Why I Wear Princess Leia's Metal Slave Bikini

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

crimson5pheonix:
Oh alright. I guess it's okay to say a person's opinion is wrong when it's the wrong people having the wrong opinions.

Well when that opinion becomes the basis for an article where they present it to the world as some reasoned take on the matter, yes, it's okay to tell people that their opinions might be wrong. After all, we wouldn't want to create some sort of safe space where people's views aren't challenged. Or maybe we do, so long as the opinions happen to be ones whinging about those censorious, counterfeit feminist, morality police

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
Oh alright. I guess it's okay to say a person's opinion is wrong when it's the wrong people having the wrong opinions.

Well when that opinion becomes the basis for an article where they present it to the world as some reasoned take on the matter, yes, it's okay to tell people that their opinions might be wrong. After all, we wouldn't want to create some sort of safe space where people's views aren't challenged. Or maybe we do, so long as the opinions happen to be ones whinging about those censorious, counterfeit feminist, morality police

No, it's okay. I just got feminism wrong. I thought it was about equality and empowerment. I was further confused by other people in the thread disagreeing with her without having to say that she's only pandering and doesn't actually believe what she's saying.

crimson5pheonix:
No, it's okay. I just got feminism wrong. I thought it was about equality and empowerment. I was further confused by other people in the thread disagreeing with her without having to say that she's only pandering and doesn't actually believe what she's saying.

Well considering you think feminism is bowing to the opinions of any woman who uses words as if she were an infallible prophet of truth, I'd say you definitely got feminism wrong. You also seem to be imagining people writing words they haven't actually written, so your confusion makes sense.

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
No, it's okay. I just got feminism wrong. I thought it was about equality and empowerment. I was further confused by other people in the thread disagreeing with her without having to say that she's only pandering and doesn't actually believe what she's saying.

Well considering you think feminism is bowing to the opinions of any woman who uses words as if she were an infallible prophet of truth, I'd say you definitely got feminism wrong. You also seem to be imagining people writing words they haven't actually written, so your confusion makes sense.

No, I think I got another word wrong. I thought "disingenuous" meant "insincere".

LifeCharacter:
Someone's got an audience they want to pander to and the poor, cookie-cutter arguments to match!

But you definitely did say she was pandering.

crimson5pheonix:
No, I think I got another word wrong. I thought "disingenuous" meant "insincere".

Oh, and who actually used that word before you came in?

But you definitely did say she was pandering.

Well, she just so happens to be expressing a number of views that all appeal to a certain group of people that she and the site she works for love appealing to, but you're right. It's wrong to make assumptions that people who are paid to write articles want their articles to attract attention from an intended audience.

LifeCharacter:
So a family-oriented company deciding to retire a decades old outfit that fetishizes slavery from production apropos of no real pressuring from the public is "censorship" and anyone who dares think that the slave Leia outfit is anything but the most sacrosanct assortment of female-empowering fabric is a "counterfeit feminist"? Combined with an allusion to more serious issues, references to chastity-obsessed morality police, and cries of what about the mens! Someone's got an audience they want to pander to and the poor, cookie-cutter arguments to match!

If you think there's no pressure from the public, you must be socially deaf. Also - can you prove you're not just as disingenuous in stating your opinion as you feel she is in hers?

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
No, I think I got another word wrong. I thought "disingenuous" meant "insincere".

Oh, and who actually used that word before you came in?

You're right, I jumped to conclusions. I saw your statement that she was pandering with a cookie-cutter argument and took it to mean that you don't think she believes the views that she espouses.

Of course,

But you definitely did say she was pandering.

Well, she just so happens to be expressing a number of views that all appeal to a certain group of people that she and the site she works for love appealing to, but you're right. It's wrong to make assumptions that people who are paid to write articles want their articles to attract attention from an intended audience.

LifeCharacter:

Yes, as it turns out, feminism is about telling someone with bad, disingenuous arguments that they're wrong when they call anyone with a different opinion of a particular outfit a counterfeit feminist and rely on little more than what amounts to a checklist of anti-feminist rhetoric to support it. That she's a woman just means that we use feminine pronouns when addressing her.

I feel that my assumption is well founded. But in any case, this has been a big misunderstanding. Since I have clearly misunderstood feminism, I suppose it's only right that we discount her opinion since we can operate on the assumption that she doesn't believe what she writes. We can do so because she disagrees with certain feminists apparently. My bad.

Scow2:
If you think there's no pressure from the public, you must be socially deaf. Also - can you prove you're not just as disingenuous in stating your opinion as you feel she is in hers?

Show me the sort of public pressure that could get a massive corporation to do something. Preferably something that is recent and can actually be linked to this. Where's the hashtagtwittertumblrmob that supposedly is responsible for this?

Also, did you expect asking me to prove something I never actually claimed nor could I realistically prove (especially to the standards of certain people who are more than likely to have standards of proof that are suddenly really high) to accomplish something?

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
You're right, I jumped to conclusions. I saw your statement that she was pandering with a cookie-cutter argument and took it to mean that you don't think she believes the views that she espouses.

Don't worry about it, it's quite common amongst people desperate to take issue with something despite not having some tangible thing to actually take issue with.

But in any case, this has been a big misunderstanding. Since I have clearly misunderstood feminism, I suppose it's only right that we discount her opinion since we can operate on the assumption that she doesn't believe what she writes. We can do so because she disagrees with certain feminists apparently. My bad.

We could also discount her opinion because she supports it with your typical assortment of bad anti-feminist rhetoric that only really convinces people who were already thoroughly entrenched in the idea of some shadow group of morality enforcing counterfeit feminists (wearing police hats!). That's what I'd like to do. Though, I imagine that makes it harder for you to continue this disingenuous thing you're doing where you ignore what people actually say in favor of going on about nonsense. It must be horribly inconvenient for you and I feel just terrible about putting you through such a thing.

Well one thing I certainly feel horrible about is that, apparently in addition to not knowing the definitions of certain words, I was also incorrect about you even using those words in your posts that I quoted you using them in.

I suppose that means that I'm not actually reading you using "disingenuous" in this post that I'm quoting?

Does that also mean that I'm not seeing you saying (paraphrase) "we should discount the opinions of people who strenuously disagree with certain feminists"?

LifeCharacter:

Scow2:
If you think there's no pressure from the public, you must be socially deaf. Also - can you prove you're not just as disingenuous in stating your opinion as you feel she is in hers?

Show me the sort of public pressure that could get a massive corporation to do something. Preferably something that is recent and can actually be linked to this. Where's the hashtagtwittertumblrmob that supposedly is responsible for this?

There has been a fairly significant wave of pressure coming from parents over the past year and a half on the slave Leia issue. It's been much talked about and very well covered, I'm surprised you haven't noticed it, seeing how much you seem to care about feminism.

crimson5pheonix:
Well one thing I certainly feel horrible about is that, apparently in addition to not knowing the definitions of certain words, I was also incorrect about you even using those words in your posts that I quoted you using them in.

I suppose that means that I'm not actually reading you using "disingenuous" in this post that I'm quoting?

Does that also mean that I'm not seeing you saying (paraphrase) "we should discount the opinions of people who strenuously disagree with certain feminists"?

Like I said, don't worry about it. We all make mistakes in our attempts at blindly charging forward at those evil people who think that a woman might be wrong and be using crappy arguments, especially when they're criticizing counterfeit feminists while said crappy arguments are little more than a copy of what anti-feminists would write.

...Well, not "all," really. More like some, with some grammatical workings to make it fit.

Though if you'd like, I could change the description of your recent posts from disingenuous to just blindly ignorant of what other people are actually writing. Those are really the only two options when I write "I think the author's wrong because her arguments are bad" and you come away with this whole thing of yours.

ThatOtherGirl:
There has been a fairly significant wave of pressure coming from parents over the past year and a half on the slave Leia issue. It's been much talked about and very well covered, I'm surprised you haven't noticed it, seeing how much you seem to care about feminism.

And I'm surprised that if it was such a fairly significant wave of pressure that has been much talked about and very well covered, you decided to commit the cardinal sin of telling rather than showing. Because it seems like the latter would be really easy to do.

LifeCharacter:
snip

Alright, enough being cute.

You HAVE said that she's pandering. You HAVE said that she's disingenuous. You HAVE said that her opinion can be ignored. What we can INFER is that you do not believe that people can legitimately hold on to a view counter to yours. You do not believe a woman can hold on to this opinion unless it was for money. This is what counterfeit feminism is. Your argument is not a constructive one. It's not even an innocent disagreement. It's a destructive contradiction based on the idea that she is inherently wrong. It is the argument that women should only hold certain opinions, or at least that they can't hold certain other opinions. It is not the argument that advances female empowerment or equality, it's the argument that stratifies women into "right" or "wrong".

If that's not what you meant to say, you should find a different way to say what you mean.

If you want to say you didn't say what I quoted, deal with your own conscience.

LifeCharacter:

Scow2:
If you think there's no pressure from the public, you must be socially deaf. Also - can you prove you're not just as disingenuous in stating your opinion as you feel she is in hers?

Show me the sort of public pressure that could get a massive corporation to do something. Preferably something that is recent and can actually be linked to this.

... that's not the sort of pressure we're talking about. It's not some easily-dismissed Internet Outrage Phenomenon that can be linked to through easily-ignored twitter hashtags and similar tizzying stupidity. It's the overall 'background noise' on how women are supposed to be depicted in media, going on all over the place. It's social pressure - such as that of the atmosphere or white noise, not social force, like a hammer. Not that I disagree with Disney's decision to end an unhealthy obsession over the costume.

So... I guess we are showing by having this conversation in the first place.

Something I have a problem with in discussions of feminism (and this is an "External baggage" thing, not wholly related to this particular conversation) is when avoiding sexually-objectifying women moves from that to shaming and suppressing the female form. This came up in the Stormtrooper commander's armor. Stormtrooper men wear boobplate armor that reflects the underlying anatomy. Why don't stormtrooper women? This is a common thing in discussion of sci-fi/fantasy armors. (It doesn't help that some idiots think women have dicks over their ribcage instead of chests)

My take.

sexuality is part of life and being human.

Showing sexuality or a sexual aspect is showing an aspect of well humanity.

To try and deny that sexuality and sex is natural seems very odd to me and almost puritanical like some abstinence pushing religious group with the whole "Sex is bad, no sex before marriage"

If you're over sensitive or easily offended best skip this video illustrating the kind of people I mean.

I mean if people were going to try and take umbrage at something I'd have honestly thought it would have been the symbolism of her white outfit at the start due to it's common link to the idea of purity and virginity and how sacred such things are to some, which for the longest time such ideas actually restricted Women's sexual agency.

I mean if you want to talk about symbolism it's Leia in the slave outfit that kills planetary mob boss Jabba the Hutt in almost a symbolic act of proving she still had power and agency of her own meanwhile in the white outfit she's captured and Damseled.

(Checks watch)...So, everybody convinced that their opposites are irredeemable in their ignorance, malicious in their intent, cemented in their closed-mindedness, and that they were fully justified in their preconceptions again?

I mean, if you really feel that a metal bikini is the fulcrum on which so much rides that it's necessary to become incandescently ballistic about it, being either the final straw before the world slides into either feminist tyranny or the universal acceptance of female slavery, far be it from me to stand in your way.

But if those ideas seem, perhaps, the tiniest bit hyperbolic, maybe you could grant those who disagree with you the slightest shred of humanity, perhaps even try to find some common ground? Make actual progress? Expand some horizons?

Look, I'm not claiming to be above this kind of thing, or that I've never gotten overly heated in an argument that wasn't worth the trouble. But to see this kind of spite and sneering, just outside the boundaries of the terms of use, over and over again, doesn't convince me of the peerless enlightenment and unassailable goodness of anyone participating. It just makes me tired.

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
Well one thing I certainly feel horrible about is that, apparently in addition to not knowing the definitions of certain words, I was also incorrect about you even using those words in your posts that I quoted you using them in.

I suppose that means that I'm not actually reading you using "disingenuous" in this post that I'm quoting?

Does that also mean that I'm not seeing you saying (paraphrase) "we should discount the opinions of people who strenuously disagree with certain feminists"?

Like I said, don't worry about it. We all make mistakes in our attempts at blindly charging forward at those evil people who think that a woman might be wrong and be using crappy arguments, especially when they're criticizing counterfeit feminists while said crappy arguments are little more than a copy of what anti-feminists would write.

...Well, not "all," really. More like some, with some grammatical workings to make it fit.

Though if you'd like, I could change the description of your recent posts from disingenuous to just blindly ignorant of what other people are actually writing. Those are really the only two options when I write "I think the author's wrong because her arguments are bad" and you come away with this whole thing of yours.

ThatOtherGirl:
There has been a fairly significant wave of pressure coming from parents over the past year and a half on the slave Leia issue. It's been much talked about and very well covered, I'm surprised you haven't noticed it, seeing how much you seem to care about feminism.

And I'm surprised that if it was such a fairly significant wave of pressure that has been much talked about and very well covered, you decided to commit the cardinal sin of telling rather than showing. Because it seems like the latter would be really easy to do.

A cardinal sin? Wow, that's a bit over dramatic. I have no interest in forum sparing with you. Just thought you might want to know your ignorance of the issue was showing. You could just google it. I mean, if it was really something you were interested in beyond simply winning the argument at hand you would end up doing that anyway.

I'm not sure how anything she said could be construed as Anti-feminist, aside from a snipe at people who seek to use "feminism' to deprive women of control over their own lives and bodies.

crimson5pheonix:
You HAVE said that she's pandering. You HAVE said that she's disingenuous. You HAVE said that her opinion can be ignored.

I wasn't aware pandering and disengenuous were now horrible charges that one must never level at anyone ever lest they wish to insist that they don't hold any of the opinions they're actually stating. Though let's be clear, she is very much pandering to the crowd of people who cheer every time someone criticizes the "morality police" and "censorship" and let's just say that I hope that she was being disingenuous when she used those arguments, because being sincere in there use is much worse. And I guess I said her opinion can be discounted, though I'm not sure why discounting (or ignoring) someone's opinion when it's supported poorly is bad.

What we can INFER is that you do not believe that people can legitimately hold on to a view counter to yours.

Oh no, I very much believe people can legitimately hold a view counter to mine. I don't believe that all these people in the world who disagree with me are just being incredibly dishonest as part of a conspiracy to combat monotony. That said, some of their arguments are more than capable of being what could, I guess, be called illegitimate.

You do not believe a woman can hold on to this opinion unless it was for money.

And what do we infer this from, exactly? Because I accused a single woman of pandering to an audience through the use of particular words and rhetoric that do just that?

This is what counterfeit feminism is. Your argument is not a constructive one. It's not even an innocent disagreement. It's a destructive contradiction based on the idea that she is inherently wrong.

I wasn't aware that pointing out that her arguments are poor is a destructive contradiction based on the idea that she is inherently wrong. I'm not surprised at this point since I don't seem to be the only one ignoring things, though at least I'm not constantly misrepresenting people based upon that.

It is the argument that women should only hold certain opinions, or at least that they can't hold certain other opinions. It is not the argument that advances female empowerment or equality, it's the argument that stratifies women into "right" or "wrong".

That certainly is an argument about that. What wonderful, fanciful fantasies people have.

If that's not what you meant to say, you should find a different way to say what you mean.

Or maybe you could stop inferring wildly to the point where "I'll discount her opinion because it's poorly supported and filled with pandering rhetoric" is turned into "no woman is allowed to have an opinion contrary to mine!"

If you want to say you didn't say what I quoted, deal with your own conscience.

It's surprisingly easy to deal with a clean conscience.

Scow2:
... that's not the sort of pressure we're talking about. It's not some easily-dismissed Internet Outrage Phenomenon that can be linked to through easily-ignored twitter hashtags and similar tizzying stupidity. It's the overall 'background noise' on how women are supposed to be depicted in media, going on all over the place. It's social pressure - such as that of the atmosphere or white noise, not social force, like a hammer. Not that I disagree with Disney's decision to end an unhealthy obsession over the costume.

And, naturally, it can't possibly be that people at Disney happen to just want this on their own. They must have felt forced to by this pressure of background noise to do it. After all, it's going on all over the place and it'd be incredibly egotistical to assume that everyone in power agreed with your point of view that a 30 year old outfit needs to be constantly made and all female characters need to have big, noticeable boob-shaped armor bits on their chests.

Oh, and also prove it all, since you felt the need to ask me to prove that someone was being disingenuous.

Something I have a problem with in discussions of feminism (and this is an "External baggage" thing, not wholly related to this particular conversation) is when avoiding sexually-objectifying women moves from that to shaming and suppressing the female form. This came up in the Stormtrooper commander's armor. Stormtrooper men wear boobplate armor that reflects the underlying anatomy. Why don't stormtrooper women? This is a common thing in discussion of sci-fi/fantasy armors. (It doesn't help that some idiots think women have dicks over their ribcage instead of chests)

So because the Stormtrooper armor had slight bumps on their chest piece in the original, the female Stormtroopers should have boobs on it, for no other rhyme or reason than because that's the only way it can match the men's? Though, you'll note that the new movies (you know, where this commander you want to be walking around with stupid looking plastic boobs sticking out in front of her actually plays a role) have no bumps.

ThatOtherGirl:
A cardinal sin? Wow, that's a bit over dramatic. I have no interest in forum sparing with you. Just thought you might want to know your ignorance of the issue was showing. You could just google it. I mean, if it was really something you were interested in beyond simply winning the argument at hand you would end up doing that anyway.

Hey, if you don't feel like performing the seemingly easy task of linking something from this well-covered year and a half long bit of public pressuring, that's okay. Though I wouldn't consider asking for links to be forum sparring.

I'm glad the new armor is consistent, but your dismissal of the female figure as 'stupid' is what I'm talking about.

Scow2:
I'm glad the new armor is consistent, but your dismissal of the female figure as 'stupid' is what I'm talking about.

I'm dismissing poorly designed armor that happens to overwhelmingly find its way to female characters. That you want to conflate that with the female figure is your issue. My issue is that it makes no sense from a practical standpoint, seems to be born out of complete ignorance of female anatomy, and is just so completely uninspired and boring at this point.

And that latter bit is the most annoying, because the idiots in charge of designing female armor up to this point have been so obsessed with making sure we're always aware of boobs, and that the female character always has a sexy armor design that they've taken what could have been an interesting design for a unique, stylistic armor and made it more common than armor that actually looks like actual armor. I shouldn't be impressed when I see a female character in something resembling real armor, but I am, and it's the fault of all the people who think that boobs are a necessary component of a female character's appearance no matter what she's actually wearing at the time.

LifeCharacter:
snip

And do you not see the problem with just assuming somebody shouldn't be listened to because you disagree with them? Do you not see the problem with just assuming a woman doesn't believe their own opinion? Isn't that what modern feminists have been talking about?

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
You HAVE said that she's pandering. You HAVE said that she's disingenuous. You HAVE said that her opinion can be ignored.

I wasn't aware pandering and disengenuous were now horrible charges that one must never level at anyone ever lest they wish to insist that they don't hold any of the opinions they're actually stating. Though let's be clear, she is very much pandering to the crowd of people who cheer every time someone criticizes the "morality police" and "censorship" and let's just say that I hope that she was being disingenuous when she used those arguments, because being sincere in there use is much worse. And I guess I said her opinion can be discounted, though I'm not sure why discounting (or ignoring) someone's opinion when it's supported poorly is bad.

So you're saying you know Liana K better than she herself does?

Or do you think it's insane that she doesn't sing in tune to what others have been saying?

Or is it just you're worried that people might start saying that Feminism can be self critical and isn't in fact a unified social class of people and that people might start to look and realise that in fact it never was the case as was seen with the two sides in the feminist porn wars?

Because it's just that, those attitudes being played out again. 2nd wave has somehow come back and now actual 3rd wave are arguing against it again.

Is it such a horrible situation for people not to have unified views to not "Listen and Believe" and take on blind faith to what some proclaimed leaders say just because it's for "The greater good"?

Is it really a terrible situation to believe some-one can both be pro sex and a feminist and maybe sex is a natural thing not some patriarchal monster that some of the more radical peoplep[1] out there believe?

LifeCharacter:

What we can INFER is that you do not believe that people can legitimately hold on to a view counter to yours.

Oh no, I very much believe people can legitimately hold a view counter to mine. I don't believe that all these people in the world who disagree with me are just being incredibly dishonest as part of a conspiracy to combat monotony. That said, some of their arguments are more than capable of being what could, I guess, be called illegitimate.

As are many of those pushing for it. It's funny people worry about the idea of sexualised figures. When I worked on a campsite we had some campers from Italy. Some of the stuff they said with their own kids about prompted some of the English campers to ask them to stop. The point they gave was that honestly it's an entirely different attitude they have to sex as do many other European countries. This was in the UK which is considered far less conservative than the US. In other words it's still a very conservative attitude being displayed by many in the US regarding sex. It's still got this stigma. It's still seen as to an extent Sinful in some areas of the US.

There's plenty of illegitimate arguments about. One of the most illegitimate it seems is that somehow kids are fine to be taught how sex is wrong, evil and sinful but not prepared for later in life and told about the idea of the age of consent and that when they're old enough (meeting the age of consent) they should feel free to make their choice about if they're ready and when they're ready and not feel ashamed of part of nature.

LifeCharacter:

You do not believe a woman can hold on to this opinion unless it was for money.

And what do we infer this from, exactly? Because I accused a single woman of pandering to an audience through the use of particular words and rhetoric that do just that?

This is what counterfeit feminism is. Your argument is not a constructive one. It's not even an innocent disagreement. It's a destructive contradiction based on the idea that she is inherently wrong.

I wasn't aware that pointing out that her arguments are poor is a destructive contradiction based on the idea that she is inherently wrong.

It is if the idea she's wrong came first and not after you looked over the arguments.

LifeCharacter:

Scow2:
... that's not the sort of pressure we're talking about. It's not some easily-dismissed Internet Outrage Phenomenon that can be linked to through easily-ignored twitter hashtags and similar tizzying stupidity. It's the overall 'background noise' on how women are supposed to be depicted in media, going on all over the place. It's social pressure - such as that of the atmosphere or white noise, not social force, like a hammer. Not that I disagree with Disney's decision to end an unhealthy obsession over the costume.

And, naturally, it can't possibly be that people at Disney happen to just want this on their own. They must have felt forced to by this pressure of background noise to do it. After all, it's going on all over the place and it'd be incredibly egotistical to assume that everyone in power agreed with your point of view that a 30 year old outfit needs to be constantly made and all female characters need to have big, noticeable boob-shaped armor bits on their chests.

So what other 30 year old figure designs are they cancelling?

crimson5pheonix:
If you didn't think those were horrible charges, why did you try saying that you didn't say them?

Why did I say that I didn't say she doesn't believe what she wrote? Mostly because I didn't. At least, from what I can tell, but you clearly see the truth of existence where I say the words that you ascribe to me.

If you think people can legitimately hold a counter position, why do you immediately assume she doesn't hold her opinion?

I immediately assumed she was pandering, which I guess in your mind that's intent on semantics despite not being very good at it means that I accused her of not really holding that opinion. It's a shame that you can easily pander while holding the opinion you're pandering too. I have no problem believing that Milo Yiannopoulas believes the vile bullshit that streams from his throat even if everything he says is pandering to the scum who read what he writes.

And do you not see the problem with just assuming somebody shouldn't be listened to because you disagree with them? Do you not see the problem with just assuming a woman doesn't believe their own opinion? Isn't that what modern feminists have been talking about?

Except she was listened to. That's the thing you constantly brush over in your attempts to act as though I've just dismissed her out of hand for disagreeing with me. I listened to her and found her arguments to be terrible and unconvincing. But then I don't actually expect much from you at this point since you've once again decided that not thinking that this one particular woman's argument was shit and that she's pandering (especially through her word choice) to a certain audience means that I think that every woman doesn't believe their own opinion.

The_Kodu:
So you're saying you know Liana K better than she herself does?

Not really, but just pretend I said yes. I expect people to do it now anyway, so might as well give my permission.

Or do you think it's insane that she doesn't sing in tune to what others have been saying?

I disagree with her position and find the arguments she uses to support her position to be poor, which is naturally read as exactly what you said.

Stuff

I'm not really interested in your perspective on the workings of feminism and how the feminist wars are upon us because a woman called anyone who dares disagree with her about a fucking slave outfit a counterfeit feminist. But:

youdon'thavetobesexnegativetothinkthatslaveleiaisn'tthegreatestthingever,pullingsomerandombullshitblogandactingasthoughitsrepresentativeofsomethingmorethanthatonepersonispathetic,nooneeverclaimedfeminismwasunifiedandnotself-criticalbutkeeppretendingotherwiseitseemsfun,idon'tcareaboutwhatitalianssaidatyourcampsiteandwhatbeliefsyouwanttoascribetomeaboutsexed.

It is if the idea she's wrong came first and not after you looked over the arguments.

Well good thing I read her article first and then came to the idea that I disagreed with her and that her arguments didn't convince me otherwise. Though we should assume that I'm lying because you know me better than I do and you just know that I didn't actually bother to look over the actual arguments I've been talking about.

So what other 30 year old figure designs are they cancelling?

No idea, don't really care, but feel free to find out on your own.

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
If you didn't think those were horrible charges, why did you try saying that you didn't say them?

Why did I say that I didn't say she doesn't believe what she wrote? Mostly because I didn't. At least, from what I can tell, but you clearly see the truth of existence where I say the words that you ascribe to me.

If you think people can legitimately hold a counter position, why do you immediately assume she doesn't hold her opinion?

I immediately assumed she was pandering, which I guess in your mind that's intent on semantics despite not being very good at it means that I accused her of not really holding that opinion. It's a shame that you can easily pander while holding the opinion you're pandering too. I have no problem believing that Milo Yiannopoulas believes the vile bullshit that streams from his throat even if everything he says is pandering to the scum who read what he writes.

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
A bunch of people telling a woman that her opinion is bad or wrong or disingenuous. Is this what feminists are going on about?

Yes, as it turns out, feminism is about telling someone with bad, disingenuous arguments that they're wrong when they call anyone with a different opinion of a particular outfit a counterfeit feminist and rely on little more than what amounts to a checklist of anti-feminist rhetoric to support it. That she's a woman just means that we use feminine pronouns when addressing her.

Previous posts aside, I do actually know the meaning of disingenuous. I can read and comprehend your posts. Since you are denying up and down that you've said this, I suggested that you change the way you type.

And do you not see the problem with just assuming somebody shouldn't be listened to because you disagree with them? Do you not see the problem with just assuming a woman doesn't believe their own opinion? Isn't that what modern feminists have been talking about?

Except she was listened to. That's the thing you constantly brush over in your attempts to act as though I've just dismissed her out of hand for disagreeing with me. I listened to her and found her arguments to be terrible and unconvincing. But then I don't actually expect much from you at this point since you've once again decided that not thinking that this one particular woman's argument was shit and that she's pandering (especially through her word choice) to a certain audience means that I think that every woman doesn't believe their own opinion.

That doesn't change that your argument is poor and thinks less of women.

crimson5pheonix:
That doesn't change that your argument is poor and thinks less of women.

Well, except you've said precisely nothing about my actual argument other than this weird thing where saying that the arguments of one woman aren't very good mean that I must think less of all women everywhere. And the thing is that I'm not even sure how that works outside of the mind of someone who thinks that every single woman is the same and has the same opinions and makes the same arguments, because, otherwise, criticizing the poor arguments and badly supported opinions of one woman wouldn't mean doing the same to every last woman in existence. Who knows, maybe you do think that.

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
That doesn't change that your argument is poor and thinks less of women.

Well, except you've said precisely nothing about my actual argument other than this weird thing where saying that the arguments of one woman aren't very good mean that I must think less of all women everywhere. And the thing is that I'm not even sure how that works outside of the mind of someone who thinks that every single woman is the same and has the same opinions and makes the same arguments, because, otherwise, criticizing the poor arguments and badly supported opinions of one woman wouldn't mean doing the same to every last woman in existence. Who knows, maybe you do think that.

Defensiveness aside, you're the one saying that a woman's opinion doesn't matter.

crimson5pheonix:
Defensiveness aside, you're the one saying that a woman's opinion doesn't matter.

Complete misrepresentations aside, I'm the one who says that this particular woman's opinion is founded on poor arguments and therefore can be disregarded. Which, to someone utterly incapable of honestly representing what another person has said, means that I've declared that we should all disregard the opinions of all women everywhere. I would say to have a good night, but I'm worried you'll twist that into me threatening to beat everyone who disagrees with me to death with the moon, so I'll just leave it. Also, I wouldn't really mean it so why bother?

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
Defensiveness aside, you're the one saying that a woman's opinion doesn't matter.

Complete misrepresentations aside, I'm the one who says that this particular woman's opinion is founded on poor arguments and therefore can be disregarded. Which, to someone utterly incapable of honestly representing what another person has said, means that I've declared that we should all disregard the opinions of all women everywhere. I would say to have a good night, but I'm worried you'll twist that into me threatening to beat everyone who disagrees with me to death with the moon, so I'll just leave it. Also, I wouldn't really mean it so why bother?

You're the one telling people what to think. It's actually perfectly possible to disagree with someone without assuming they're just being paid, or that they're bad people or anything similar.

crimson5pheonix:
You're the one telling people what to think. It's actually perfectly possible to disagree with someone without assuming they're just being paid, or that they're bad people or anything similar.

I'm aware. But then, that would be sort of clear if you bothered to actually respond to what I had actually written rather than whatever fantasy best suits your desire to complain about someone daring to criticize someone's opinion and the crappy arguments she based it on.

LifeCharacter:

crimson5pheonix:
You're the one telling people what to think. It's actually perfectly possible to disagree with someone without assuming they're just being paid, or that they're bad people or anything similar.

I'm aware. But then, that would be sort of clear if you bothered to actually respond to what I had actually written rather than whatever fantasy best suits your desire to complain about someone daring to criticize someone's opinion and the crappy arguments she based it on.

Several people have disagreed with her in this thread. You're the one I'm talking to. The other people managed to make more reasonable arguments.

WinterWyvern:
If she said:

"I like the bikini outfit because it's sexy and cool, and I think it's dumb to hide sexy costumes, so I'll wear it even more in protest for Disney's dumb sex-ophobic plan"

....I couldn't have agreed more.

But no, she said:

"I wear the bikini outfit because IT'S EMPOWERING!!!"

....and that's kinda ridiculous.

So...if the crux of her argument was how you feel and now how she feels about said metallic clothing you'd have been fine with it?

I see Disney's marketing not as sexphobic, but as number crunching. They probably aren't selling too many RotJ figures anymore. It also lets them stop any argument of "why are you still sexing up Leia" if they sell those figures alongside the new episode VII lead. I'd be surprised if they try and crack down on Halloween costumes and the like (sales are sales), but it really just seems like a company phasing out an old visual for a new one - not too much different from moving between Optimus Prime toys.

And while you might not see the outfit as empowering, its a repeat of the visual trend set in the first movie. There, you have Leia in a white dress, as the personification of princess in distress, take control of her own rescue (despite not wearing armor) and get everyone out. With RotJ, you have Leia again doing more than her clothing (a core component of characterization in films) would imply she can do - the similarly dressed Twi'lek can do nothing as she dies. Leia takes control when opportunity arises, using the only tool available to her - the chain attached to the bikini. Whether or not you see it as a symbol of feminism is irrelevant - it's a core scene of a beloved character rising above her current station to handle a problem, gaining power from a disadvantage.

LifeCharacter:

I disagree with her position and find the arguments she uses to support her position to be poor, which is naturally read as exactly what you said.

Ok then why do you disagree?

e.g.
Do you disagree because you think it's better for kids to not have a "sexualised" Leia doll?
Does the outfit offend or upset you personally?
Do you believe the outfit itself is a regressive thing?

LifeCharacter:

Stuff

I'm not really interested in your perspective on the workings of feminism and how the feminist wars are upon us because a woman called anyone who dares disagree with her about a fucking slave outfit a counterfeit feminist. But:

you don't have to be sex negative to think that slave leia isn't the greatest thing ever,pulling some random bullshit blog and acting as though its representative of something more than that one person is pathetic,no one ever claimed feminism was unified and not self critical but keeppretending otherwise it seems fun ,i don't care about what italians said at your campsite and what beliefs you want to ascribe to me about sexed.

You might not have tried to say Feminsim should be unified by I do know someone who has said just that.

Watch from about the 2 minute on wards. You'll see the face of one of the "modern" branches of feminism talk about how she's concerned with the direction of internet feminism and it's tendency towards a form of hyper individualism. She then goes on to talk about how choice feminism is harmful because of the potential impact on other womens' lives of those choices. The claim is by doing so you're supporting a system of oppression. She then talks about how patriarchy limits womens choices somehow.

I know you hate me saying about what I see but I know female scientists. I know a female professional BMX rider. I know female computer programmer. 2 Doctors. 2 in the army. A psychiatrist. A lab Manager. A legal adviser.A dentist. A bio-medical scientist. and many more.

Seems like the only choices that aren't paying is activist and you know what's funny? it's the same people who complain about the lack of women in STEM while happy to have 80-90% of Gender studies courses being female and never wonder if that might be part of the reason.

That's what it seemingly boils down to. All those women I know in other fields that are normally male dominated it's lessening their work. It's suggesting they made a bad choice. It's suggesting that them making a choice and letting nothing stop them was wrong. It's saying the "right" choice should have been to protest, go do gender studies and then wonder why nothing is changing.

You can't give course places to people who don't apply.

You can't give course places to people who don't have the skills and will likely fail.

So this is where I'm coming from.

This is why it might be worth looking into the feminist wars again and seeing how this all went down before.

One of the best known female leaders of the past decade wasn't a product of some affirmative action who celebrated being the countries first female leader. She was a female scientist who helped develop Mr Whippy Ice cream who was more proud she was the first scientist and at Prime Minister. To her it didn't matter she'd been born female, that wasn't what she saw as an achievement.

If people don't have a choice, people don't have the choice to help change things.

LifeCharacter:

It is if the idea she's wrong came first and not after you looked over the arguments.

Well good thing I read her article first and then came to the idea that I disagreed with her and that her arguments didn't convince me otherwise. Though we should assume that I'm lying because you know me better than I do and you just know that I didn't actually bother to look over the actual arguments I've been talking about.

I never said I did know you better. I put forward a simple statement about the problem of inherent bias in observation of arguments.

LifeCharacter:

So what other 30 year old figure designs are they cancelling?

No idea, don't really care, but feel free to find out on your own.

Well my counter argument was if the reason is the figure is old and that's the reason it's being retired surely to support your own argument you'd be able to show it's not the only figure being stopped.

How about we all take a step back and then have this discussion when we can talk without out making it personal?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here