When your husband is harsh, respond with the power of femininity.

Gotcha.

Dalai Lama to BBC: female successor possible but only if she is attractive

Innit weird how every single big religious figure is a product of their own culture. Take off their robes, and their standard of piety is judged according to their cultural notions. Women's role determined according to their culture. What is honorable, what is good, etc. You would think after thousands of world cultures that a truly religious being would be a vessel beyond all that bullshit. With an ethics we couldn't even understand at first, but that would shine a clear light to something beyond ourselves.

No, it appears to be standard douchebag.

I'm just saying.

It worked for this former porn star turned preacher:

Attachment 53481Attachment 53480

Okay, now I know this is WAAAAAAAY out of date.
But someone I know posted a link to some sort of behind-the-scenes Beastie Boys video.
It was the '80s. I listened to them in the '80s.
Shoot, I listened to them in 1992, when I went on my l'il solitary roadtrip to Wales to celebrate my 30th birthday (This was BC - before Cellar.) But I also listened to Dolly Parton, Carter USM, The Pet Shop Boys and various musicals, as well as Radio One.

Anyway, I watched it, expecting to laugh.
Hahaha, Beastie Boys, with their attitude and everything. I didn't expect them to be Guardian (Huffington Post?) readers or bleeding heart liberals or sitting knitting or anything. I mean, I'd listened to their lyrics. At the time, and later. And I even sang along. In an ironic way, y'get me (no, not really).

But it really shocked me. Not just the way they treated the women (girls) who came backstage, but the way the girls were so desperate to be "cool" that they let themselves and the appearances which they'd surely contrived to be attractive to get backstage, be trashed by silly boys, with whipped cream, honey, whisky, whatever.

I'm not specifically making a point about their appearance, but that was what struck me as most ironic - that they would work on it all day (I never got hair that high - and I tried) and then just pretend it was fun when it was ruined.
It was acceptable in the '80s and all that.

I'm certainly not doing a Chrissie Hyndes.
I'm just saying what I started watching as a laugh, something that exists in my timeline, was really quite shocking to me.

I may have enjoyed Licensed to Ill, but I'd never have let them Boys into my house.
Cat in the Hat and all that.

It doesn't have to be a Beastie Boys or Stones, you'd be amazed what the groupies will endure for a nobody garage band. :facepalm:

.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Oh, and: hahahahahahaha

yeah, I liked that.

The power of women.

British women be sneaky, trained in them jiu-jitsus and shit, gettin so a guy can't cop a feel anymore. :o

Why should just boys be robbed of the lunch money, and piggybanks cracked, by the makers of action figures. Mattel feels girls should be abused equally. To that end, they hired women to design female superhero 12" dolls, and 6" action figures, from Mattel's agreement with Warner Brothers' DC comics.
So is this a step up, or down, for girls?

Sideways. Maybe a little up.

The female characters should be released with the superhero lines, in the same release, and the same style. If you get a Justice League set, Wonder Woman shouldn't be the one who looks like an alien.

But it's a step up from just not releasing the female characters at all.

See, you're a guy and think the look of alien Wonder Woman is a bad thing. I agree with you, but I'm also a guy.

Women apparently designed these. The test is, do girls like the way they look?

That's not my issue; she would look like an alien when standing with the rest of the Justice League members. Because the male characters are from a different set.

I don't like that they separate the lines in a way that if kids play with them together, the difference between the male and female characters is extremely highlighted. It can make her seem like she's not really part of the team.

Now, I'm not sure whether WB has been particularly bad on this front, but it is a fairly common problem.

Yes, in the past the males all had cool unique weapons, but if there was female in the set, her weapon was apparently being nearly naked.

The tagline in the article is: In that context, this line is great as a special release. But if they continue having the porny versions of the characters, or skipping them altogether, in their other lines, then this is just a stunt.

I hate them.
I have never, not ever had calf muscles wider than my thigh muscles.
The proportions would have had me thrown out of art class. These things are mutants. They are not super-heroes they are monsters.

Then again, I only used to read DC Vertigo comics, so I never liked the caped crowd anyway. I guess they're aimed at the Bratz buyers. And at least these gals kick arse, rather than simply get their clothes changed.

We used to play Star Wars.
And when I say play, I mean we didn't have action figures (okay, the rich kids did, but they weren't allowed to bring them to school) we were live-action. And yes, I was cool enough to be allowed to play Return of the Jedi with the boys. Because I wasn't too nice to kick.

I hope I didn't mentally scar Trevor or Nathan for life. It's not my fault they were relegated to the role of Stormtroopers...

And my calves were still thinner than my thighs.

I agree with the monkey of cheer. One thing that struck me as well, is that, whilst male superheroes are generally depicted looking ready and psyched for battle - these dolls are all smiling cheerfully. I quite like the catwoman doll. And the girl that hangs out with the Joker (can't recall her name) looks suitably manic and like she'd probably do some serious damage with that mallet - the others look a little too demure and pretty.

Serious step up from no female figures, or female figures designed for the male gaze - but they totally need integrating into the main line.

Also... That's not a wonder woman smile. It completely misses her tone and character. This is a wonder woman smile:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-M...LUterror07.gif

I don't care if Wonder Woman has big boobies.
I have some. It happens occasionally and it's allowed.
I don't care if some of the female superheroes/ villains don't cover up completely. Not all the males do. So that's okay.
The thing I don't like is that all those dolls - and they really are dolls - look the same.

You don't make The Thing look like Superman, or Hellboy look like Peter Parker or Dream of the Endless look like Batman (I mixed DC and Marvel there, so sue me.)
So why make all the DC dolls look like Barbie dressing up for Halloween with unfeasibly thin legs?
I'd rather see a Wonder Woman with Serena William's physique in the old costume of bustier and hotpants than this covered up travesty. And no, I have nothing against slim/ skinny/ slight women. Was one myself for years.

I just don't like this cookie-cutter approach.
With a slant towards smaller = better.
Even though I know male characters have some bias towards bigger = better it does not apply across the board, see refs above.
Swamp Thing is not the most popular character, despite the fantastic work of Grant Morrison (yeah, okay, I do have some comic book chops.)

I'll shut up now.

You're right. It still seems a bit like their primary attribute is that they are female.

I remember having a really heated argument with some comicbook guys on some comments thread somewhere. There had been a story about, I think, the uber sexualised Wonder Woman cover art on some commemorative issue. The artist, as I recall, was best known for erotic fantasy art and there was some kickback from some sections of the fanbase (not just women, some men too) that this was a step in the wrong direction.

Cue some fairly angry voices on either side of an argument about whether or not DC and Marvel should be presenting female superheroes in a way that might appeal more to female fans, or whether they should stop buckling to SJW pressure.

I remember a few people (myself included) had made points about the different physicality of male and female super heroes - the way male super heroes tended to be portrayed as powerful and shown in fighting poses - whereas female super heroes, even when fighting tend to stick their arses invitingly out and 'camera'wards. And when standing ready for action, male superheroes look like they can impose themselves upon the enemy, where the female characters tend to adopt a more sultry pose. It's like, even in a fight to the death they are more concerned with presenting femininity than beating the shit out of their opponent.

There were a number of guys who objected to the idea of women being presented as strong fighters who can battle it out with their enemies, because it's not believable. Men are stronger than women - showing a woman beating up the male villain snapped them out of the fantasy because they didn't believe it. It jarred too much. They preferred female super heroes who used other means to subdue their enemy because they found thatmore believable.

Man flying through the sky and putting out erupting volcanoes with his breath? Groovy, sign me up. Man bitten by radioactive spider becomes spider man, scurrying up and down walls and squirting web? Awesome, I'm right there. Chick strong enough to fight a man? Just not realistic enough.

Is this going to be about how fictional characters depicted in idealized physical forms the vast majority of humanity could never live up too are harmful and objectifying when their gender happens to be female because their idealized form isn't equally objectified and judged on strength?

No - it's about what do we as readers want to fantasise about, and who are the comics aimed at? It's also about, despite my earlier comments, a degree of 'realism' or believability. It doesn't have to meet the real world's standards of logic and possibility, but it needs to have internal logic. If a female character uses their sexuality to seduce, I actually don't have a problem with that if it's in the right context. There is nothing wrong with the femme fatale trope - anymore than there is something wrong with the strong, silent male character trope. What I object to is that the female characters are expected to be female first, and heroes second. If they're fighting, with fists and weapons in a flurry of violent action and bodies flying about the place, then the sultry, arse-out, or knees together with hip crooked and one foot tipped poses don't fit the context.

It isn't really about women being objectified (except in the most abstract sense) - it's about almost all female characters being drawn and conceived primarily to appeal to a male audience, in such a way as to be off-putting or alienating for girls and women who also like super hero stuff. In a stable of super heroes, I don't see why some of the female heros can't be kickass heroes first, and females second.

The comic book depictions of men often emphasise certain aspects of idealised masculinity, in both character and form. But that idealised masculinity is in sync with notions of heroism - because they are about agency and action. The comic book depictions of women also emphasise aspects of idealised femininity, but they are at odds with notions of heroism because they are about seduction and pleasure.

Seduction and pleasure - works for the Black Widow and Cat Woman - really not necessary for Spider Woman.

That's the look of, don't-need-a-grimace-or-scowl-ready-for-anything-I-can-handle-it, confidence. ;)
And class too.

Those guys show up on every IMDB board where a female character beats up a male, and bemoan their lost masculinity.

From now on all genders are equal: some are just more equal than others.

You're welcome.

You pig. :p:

Agreed.


Also, to add to my earlier point about the different idealised forms of masculinity and femininity and going back to the question of who the audience might be - whilst both male and female characters are presented in an idealised and unobtainable form, that does not make them the same. The idealised masculine form presented in the comics is not aimed at female readers for their delcetation (objectification) it is presented for consumption by other men for whom that fantasy of an other self is enjoyable. The women are also presented in an idealised form, but like the male characters, they are also usually designed to appeal to a male fantasy of women, rather than a female fantasy of self. Hence attributes of physical strength and power tend to be undercut with poses of seduction (arse stuck out and towards the reader, glamour model style) or coquettishness (hip tipped out, one leg straight and the other crooked in with foot tilted inwards).

Things have changed and are changing - mainly because of the way female heroes are now depicted on screen. It is now possible to show a thoroughly kick-ass female character and it fit the world she's in and the idea that she is a force to be reckoned with. Characters like Shaw on Person of Interest (not a super hero - but the show is basically caped crusaders template withoutthe capes) and Starbuck on BSG are characters I'd have sold my soul to see as a young girl.

I remember when the Tank Girl film came out. She was one of the first really, properly awesome female characters I'd ever come across. To have some kind of visual reference for female strength and badassery? Frikkin amazing.

And she was way more overtly sexual than most female comic characters.

Hmmm....

http://www.toymania.com/customcorner...Sasha-CC25.jpg

Care to add flesh to that 'hmmm'?



Also, it's worth considering that some of the movement towards better depictions of female heroes fighting is down to a different approach to fighting more generally on the screen. I love the way screen fighting has changed in recent years - but that's a conversation for a different thread:P

Second from left, hand-shandy Sasha.

Whip me, thrill me, make me clean the bathroom. :whip:

Like what? I looked up Mattel, they have several lines of toys who all have the exact same body type. This is a re-branding done by a woman for girls as action figures, of toys that were already designed for girls as the main target audience.
You could try to argue that the problem is deeper in that these are depicting characters that are designed for the male audience in the first place, and I'll point out that we both just complained that they don't do a very good job depicting those characters in the first place, and that they would look more heroic and strong if they did.
You could argue that the problem is that the executives and marketing and creative teams think this is what the female target audiance wants, and I'll use the starbucks action figure to point out that girls do have a choice of buying more athletic and stronger looking female character action figures, because this is the 2010s and the long tail is rule of law, and yet these aren't very successful or popular among girls, and in fact - judging by the response above - that is actually the one that appeals more to guys.

At that point you usually leave the argument and I try to go a bit meta - perhaps in this case make a point that this is to some extent generational difference, that you would have killed for a Starbucks but I never had a childhood in a world that didn't have Starbucks equivalents, which never actually gets any response not just from you but from nearly anyone - they are structured in a way that don't include clear talking points to jump board from, and I've more . Then I will try to break the silence with a mildly relevant joke or funny link. Probably this one:


Instead, you said you would have killed for a Starbucks character when you were a child. So there - get your inner child a Starbucks action figure.

Sorry, Sasha is the company that makes them.

The person it is a figure of is Katee Sackhoff playing a badass space fighter pilot - Lieutenant Starbucks:

Seriously, trace, I just wanted to know what the 'hmmm' indicated - I wasn't being snarky.

And that's why we can't have gender equality, because some women are too snarky and ruin it for the rest of them.

I didn't think you were, I figured you were on your toes an thinking I might be snarky. Which is not a horrible idea - I am on my toes wondering if the back of my head is going to be snarky at me too.
Honestly I wrote and deleted a few before not being sure which direction to go with - they all felt like they'd lead to dead ends convo cut offs, I was partially hoping you'd jump to a conclusion on what I meant and I was going to see where that went, but lacking that, a BSG starbucks action figure for your inner child seemed like a better dead end then the others.

There was this article "the art of conversation" of an interviewer who had years of talking to philosophers and artists and politicians and whatnot, can't remember his name, though I think he was british.
But I remember he had this really edifying view of it, you know the sort of format that brings something from just under the view into light, like a concept that is on the tip of your tongue but never ad a word getting verbalized into something you can work with and build upon?
His was like that, that there is a dynamic and an art to it, a game in which people take turns to make the rules as they as they go along, building a language within it...
And you see this all the time, in every conversation - imagine any conversation you ever heard, and now imagine hearing it for the first time without knowing who it is from. Think how many questions come to mind - What are the rules of the game? Are fallacies going to be the hammers? Are feelings and authenticity the legitimizing force? What is shared and assumed so easily it's never said? What is referenced outside as a show of common language - tropes or memes or bible verses or philosopher quotes or norse myths or tom and jerry episodes? Where is there friction? In the branches? in the basic foundations? in the direction they approach the shared foundation with? Where do the perspectives struggle to hear each other? What is it they each think they know the other doesn't? All of these are rules that unfold as it goes along, creating a fantastic and very unique game - and it can happen with anyone: From family where the dialogue might have rules so solidified and established they are part of you, to a stranger in the bus where a complete spontaneous game erupts. Remember in mofo? There used to be conversations that went on weeks, months, in a few cases years.

but dead ends... it might be civil, it might be agree to disagree and all that jazz and not letting conflicting opinions about one thing stop from making a doctor who joke later that day....

Listen to twaceur Dani, he knows what's best.

Gotham had a girl win a martial arts contest in a police academy.

Quote:

Sweden’s feminist foreign minister has dared to tell the truth about Saudi Arabia. What happens now concerns us all A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia. As the theocratic kingdom prevents women from travelling, conducting official business or marrying without the permission of male guardians, and as girls can be forced into child marriages where they are effectively raped by old men [...] Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador and stopped issuing visas to Swedish businessmen. The United Arab Emirates joined it. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Muslim-majority states, accused Sweden of failing to respect the world’s ‘rich and varied ethical standards’ — standards so rich and varied, apparently, they include the flogging of bloggers and encouragement of paedophiles. Meanwhile, the Gulf Co-operation Council condemned her ‘unaccept-able interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’ - By Nick Cohen

I am curious to see what do you guys make of this.

Good for her (fixed link here), but it happened months ago, and not much came of it, so it looks like the author's fears were realized.

So... Do you largely agree with it? what do you think of it's point of view and interpretation?

I agree with her, and it's a pity she didn't get more support, but I can safely say that from outside the world of international diplomacy, where speaking precisely is more valued than speaking plainly.

But...

OMG, the fourth annual "Race of Gentlemen" invaded by women... and had fun. :D

An experiment for guys:

Go with another guy to a largely female or at least a mixed gendered social environment. Initially make sure you integrate into the conversation with them and that you two are generally welcomed.
Then when there's a pause, and quickly "check your messages" while starting a stopwatch app on your phone and then putting it back in your pocket. Ask the guy about a recent date he had and how it went.
Don't ask him about her looks. As he goes, ask for additional details about her behavior, her actions, and what she does in life, and continuously judging her about those with the assumption that your friend is looking for a long term partner, pick them apart and extrapolate out loud - what they means about her, about how well/badly she'd treat him, how happy she'd make him, and even what it would mean for your future household or what kind of a parent she'd be.
When the last women leaves the table in discomfort or disgust, stop the timer, and check the results. For a control - do the exact while focusing instead more on how she looks, how far she went and generally stay in line with basic dude questioning.


p.s.
IME the experiment takes 3-17 minutes. As far as the control, your battery will most likely die before you get to stop the stopwatch. A good few of them will feel quite comfortable joining in.

An experiment for guys:

See how long your weird attempt to mimic female behaviour takes to p*ss off everyone around you.
Probably not long.

Hehehehehehe. Well said.

Huh. That is actually more of a loaded statement then the BS I read that weekend I spent investigating the MGTOW movement, surprisingly loaded with much of the same notions though.

But no - thinking about it as female behavior without questioning why is being obtuse. The experiment's purpose is a two fold:

1. Guys come out of it realizing it actually makes sense to do so - judge women for who they are as people includes judging them for how they'd treat the guys as people - and questioning why they normally don't do it.
2. In the same time, it demonstrates that women aren't used to being judged by guys as... Well, people, judged for their potential agency. For the most part the desire for that is a bad cliche of it's greener on the other side of the fence fantasy that breaks down the moment it is put to the test - judging who you are as a human being is a lot more intimate level of judgement then simply judging your intimates.

... shakes head ...
There is a level of shallowness there I care not to enter.

Again? Already? I have to admit the last session was pretty satisfying.. Ok we can go again but give me a few minutes to get in the mood.

Ok, I am ready babe
Oh I am remarkably shallow - for instance if your posts are written with the assumption that other people will gaze into a vision of your knowing eyes and see the marvelous levels of depth that exists behind your artistically minimal output - such layers of depth into you are well beyond my reach.

All I see is someone whose entire expression and content generation comes down to a series of like/dislike about what other people say, like a facebook bot squirming out of water trying to adapt to doing it's thing without an available button.

But maybe I am wrong about you. Luckily for you, my shallow impressions are also quite fragile, paper thin constructs made to break apart by the first sign that they are wrong. In this case it's pretty simple - just say something. Not merely whether you agree or disagree with something someone else said, but a full thought of your own, a reasoning or argument of some sort, an idea or analysis, anything - I don't care whether it agrees with me or not, just something with any amount of meat to it. Even assholes can produce something - I am pretty sure that is not a title that should require grand delusions to be good enough for.

It shouldn't be that hard for someone of your depth - to disprove someone so shallow as to think that if your always on a wheelchair you probably can't stand on your own two feet very well - it's pretty simple - if you can walk walk, get off your ass and prove them wrong.

Maybe I misunderstood your post Trace, but it did seem to be lumping women together as some kind of homogenous whole, entirely separated from the male of the species, who are invited to test and analyse 'women' in that scenario.

Yeh, thanks for that... I read some of it. whatever.

I can sort of see how there might be a notion that experiments/tests are something you do on other species, but I am not convinced that was ever the case... my preferred reading for awhile has been psychology where almost all studies are on groups of people, so I guess I don't quite have that association.
I wonder if you would have had the same association with an alternative response to the square/model poster - quoting a study where hetrosexual women and men where given images of the opposite gender and while different men gave more or less the same rating to women, women gave vastly different ratings to the various men (and then ranting on the implication). Would that have the same implication of treating genders as different species simply because it was accounted for and lumping them up together into statistics? Is the act of examining generalized differences an immediate taboo that must not be looked upon for the wraith of the amazon goddess will smite us all?

I suggested the experiment because having stumbled upon it accidentally by actually doing it. A friend's date for her behavior for things I thought reflect poorly on her as a person and then seen how gradually the women around the table started leaving with facial expresses varying between discomfort and disgust. I was curious and later tried it with several other groups, and each time it works, and I found it both fascinating and disturbing that it does.

Personally I have no doubt that if this was conducted on a large enough population there would be exceptions and it wouldn't be a 100%, and yet I have very little inclination to throw the baby out of the bathwater, or to deny it on the basis of ideological reasoning.

So you're conducting your own little psyche experiments, on unwitting groups of people in a social setting, with no set parameters or control and think you've cracked the code of female behaviour.

And therein lies the difference. In fact, I'd be very interested in reading that study and finding out more about the methodology employed - I find that kind of thing very interesting. I'd also be interested in (and have read many) studies about the psychology of attraction, group dynamics and social hierarchies.

What I don't find interesting, is men treating the women they encounter in their everyday life as labrats or specimens. It is grotesquely dishonest and manipulative to use someone in that fashion. It reminds me very strongly of the attitude many pick-up artists / wingmen exhibit when they talk about women and the various social understandings and interactive tools and strategies to employ when engaging with them.

I'd find it just as revolting if one of the dwellar women suggested all us gals should perform ad hoc psychological experiments on the men in our lives.

You are getting pissy about a post that presents the parameters as well as the control - are you particularly bothered that they were unwitting, s every single person who's entered the visual perception of every other single person in the world? And if it was just day to day pattern recognition without awareness would it have been better? Unless you take a moral stance against the working of human minds in general, then by the process of elimination your disgust comes down to a disgust at awareness - doing what our minds naturally do consciously and knowingly.

And disgust at awareness is problematic... Willful ignorance really has made me puke in the past. Our previous instances of friction surround your offense at my criticism about applying designated walls of ignorance too. And we were friends from before I really understood it as a tool and it's ramifications well enough to have any problem with it... I suppose it makes sense I wouldn't have noticed that. Yay for value differences - always fun.

Hey trace, in case you're curious, it's not the so-called "experimental" nature that's irritating people. It's this kind of bullshit:

You have (sexist, and revealing more than a little anger) assumptions and expectations about how it will go. When pushed on these, you first claim it's to teach the guys a lesson (typical sophomoric urge, by the way, to need to educate the world on why they're not as sophisticated as you are) and then retreat further, into the assertion that it's somehow scientific and therefore innocent and unassailable.

:) There ya go buddy. You're welcome.

I have 'assumptions' on how it went:
One of my two gender-based assumption is generally that for the most part it would continue to repeat itself along gender lines the same way it has so far, while hopefully producing some exceptions along the way. I could be wrong, and would actually like to be wrong.

The other - and the one I view as the cause - is that most men don't naturally judge women on their internal merits, which is why I don't think women are used to being judged by men on their internal merits. Note that the ones who responded by calling it "behaving like women" were sundae and Dana. I stumbled on it by doing it myself the first time around, and I am pretty sure it's not a cause for me to change my gender identity.

As far as been preachy to other guys... Absolutely. Do you disagree that guys should judge women on their internal merit? Who she is as a person? I don't know about you, but when women speak about their relationships, current, past or future, I constantly hear "him treating her right" as a ruler to measure it up by, whether it's herself or her friends. Which is a fantastic thing - one I learned to adopt myself (alongside handbags - seriously pockets are horribly limited). What I never heard is the equivalent said to me as a guy, and have never heard it said to other guys, ever. It may seem obvious, but it surprisingly not. Even guys who do judge women on internal merits more instinctively - including myself - will do so more on the basis of what impresses them, not how good of a human being they are in treating others. So much so that the idea of doing it myself seemed out right alien until it became a solution to a problem. That is worth getting angry over - I don't think that making sure your potential partner is a decent person and looking out for your own emotional well being in thinking how they would treat you should be "behaving like women".

When did I say anything about behaving like a woman?
I don't remember that.

Trace - I get that you are just interested in psychology. But the assumptions that clod points out are reductive in the extreme. That you can sit in a handful of group situations and try this experiment out and then extrapolate that out to predict how 'women' will respond, or indeed how 'men' will respond in general is ludicrous. That you conduct these experiments on people you're socialising with is frankly creepy.

Are these your friends?