember Janice Raymond had a quote comparing transgenderism to rape by "appropriating womens bodies" that I found to be completely and utterly vile. 3rd wave feminism is much more progressive on this front.


I don't see TG-ism as a "plot", but then I don't see that believing that all females everywhere are Madonna, Britney, Mom, or objective lingerie-fantasy archetypes (maids, cheerleaders, etc.) is consciously or unconsciously meant as a compliment to the real thing, either.
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/14/15
I don't support third wave feminism.
39464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 5/14/15 , edited 5/14/15

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

How about radical then? I now of a least one group of self described radical feminists who think transfolk are an evil male plot against womanhood. I find them relatively extreme.


THEY KNOW?! Next you'll tell me they're on to our plans to replace women with nekos.

Seriously though, most conspiracy theories are pretty radical. You should hear my wife talk about Google.

I believe just about everyone has opinions that at least a few other people would consider extreme. I think polygamy and prostitution should be legal, for example. Many of my friends consider that extreme. But the word extremist isn't about how weird your opinions are, it's about how far you are willing to go to change society or communicate your message. Even if those opinions were my number one priority, I might at most support legal defense for those charged with prostitution (the prostitutes themselves, that is...most pimping is an extortion racket) or supporting laws that make the government 'marriage blind' (so civil unions could be formed by any number of consenting adults, regardless of gender configuration, without offending anyone's definition of marriage). I would not vandalize a church that was giving sermons about the evils of prostitution or polygamy, and I would not throw stuff at a cop who was making a lawful arrest. That would be extremism.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 5/14/15

Acoleth wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

How about radical then? I now of a least one group of self described radical feminists who think transfolk are an evil male plot against womanhood. I find them relatively extreme.


THEY KNOW?! Next you'll tell me they're on to our plans to replace women with nekos.

Seriously though, most conspiracy theories are pretty radical. You should hear my wife talk about Google.

I believe just about everyone has opinions that at least a few other people would consider extreme. I think polygamy and prostitution should be legal, for example. Many of my friends consider that extreme. But the word extremist isn't about how weird your opinions are, it's about how far you are willing to go to change society or communicate your message. Even if those opinions were my number one priority, I might at most support legal defense for those charged with prostitution (the prostitutes themselves, that is...most pimping is an extortion racket) or supporting laws that make the government 'marriage blind' (so civil unions could be formed by any number of consenting adults, regardless of gender configuration, without offending anyone's definition of marriage). I would not vandalize a church that was giving sermons about the evils of prostitution or polygamy, and I would not throw stuff at a cop who was making a lawful arrest. That would be extremism.


That's why I suggested radical as an alternative. ;)

75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 5/14/15

Ejanss wrote:


I don't see TG-ism as a "plot", but then I don't see that believing that all females everywhere are Madonna, Britney, Mom, or objective lingerie-fantasy archetypes (maids, cheerleaders, etc.) is consciously or unconsciously meant as a compliment to the real thing, either.


Are you implying every transwoman is trying to be barbie?

39464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 5/14/15

papagolfwhiskey

That's why I suggested radical as an alternative. ;)



Stop being so accurate and succinct. It's annoying.
14743 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/14/15 , edited 5/14/15



papagolfwhiskey Alot of 2nd wave feminism did not look to kindly on transfolk. The arguments that 2nd wave feminists use against transgenderism are frankly disgustingly regressive, I remember Janice Raymond had a quote comparing transgenderism to rape by "appropriating womens bodies" that I found to be completely and utterly vile. 3rd wave feminism is much more progressive on this front.


I don't see TG-ism as a "plot", but then I don't see that believing that all females everywhere are Madonna, Britney, Mom, or objective lingerie-fantasy archetypes (maids, cheerleaders, etc.) is consciously or unconsciously meant as a compliment to the real thing, either.


Are you implying every transwoman is trying to be barbie?


No, there'd probably be Moms than Gagas, if you wanted to do a head count--It's just that most people are only informed by personal experience. Oh, and by television, for those who don't have personal experience..

(Which likely accounts for most of the radical feminists' view of men, as well.)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.