No, Really, There Has Got To Be Another Way To Read This.

Comments

I'm convinced! Think I'll go write an essay about "that creature" Barbara Gordon or some such.
[this is good]
I could be out of the loop here, but why is the quote misandrist? Why is even her post misandrist? Isn't misandry, the definition of hatred of males, a little extreme in this case? Personally I disagree with her view because I think Nemesis has been weirdly portrayed by Heinberg, but still, Samantha sounded more like she simply didn't like Nemesis being with Diana and used hyperbole than anything else.

Dane, I agree with you. But when the type of language she used is used by men in regard to women, it is frequently (although, often wrongly) cited as evidence of misogyny. I strongly suspect that if a male poster implied that a ... umm, let's say ... Etta Candy was not worthy to be wooed by Superman and used the term "creature" to describe her after she has been brave, ethical, loyal etc., some would take that as evidence that the poster had something against women, that he held women to some (sexist) standard and generally thought less of them than he did of men. They'd question why he called Etta a "creature" as if she was some lesser being to the human Superman.

I don't mean to make too much of a fuss about this. I'm just poking fun at what looks like a double standard to me.

I haven't read the WW comic in question, and lack the context to know what Samantha is talking about.
Not sure why my comment got cut off. It was supposed to read:

I haven't read the WW comic in question, and lack the context to know what Samantha is talking about, but I'm not sure why anyone would want WW (frequently presented as a perfect female) to have a perfect male lover. That would be a great example of broken writing, and is something I would expect from poor fan fiction. Who would want to read about 2 perfect people, who are actually excellently matched...I fell asleep just thinking about it.

Not sure why my comment got cut off.

Apparently any internet site I'm involved with goes boinky. It's my other mutant power.


I haven't read the WW comic in question, and lack the context to know what Samantha is talking about, but I'm not sure why anyone would want WW (frequently presented as a perfect female) to have a perfect male lover. That would be a great example of broken writing, and is something I would expect from poor fan fiction. Who would want to read about 2 perfect people, who are actually excellently matched...I fell asleep just thinking about it.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. That they are perhaps mismatched will perhaps make them more interesting. I'm reminded of people who said that Spider-Man shouldn't be in the Avengers because he isn't a team player and that would cause problems. My first reaction to that argument was that he must then be a perfect member for the Avengers. Using their same logic we'd say, "Hawkeye is too headstrong and won't follow rules; therefore, he shouldn't be in the Avengers." Or "The Thing is angry and resentful of Reed. Hell, he tried to kill Reed in the first issue! Therefore, the Thing should not be in the Fantastic Four!" Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! That's what made the FF and Avengers more interesting than those Silver Age JLA stories where everyone is everyone else's neato pal.

When I look at Diana and her new beau, it's true. It might be a wreck! But no one stops to look at traffic flowing smoothly.

Thanks for the reply, Scott! I don't think you're making a big deal of this, but I'm glad I get what you're saying now. It is a tough line to walk sometimes when this occurs on the other end of the stick. But I do understand the feminist side of men bashing female love interests. The truth is I have seen guys that would fit the Etta Candy example, and it can tough to figure out where they are coming from. Do they not like the character for legitimate reasons, do they just that archetype of a woman in general, or do they hate any woman that doesn't fit their level of acceptance?

I think it is important not to jump the gun in the instances you've brought up, because when people use strong words such as that, not a lot of productive discussion gets done.

Oh, and I never really knew people complained about Spider-Man being in the Avengers. I came into comics around the time the Avengers broke up, so it was a good jumping on point for me. Your reasoning for spider-man was one of the reasons I liked him on the team. I thought it would be a good opportunity to show himself as one of the most capable heroes in New York, but he got relegated to being a side character rather quickly.

Tsk! And as for that Superman fellow ... why on Earth would he be interested in a non-powered shrew of a busy-body like that Lois Lane creature who was always so mean and spiteful to her mild-mannered work colleague?

Not that this comment is misogynistic or anything.

[isto é bom]
Here's the deal. You don't have to be a misandrist to say a mean, dismissive thing about a male. That's fair. The one does not equal the other. But while we're being fair to people we agree with, we must also extend the same courtesy to those with whom we disagree. Yes?
For example: Brian Michael Bendis is not a misogynist just because he writes a story where Tigra is brutalized by a gang of vicious thugs. Yes, he might be a misogynist, just as notarose might be a misandrist. But you just can't arrive at such conclusions based on a small sample size. Some say the Devil is in the details. I think the Devil actually resides in the small sample size.
Another way to look at it. You don't have to hate men to write such a hateful comment as the one in this post, but that doesn't mean that you don't hate men. Hating men is not a prerequisite for saying such a thing, but it certainly doesn't hurt. It's like how you can be critical of Israel but not hate Jews. A true assessment, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that many, many anti-semites are also critical of Israel (probably all of them, actually). The one doesn't mean the other, but the two are definitely on a first-name basis. If you can follow the impenetrable logic of my metaphors, you win a cookie.
Here's what is even more groan-inducing for me: writing about how pissed off you are that Wonder Woman has romantic feeling for someone who you consider to be "not good enough" for her.
I was re-watching the first season of The Wire recently, and there's a scene right at the beginning where McNulty is sitting in on D'Angelo's murder trial.
McNulty wasn't actually working the case or anything, he was just being a busybody. When relating all of this to his friend Judge Phelan, the Judge asks why McNulty would actually come down to the court to sit in on a trial that he wasn't involved with at all. McNulty didn't really have an answer, and the Judge observed "When you start coming with the customers, you should get out of the business."
I always thought that was a great quote. In this case I would amend it to "when you start writing hateful, long-winded screeds about your favorite cartoon character's love life, and how some other cartoon character isn't good enough boyfriend material, then you should maybe get out of the business." Shame that one doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

All of this is my own roundabout way of saying that I miss The Wire.
And that Tom Tresser is actually kind of awesome.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Scott (The Mad Thinker)

About Me

Scott (The Mad Thinker)
United States
"Actually, evidence suggests that the opposite is true."
Messaging:
Send

My Groups

Archives

Are You a Potential Super Villain?