Ranxerox

You are working on a very different definition of the word creepy than I am.

For comparison's sake Norway's Halden Prison

You can be unsubtle with out actually being literal.

I'm not sure that you are wrong. If Marston had gotten the audience that he was aiming for, I don't think that it would be an issue. Subtlety tends to be wasted on the young, and prepubescent girls would not (in most cases) pick up on the admittedly pretty obvious sexual subtext. They would just see that Wonder Woman obeys the commands of certain authority, and that bad men are always trying to bind her but she always escaped. However, Wonder Woman doesn't have the audience that Marston was going for, and as result there is a vast amount porn out there of Wonder Woman bound up and then sexually abused. Still, Wonder Woman being bound and then escaping remains a staple of the comic book regardless of who its current writer is. I'm not sure if this is the result of some DC policy on the subject of how Wonder Woman must be written, or if just different writers each in turn trying to pay respect to the character's history (or herstory if you prefer). The lesson that you have the power to escape the bounds that other people would put on you to control you and take away your strength, is a good one and one that IMHO Wonder Woman should keep teaching. That being said, perhaps it is time and past time that it stopped being so literal about the whole thing.

Whose perception is the correct one? Obviously, that of the person being asked to shell out three bucks. At the start of this back and forth, I explained why I wouldn't be buying anymore Wonder Woman until after the Finch run was over. Since I'm the one who wasn't going to be buying it, is was my three bucks a stake. Now, I was trying to persuade other to come around to my way of thinking on the subject, but I stopped short of saying those that bought Finch Wonder Woman were have wrong/bad fun. You came back with, To this I didn't reply because now we are talking about your three buck, and you can spend them however you want to.

I'm not making any assumption about you. Your argument took the form of an argument that I have seen a number of times before, and I gave you what has become my stock reply. Now that it has become fairly well known that that Marston had a wife and a mistress (or maybe the wife had a mistress, it's kind of confusing) and that they all lived together and played bondage games, few conversations about Wonder Woman don't at some point have it brought up. Usually, it comes up in the form of X depiction of Wonder Woman is okay because she is just a bondage doll anyway. Now I don't know if that was your intent, but that is how you post came across. I glad to find out that you consider Marston a feminist, because by the standards of his day he definitely was. Marston believed that women were the more loving and caring sex. Modern feminist, rightly, see this view as trap to force them into certain roles and at the same time exclude men from those roles. However, back in Marston day, that women had a greater capacity than men to love and nurture was standard feminist orthodoxy embraced by virtually all the leading voices of feminism of the time. This belief about the importance of love has become part of the DNA of the character and can still easily be seen today in depictions of her the likes of Greg Rucka, Gail Simone and Brian Azzarello. If the upcoming movie gets this part of her character right, I will be willing to forgive quite a bit else.

I was expecting this to come up because it always seems to in conversation about Wonder Woman. It's juicy and you can see the evidence of Marston's interest in bondage right on the pages of his work. However, ultimately William Marston was too smart and too interesting of a character to nicely fit into the label of a BDSM perv. Here is an article that IMO does a good job discussing Marston's views on Loving Submission.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/02/us/kentucky-plane-crash/ Brave little girl. I hope she has extended family that can take her in.

What can I say? I don't like Jim Lee's art or that of his clones much. What is acceptable is a moving target, and IMO that is a good thing if it means less silliness in drawing the female form. Posing women so as too have both their butts and breast sticking out has gotten a lot of criticism lately and that has made it less easy to not notice (and be bothered by) such absurd composition. However, for me the big thing is that this Wonder Woman. She shouldn't be drawn like she is teenage girl. Yes, she has long been drawn with good size breast, but she has also long since drawn as being old enough to have those breast. Also, not surprisingly since I'm a guy, I'm perfectly fine with male power fantasies comic books with hypersexualized depictions of women. I'm not fine with Wonder Woman being such a book. Wonder Woman is suppose to be about female empowerment. That is what William Marston intended it to be, and what has made the book unique and enduring. Good Wonder Woman writers get that, and the way to get bad Wonder Woman is not to buy their work so that they get sacked from the title due to poor sales.

Wow! Way to take an opportunity to recapture public good will and beat it to death with a nightstick. Impressive really.

I'm a long time reader of Wonder Woman, and after buying the first issue of the Finch run, I quickly decided to stop reading the title until it gets a new creative team. I'm hoping that happens quickly. Given Wonder Woman's long publication history, I'm sure that the Finch's won't be able to do the character any lasting harm, but still seeing her drawn as a vapid teenage girl with a boob job is just much too depressing.

The law is that if you do something to someone that would normally not cause harm but because the person had a medical condition that you were not aware of did cause harm, that is an accident and you aren't legally liable for the harm caused. However, if you do something that would normally even slight harm and because the person having a medical that you were unaware of great harm resulted, you are responsible for all the harm done and not just the harm that you expected to do. So, if you shove somebody, and though they have no outward sign of frailty they actually have brittle bone disease, and as a result of your simple shove they fall down a break their hip then you are legally responsible for that broken hip. Furthermore, if due to medical complications while treating their broken hip, the person subsequently dies, then you are guilty of homicide. That is the law. Since the police officer in the Eric Garner case was using a maneuver not permitted by the rules and regulations of the NYPD, it is reasonable to say that his actions lacked the legal shield of police authority. Without that legal authority, the officer would be guilty of manslaughter at the very least and possibly 2nd degree murder. However, where Eric Garner's family is concerned, it may be better that the NYPD is standing by the officers involved. That will make the wrongful death suit against the city that much easier to win. A truckload of money won't bring Mr Garner back, but it will give a strong message to the NYPD and other police department across the country. Money focuses the attention of politicians more surely than sending some beat cop to jail ever could.

When did he do that?

The Straw Elephants In The Room Pretty much all the arguments Ms Sommers makes in the first video are rebuttals to arguments that the anti-GamerGate side isn't making or to very distorted versions of arguments made. In other words, they are all straw men arguments. * Violent video games have never been scientifically shown to cause real life violence in there players. Umm, I haven't heard Anita Sarkeesian or any one else in the anti-GamerGate camp say that they did. So this is a rebuttal seeking an argument. * I find some acts shown in video games like GTA very disturbing, but as a matter of free speech the makers have a right to make such games and the players a right to play them. I've yet to hear any anti-GamerGate person call for the banning of such games, and just because a person has a right to freedom of speech does not shield that speech from criticism if the speech is objectionable. * Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are all based on the Objectifying Gaze hypothesis which has been much criticized in the 4 decades since it was originally proposed. Ms Sarkeesian has talked the visual objectification of women in video games, so this would be an actual non-straw man argument if Ms Sommers didn't characterize it as the whole of Ms Sarkeesian's position. However, Ms Sarkeesian has talked about visual objectification and hyper-sexualization of women as one part of a larger argument that she is making, an argument that can stand even in the absence of the visual objectification component. Also, a more robust attack on the notion of the objectifying gaze as it relates to video games would have been appreciated from an intellectual standpoint. There is a bit of a difference between the deliberate decision by a game developer to frame a scene from a vantage point looking through a women spread legs or down her cleavage compared to a man taking a moment out to admire a woman's ass as he passes her on the street. It would have been been nice if Ms Sommers took the time to argue that the criticisms of Objectifying Gaze hypothesis are valid even when presentation is completely deliberate and directed by men. In the second video, Ms Sommers provides some numbers about the sex of gamers, and while I don't think that anyone would classify her as a gamer based on playing PacMan a few times in the Eighties, I do appreciate the numbers. Numbers can be very helpful in "keeping it real". Keeping it real in this case goes a long way towards explaining why AAA games are the way they are but it's not really much of a shield against criticism. It may explain why game developers create so many games point of view of heterosexual white males, but that is no reason women, gays, and racial minorities not to clamor for representation also. It is no reason for them to "stand down" as Ms Sommers puts it. Also, you can ding games on individual acts of misogyny, without proving that the games cause their players to become misogynous. Even if the games are promoting misogyny in their players it is going to be almost impossible to prove scientifically because nothing happens in a bubble, and it is irrelevant. If someone uses the N word, it is not necessary to prove that they turned all the people who heard it into racist in order state that the usage was in itself crass, rude, and racist. Just so video games criticized for individual bits of misogyny that appear in the games, and if these instances are so numerous as to be wide spread and pervasive then the industry as a whole can be criticized.

I'm pretty sure that this has already been linked to here, but it doesn't hurt to link to it again. http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/09/how-to-be-a-fan-of-problematic-things/

In English the qualifying adjective come first and the noun which it qualifies come after. So with the phrase toxic masculinity, masculinity is the noun and toxic is the adjective that qualifies. The phrase toxic masculinity strongly implies the speaker believes in non-toxic masculinity, because otherwise the statement is redundant. We don't generally speak of hot fire or wet water after all. IOW you are adding ambiguity where none exist in the phrasing of the thing. Why are you doing this?

Let's see. Jaylen Fryberg's girlfriend broke up with him. He got very depressed. Then instead of say seeking psychiatric counseling or just spending three weeks eating ice cream and crying a lot, he took his one of his father's guns and did something men are ten times as likely to do as women, he shot a bunch of people. Now, Mz Sarkeesian didn't blame the shooting on violence in video games; she attributed to something she called toxic masculinity. Given the well documented reluctance of men to seek help with emotional issues and the much greater tendency of men to go on mass shooting rampages, how can you or anyone else absolutely declare that the shooting was utterly unrelated to issues of masculinity? As for the charge that it was a gross oversimplification of a complex issue, it was a tweet. What do you expect from 140 characters? Ms Sarkeesian was not claiming to have a complete answer or saying that the solution would be easy. She was throwing out onto the table a piece of the puzzle that needed to be solved.

But as a nation we aren't grieving the deaths in the Washington shooting, not compared how a parent feels over the death of a child. The cold, unvarnished truth is that for most people the shooting doesn't rise above the level water cooler conversation in it's impact on them. Of course to the parent and loved ones of the two girls that died this is likely the most devastating event of their lives. However, it is unlikely they will ever hear about Ms Sarkeesian's remarks unless someone deliberately brings her comments to their attention. So, I don't see her comments as being disrespectful to the parents. We talk about what is in the news cycle. It is what we do as a nation. It is how we have discussions about important issues, because we don't have the attention spans to talk about these things when they aren't right in our faces. So after the tragedy in Benghazi FOX news pushed their agenda and the Sandy Hook tragedy MSNBC had their own agenda to move along. It may be unbecoming but it is a game that everyone plays, and singling Ms Sarkeesian out as a sleazy moron [Patten Ghost] and a troll [you] for playing the game strikes me as arbitrary.

Please explain. Usually, I hear this line of reasoning when people make calls for gun control after one of these mass shootings, but I have never quite been able to follow the logic on it. Right after airplane crashes we talk about flight safety. After train wrecks we talk about rail safety. In the wake of successful terrorist attacks we talk about national security and the holes in our current system. Nobody is saying, "Ebola victims are still in the hospital, now is not the time push your infection control and disease monitoring agenda." So why is rude to have a discussion and push for reforms over the still fresh graves of mass shooting victims, but not rude to do it over the graves those who are killed by airplane crashes, terrorist acts or preventable diseases?

After reading that paragraph I couldn't take anything this blogger said as having value. How is this different from saying that hating is men is what feminism is, or saying that Islam is terrorism?

Yep. No shrinking so far, but now that they have unleashed supers in the Arrow universe, I certainly wouldn't rule out it happening in the future.

I really find this article encouraging. It sounds like Facebook has finally started to see the light on this issue and is starting to devise a strategy for dealing with harassment. This is good because Facebook is an industry leader and what it does will copied by other social media platforms. Now, Facebook still has a long way to go on planning and implementing as anti-harassment policy, and whatever policy is finally settles on is inevitably going to be weak sauce. However, I think weak sauce is fine. There is a saying that door locks don't exist to keep out crooks, who can bypass the locks easily enough if they are determined; locks on door exist to keep honest men honest. Right now the internet needs barriers to keep non-misogynist, non-sociopaths from becoming misogynist sociopaths. It needs measures to deter otherwise sane men, who have had a bad day, from taking out their anger and frustration on some woman they don't even know just because her bitter ex-boyfriend says she is a slut. So, while the weak sauce measures that Facebook is likely to come up and Twitter and other social media platforms may in time adopt won't stop the true monsters roaming the web, at least they may prevent these monsters from raising armies to do their bidding. Then the monsters will be standing out all by themselves without there armies to hide behind, and there won't be any doubt who and what they are.

The Flash does a lot of things that would take longer than a lifetime if done at normal speeds and is not visibly aged after doing them. The Flash is powered by speed force not by the speed of his metabolism, and using the speed force doesn't age him.

Science’s Sexual Assault Problem