Thoughts on this femanons argument?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (43)
sorted by:
Thoughts?
She already lost any chance she had of convincing me in the very first sentence. Which is not even getting into that she then immediately drops the "misogynistic" attack in combination with weasel words like "tends to be." But this is what had already lost me:
That's not what any of this is about. It's not that modern characters aren't "beautiful," it's that they're intentionally, perversely, and maliciously made to be ugly freaks.
Also, yeah, sorry, beauty in fiction is sort of default. It's a fictional character, you want to make them nice and appealing; they likely will be more attractive than average. Because you can do that. Because it's fiction. If you're going to design an ugly character, at least have that ugliness play a roll in character design. Beauty is fine on it's own because people like beauty. They're trying to flip the script and make ugliness the default, but without bringing an explanation or any other character traits to the table. That's just a straight downgrade. And, again, that's not even touching the other issues, like the terrible writing that tends to go along with the ideology, or that the same people who hate beauty also hate the people who are playing the game.
Basically, this poster is just dodging the real issue. Just because "combat isn't clean, elegant, or sexy," doesn't mean female characters need to be ugly freaks...while men are still generally relatively attractive, by the way. She's either ideologically captured, or being intentionally misleading. People aren't making scarred or bruised characters, they're making, again, ugly freaks. That's got nothing to do with "combat," and the whole thing is a stupid dodge.
I'd say this poster is equating intentional ugliness with character nuance and artistic freedom, but that would be giving her too much credit, since she's not willing to even acknowledge the intentional ugliness as that would blow apart her whole argument.
She hits all the usual stuff like 'misogyny,' 'male gamers,' 'porn,' 'unrealistic beauty standards,' 'making all the ugly women feel good,' and the very disingenuous aforementioned 'artistic freedom.'
TL;DR: Thoughts? It's the bog standard nonsense goalpost shifting.
That's feminism in a nutshell.
It's 100% disingenuous arguments and projection. There's really no reason to "debate" them except for the audience.
The only way I'd respond to this is, "yawn. Accusations of misogyny and goalpost shifting. Whatever."
I think what's going on is quite simple. It's self-esteem.
People that are happy with their selves, that are healthy or content or believe they have value, they like seeing beauty and those that believe they are worthless freaks want to see ugly. It's like if you wake up depressed that feels appropriate on a rainy day, and if you wake up manic you expect the day to be bright and clear. People want their outside environment to reflect their internal state.
These woke people are worthless people and they know it. They may sometimes be nice to their in-group, but even that is transactional and "performative" - they're not nice or happy people. Any skill they have, they know some youtuber can do it better and they don't feel the intrinsic value of improving themselves. Kids coming in last place in a contest where the adults prohibit rankings to protect their feelings actually feel worse about themselves than just coming in last place. When you try to protect kids from failing they end up feeling worthless.
So they want things to be ugly. Because inside that's what they are.
maybe. but they also absolutely despise the idea of a man enjoying anything at all, ever, if it doesn't not immediately benefit a woman. a man having a good time and living a content life is evil and bad and must be stopped at all costs.
so when you enjoy a show because it is appealing to men, to a man's concept of the world, to a man's instincts, that is bad and evil and you are a misogynist bastard that must pay. men must be made to serve women and hate their lives.
I think they want everybody to be miserable and "for women" is just a measure of that; if you're at their beck you're at least as miserable a creature as they are.
Both come back to the same thing.
Happy men are enthusiastic and energetic. Enthusiasm and energy eventually turns into a positive act and any positive act improves and builds up a man. The happy man grows and the ugly debbie downer keeps fermenting his soul away in their negativity.
The ugly debbie downer passes the happy man on the street and the ugly debbie downer is instantly reminded of his own character faults than prevent them from becoming the happy man they just passed.
Exactly! They want to frame the issue as men have too high standards, that it’s our fault. Instead of Western developers purposely creating ugly characters.
Yeah you can’t say “beauty doesn’t matter” while also praising inclusion and “feeling represented”. These losers always contradict themselves because when you find the hypocrisy they just default to either “well it doesn’t really matter” or “you’re the problem”