blogs_blog_1374

 

All I have to say is that if the response to #8 was this bad, may God have mercy on us all when #7 is unveiled.

Just wait until you see the responses to #1.

 

 

I imagine it won't even be a response, it'll just be a series of pictures of kittens getting punched in the face. At which point BZPower overloads and finally crumbles to dust.

Anyway, done. Catwoman is cool.

 

- Tilius

Personally, I'd rather you be a nice guy to everyone, you know? What's it cost you? Hold the door open for everyone. Offer anyone who is cold your coat if you feel fine.

 

Heh, I think my meaning got skewed when I tried to rush this as I was late for class. =P But first off, thank you for your kind post. =]

 

This is really the only thing I wanted to address, so: I like to think that I am nice to everyone (or at least, I try to be -- although of course I am often misunderstood, but hey, what happens happens). Like I said, rushing my post caused me to be brief. @ the coat thing: Basically, it's a cold night. I dunno, 40 degrees? 30? Cold that you kinda want a jacket. -I'm- cold, I want my jacket. One of my guy friends next to me doesn't have a jacket. I mean, if he's like, really really cold, and I can tolerate it, of course I'll give up my jacket. But if it's really cold that I really want my jacket, probably not, unless he asks for it, then yeah I probably will. If one of my female friends doesn't have a jacket, I'll probably offer mine up. Even if I am really cold -- because that's just how I am. But if a guy is doing all right, I'm probably not going to offer my jacket up -- of course if he's in any sort of pain or something, I'll offer it up, but yeah. Does that clear things up?

 

So yes, I do try to be nice to everyone. But I always go the extra step for girls -- not because I'm a "ladies man" or because I want something from them -- not at all. But I do it because I view them differently, in a good way. Should women be in the army? I have nothing against it personally. I might prefer one way or the other, but I don't have anything against it.

 

But here's another example. Say a guy punches me. I'm going to punch him back. =P (I mean, assuming I didn't deserve it, and assuming it's "serious"). If a girl punches me? I'm not going to do anything. And that's a fairly common thing in the modern world, I think -- the idea of not hitting girls. I take that even farther with pretty much everything I do. Or I try to, at least. Like I said, I try to hold the door open for everyone. But I'll go out of my way specifically -- speed up, slow down, etc. -- to hold the door open for a girl. Basically, I like to be nice to everyone. I try to be. But I make an extra effort to (like not punching a girl, ever, unless someone's trying to kill me or something) for girls.

 

Oh, and this reminded me of your first post -- about the "gratuitous cleavage" of Black Widow. I, personally, have to disagree there. I believe that any cleavage is gratuitous, no matter how small. Sure, the less the better (I guess?), but any at all is, in my mind, "bad."

 

(and @ the whole chivalry thing...I'll just say my answer is complicated so I won't get into it. =P)

 

 

 

 

Treating some differently on the basis of sex is, in fact, sexiest. It's right in the definition.

 

 

Quote

Unfair treatment or discrimination based on a difference of sex or gender.

• The fact that there is only one woman in a management position in that company makes it easy to believe that
  sexism
  runs rampant there.

 

I would argue that letting the guy freeze in the cold but giving the girl a jacket is, in fact sexist based on this commonly accepted definition It is unfair treatment, albeit beneficial unfair treatment. Hardly as extreme has denying them the right to serve in the military however.

 

 

Er, I think you missed your own part of the definition -- it's the unfair different treatment. I'm treating girls differently in a better way. I treat them better than guys. And it's not sexist against guys because I'm not treating them poorly. I'm treating them "normally" (although, I try to be as nice as possible, so arguably nicer than normal), and just treating girls better. Zar already covered the freezing thing, but I will anyway: I specifically said that if the guy isn't freezing. And I explained more indepthly to DV. But yeah, I'm saying if, we're all cold, I'll sacrifice my coldness for a girl.

Velox, you seem to have missed a fair bit of DeeVee's argument. Treating women in a better way, as you say, by offering a sweater or in some similar gesture comes from the idea that women are weaker and thus need such additional preferential treatment that men don't. Thus, the better treatment still stems from sexism.

 

~B~

Eh, for me, it all comes back to the observation I have made that giving my friend who is a girl my coat feels good and it looks less socially awkward than it does for, say, if I gave mine to a guy. Hey, I'd give a coat to a guy if he asked, but it's just more fun with girls. It's not necessarily out of some code of honor for me s much as the feel-good sensation, and that it's a form of social bonding. Most of this stuff is more ritualistic for me, although I don't do the typical chivalrous stuff and I've made up my own ideas of how, given my pre-existing mannerisms, it is appropriate to treat someone who happens to be of the opposite sex. People know that I don't like touching.

 

But anyway, as Basilisk said, it's all completely related to what I'm trying to get out of it - in this case not a tangible reward but something more internal. I don't interpret that as sexism, just sexuality.

 

Velox, you're totally right about cleavage, by the way. In my ideal world, everyone wears turtlenecks when they're not doing sweat-inducing activities. Although I believe I wasn't being comparative about what type of cleavage Black Widow had so much as I was using "gratuitous" to describe what cleavage is in my mind, so I think we actually agree. Seriously, though, turtlenecks are awesome, and bowties are cool.

 

None of them wear bowties.

 

What I really don't get, though, is why they both wear stilettos. The logic to such a piece of attire, especially for two individuals dedicated to the art of fighting and/or running escapes me. I mean, really.

 

However, Xaeraz mentioned that equipment and how it's all suited to the job...I don't know. They're both in catsuits. In Iron Man 2, Black Widow had some fancy gadgets that didn't exist in the real world, while Selina Kyle had some cool stuff and goggles and her job was basically cat burglary. I'm not sure what equipment she needed, but evidently she was successful for a while. It's a much more subtle art, and I guess the suit and equipment isn't specifically geared toward combat.

 

Speaking of this subtle art, I wouldn't mind if they made a movie called Selina Kyle, starring this version of the character, although not being continuous with the Nolan Trilogy. Whoever would write from it could get particularly inspired from this version. And yes, I would want Anne to play the character again. That's a whole different talk about a creative vision I have for DC Comics movie storytelling, though.

 

24601

I can only wonder what fun the conversations would be here without the censors. .

You've got a lot more faith in BZP members than I do Kraagh. I've gotten so nervous anytime my blog gets close to something like this that I would have closed the entry the moment people introduced terms like 'sexism'.

 

Zarayna didn't want this argument and got pushed into it. He can't go deeper into it because this is BZPower, and whether economic or otherwise, politics is outlawed in these here parts. We don't argue over society's views of what is or isn't discrimination, or what forms of discrimination are good or not. (For instance, the chivalry argument, which correllates to affirmative action) Take it from me, as a staff member whose behavior has bit back several times, even if unintentional. Don't talk about this sort of thing, because it never turns out right. It's a gas leak waiting for a spark, and even with the freedoms we have in the blogs that we don't have in the forums, it's best to avoid it.

 

I can find reasons to agree with both sides on certain issues, but if you ask me, it would be best to stop throwing around terms like 'sexist' and go back to the original discussion about Catwoman.

 

Perhaps I'm out of place in saying this, as a reporter rather than an FM or Bloggie, but I've been on the bad end of this sort of thing before, and I would suggest that you place your opinions on such a subject in a Letter to the Editor of your local newspaper or on some social network rather than on BZPower. There's so much else to talk about, and so many other people in the world to get steamed at.

 

In other words, "Why Can't We Be Friends?"

 

Oh, and this reminded me of your first post -- about the "gratuitous cleavage" of Black Widow. I, personally, have to disagree there. I believe that any cleavage is gratuitous, no matter how small. Sure, the less the better (I guess?), but any at all is, in my mind, "bad."

 

Gratuitous cleavage is not for men to decide, it is for the woman wearing clothing. Women don't pick (usually) their clothing based on how men will react to it, they pick it because they think it looks nice and they look nice in it. Maybe Black Widow just really likes how she looks with it unzipped a little. Maybe it frees up her shoulders for more movement? Maybe she thinks it's the one bit of more feminine touch she gets to have in the almost all-boys club of the Avengers? I don't know. But it's the same with women on the streets. Girls get to decide how they want to dress, and it is up to everyone else to react appropriately.

 

It really really bothers me when men try and decide what is and isn't "appropriate" for women to wear based on their sexual desires and morals. It's just another way that society tries to tell women that their opinion is secondary to the male opinion. It is always "women, dress modest so the guys don't stumble and so you don't get hurt" and almost never "hey guys, it doesn't matter how she's dressed, she's not asking for it, don't hurt people."

 

 

What I really don't get, though, is why they both wear stilettos.

Er, they don't. Only Catwoman does. Black Widow wears like combat bootish things. She has stilettos in the scene where she's getting interrogated towards the beginning, but she's not wearing them during the fight.

 

 

But here's another example. Say a guy punches me. I'm going to punch him back. =P (I mean, assuming I didn't deserve it, and assuming it's "serious"). If a girl punches me? I'm not going to do anything. And that's a fairly common thing in the modern world, I think -- the idea of not hitting girls. I take that even farther with pretty much everything I do. Or I try to, at least. Like I said, I try to hold the door open for everyone. But I'll go out of my way specifically -- speed up, slow down, etc. -- to hold the door open for a girl. Basically, I like to be nice to everyone. I try to be. But I make an extra effort to (like not punching a girl, ever, unless someone's trying to kill me or something) for girls.

I know what you're saying, but it's wrong. What it boils down to is that you're saying, even accidentally, that women are not capable of holding open their own doors, that they need a man to do it for them. What you're saying is that you're automatically stronger than a girl, and so you wouldn't hit her back. The double standard on physical abuse is a very worrisome one, to be honest (not necessarily you, but society in general). I'm a big believer in nonviolence and I'm a staunch and avowed pacifist. I wouldn't hit anyone back if they hit me first. But I think your reaction should be the same whether a woman hits you or a man does.

 

Chivalry comes from the idea that women are automatically weaker, and that they need big strong men to protect them and keep them pure (while at the same time trying to woo them in secret from their husbands. The world is contradictory.) This is bad. Hold open the door for everyone, or no one, is really how I see it. What does it hurt you to extend that moment of niceness to everyone? Why are women in need of your door holding?

 

Basically this:

Velox, you seem to have missed a fair bit of DeeVee's argument. Treating women in a better way, as you say, by offering a sweater or in some similar gesture comes from the idea that women are weaker and thus need such additional preferential treatment that men don't. Thus, the better treatment still stems from sexism.

 

It kind of reminds me of how in divorces, women overwhelmingly get custody of the children. Which is not fair to the men involved in these cases, and this is a well-published and discussed case of sexism against men. However, the reason that men get the short end of the stick in this case is because of the stereotype of women as primary caregivers and being the more nurturing parent (which is more of a social construct than anything inherent in the female sex). So sexism against women actually turns around and hurts men too. It benefits no one, except the privileged few at the very top.

 

Also, Velox- you are a nice guy, and not in that gross and creepy "Nice Guy" way. I've spent time hanging with you at three different conventions, and I can say without pause that you are a great guy who truly cares about other people and is trying to live out your convictions at the same time. I love being around you, and think you're a great guy. I just think that (much as I was at your exact age, since at that point I pretty much shared almost every view you have now) that you haven't walked through all the implications entirely of those convictions. I think your desire to be nice and courteous and generous and faithful to all around you is amazing and I think it will lead you to good places in life, even without compromising on the core of your faith and beliefs.

DeeVee about summed up my feelings on the matter of female apparel. Not my choice, not my business. It's theirs.

I'm going to ignore a lot of the stuff being said here to focus on one thing.

 

We're taught to do what we love and what we're good at. I teach Martial Arts, some of my best students are girls. In fact many of the times I've been beaten in sparring it's been women who kicked my butt--and don't you dare think I wasn't giving it my all. I think it's disrespectful to give one level of attention/care to a man and one to a woman--would you ever do that to somebody else? Categorize them?

 

"Yeah, Paul, I'd love to help you out today. But you're only a level four on my list. That means that I can only help you on Tuesdays or if I'm not helping three's on my list" That sounds silly, but it's the same idea if you say that you should do one thing for women and another for men. Why not just treat every individual as an individual? These gender binary lines are silly.

 

HOWEVER that is not to mean there are no differences, for example it IS true that women have a slightly different muscle structure. Meaning that most often they do "modified" pushups, because it works them the exact same way a full pushup works a man. It's not 'making it easier' on women or treating them differently, it's expecting the exact same thing regardless of whether you're male or female. Which is what it should be.

 

Suffice to say this blog entry has disappointed me on a few different levels, come on, BZP. I know you're better than this.

 

On topic somewhat--Catwoman/Selina Kyle has always been more heavily sexualized than Black Widow, and I find the idea that they've removed her ability to actually take care of herself somewhat frustrating. Catwoman rarely needed Batman to rush to her rescue--in fact Catwoman was also often able to outperform Batman and would sometimes just toy with him--so the idea that they removed that makes me unhappy.

Whoa I finally found the comment box over here! That was weird.

 

DV I just wanted to say I'm glad we're friends. Parts of this argument have left me feeling uncomfortable and offended. I like when my husband does things like lend me his coat and hold the door open for me, but I do the same for him, and we do the same for anybody no matter their gender. I get the best feeling when he and I do things like this for each other, of course. And honestly, I feel the greatest when I do things for him, not when he does things for me. Assisting or helping anyone else makes me feel good no matter what their gender or physical ability or even age. I feel like this is how it should be.

 

Additionally, I know firsthand that wearing higher collars and clothes with higher necklines can be quite uncomfortable and limiting for some women based on their cleavage or even shoulder size. I was raised with a "3 finger rule"; if your neckline was lower than 3 fingers' width from your collarbone, then that shirt was "inappropriate". You know what else it was for me and some of my friends? Really super uncomfortable. Women should be the ones deciding what to wear not only based on what they like, but what they feel good in. It's your decision whether or not to react, just as it's my decision whether or not to react to say, shirtless guys. They chose to be shirtless. Me complaining about it, whether to them or not, would be rude (but honestly I can't complain about shirtless guys!) Someone is only a stumbling block if you allow them to be a stumbling block.

 

I grew up in a very old-fashioned way of thinking, especially in regards to women. It always felt very unnatural and demeaning to me since I was young (I used to beat up boys on the school playgrounds because of it.) So it's nice for me to see people coming out against it.

I fail to see what beauty has to do with combat effectiveness, but I can tell you right now that Black Widow's equipment is much better suited to her job than Catwoman's is. Beauty, however, is a very subjective subject, to the point that objectivity is impossible.

 

That having been said, I think Ron Swanson has the closest thing we have to a truly objective rubric of beauty.

All of this is completely and totally true.

 

-Tyler

just as it's my decision whether or not to react to say, shirtless guys. They chose to be shirtless. Me complaining about it, whether to them or not, would be rude (but honestly I can't complain about shirtless guys!)

 

 

BTW, guys should wear shirts, especially that weird neighbor of mine who still never wears shirts even though IT'S THIRTY TO FORTY DEGREES OUTSIDE! WEAR SOME CLOTHES MAN! YOU'RE NOT THAT PRETTY ANYHOW! HOW MANY YEARS IN A ROW DO YOU HAVE TO GET SUNBURNED OR FROZEN (depending on the time of year) TO LEARN TO WEAR A SHIRT? WHY HAVEN'T YOU DIED OF SKIN CANCER YET?

 

Really though, it's December in Illinois, it's cold, and that guy's out rebuilding a playset for his kids that got blown over in a storm with no shirt on. He's a nut.

 

Of course, I don't see it as the same thing, because tests show that men react far more to visuals than women. Women, on the other hand, react more to words. I suppose that's why guys don't see the point of some books that seem to sell big with women. A woman wearing less will be more distracting to a guy than a guy with his shirt off will be to a girl. Of course, that's not a universal or absolute rule--just a tendency, and I believe that either way, a guy or girl will react to more skin showing or to weird books if they let themselves. Therefore, that's a reason nobody should show too much anyway.

 

Of course, there are other reasons I believe in these things, but I'm sure not going to talk about it on BZP.

 

What I really don't get, though, is why they both wear stilettos. The logic to such a piece of attire, especially for two individuals dedicated to the art of fighting and/or running escapes me. I mean, really.

 

 

 

I've never gotten that either - the concept is just ridiculous. Heels are antithetical to fighting, and it almost makes me cringe anytime I see it.

 

 

You've got a lot more faith in BZP members than I do Kraagh. I've gotten so nervous anytime my blog gets close to something like this that I would have closed the entry the moment people introduced terms like 'sexism'.

 

Zarayna didn't want this argument and got pushed into it. He can't go deeper into it because this is BZPower, and whether economic or otherwise, politics is outlawed in these here parts. We don't argue over society's views of what is or isn't discrimination, or what forms of discrimination are good or not. (For instance, the chivalry argument, which correllates to affirmative action) Take it from me, as a staff member whose behavior has bit back several times, even if unintentional. Don't talk about this sort of thing, because it never turns out right. It's a gas leak waiting for a spark, and even with the freedoms we have in the blogs that we don't have in the forums, it's best to avoid it.

 

I can find reasons to agree with both sides on certain issues, but if you ask me, it would be best to stop throwing around terms like 'sexist' and go back to the original discussion about Catwoman.

 

Perhaps I'm out of place in saying this, as a reporter rather than an FM or Bloggie, but I've been on the bad end of this sort of thing before, and I would suggest that you place your opinions on such a subject in a Letter to the Editor of your local newspaper or on some social network rather than on BZPower. There's so much else to talk about, and so many other people in the world to get steamed at.

 

In other words, "Why Can't We Be Friends?"

 

 

Lewalew, if there was a like button ability, I would have worn it out on this comment.

 

And HH, while I agree with some of your statements, I think it's important to realize the other side of things too. When it comes to lust (or the temptation thereof) caused by dress, one must always realize that by no means do even the greatest men have complete control over their bodies. Regardless of whether or not our will forces us to look away or such, immodest dress does prove both a distraction and a temptation. I can't exactly assume on your position, but your post made it seem like the matter was entirely on the side of men. When it comes to lust in that form, it's a bit more delicate a balance; on the one hand one can never, ever say that every temptation a man feels is the fault of the woman he just saw. A man can be tempted by a quite modestly dressed woman. However, the woman does have the duty to guard her own body as well.

 

The problem I think is whether people intend it or not, they end up saying one of the two extremes, neither of which are true.

.......I cannot even begin to cover the unfortunate implications in that post. Cannot even begin.

"And HH, while I agree with some of your statements, I think it's important to realize the other side of things too. When it comes to lust (or the temptation thereof) caused by dress, one must always realize that by no means do even the greatest men have complete control over their bodies."

What.

 

I am not going to interject with any opinion of mine about this conversation as a whole. It's not my place to do.

 

But this statement, in purest nature, is insane.

Come on guys, just let this thing go already. This had the potential to be a good discussion but insults do nothing but fan the flames of other people.

 

I implore Kraagh to shut this down before somebody gets banned or something. Clearly BZPower members are just not capable of arguing this topic.

Yes. Because discrimination should be tolerated. Of course.

Yes. Because discrimination should be tolerated. Of course.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, and insults certainly don't help bring people to your belief. If you have the superior belief, why not try to prove it logically? Insults don't reflect well on you or other people who share your beliefs.

Not when the other side refuses to listen to reason (I provided evidence, historical examples and the response was evasion). I can convince reasonable fellows easily enough. I learned long ago some people just will not listen. But when people start preaching about temptation and providing no evidence for their claims (all man are tempted? Prove it. Please. Cite a study.) I know reason has failed. Only thing left is to counter the discrimination.

 

Intolerance should not be tolerated. I'll echo DeeVee on that.

Not when the other side refuses to listen to reason (I provided evidence, historical examples and the response was evasion). I can convince reasonable fellows easily enough. I learned long ago some people just will not listen. But when people start preaching about temptation and providing no evidence for their claims (all man are tempted? Prove it. Please. Cite a study.) I know reason has failed. Only thing left is to counter the discrimination.

 

Intolerance should not be tolerated. I'll echo DeeVee on that.

/ENDQUOTE

 

All that does is create a nasty world where everyone insults anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe. And I assure you, you are never going to change anyone's beliefs by insulting them; by insulting, you reflect poorly on yourself and those that share your belief, and create further reasons not to consider your beliefs.

 

If you want to insult people, I suppose you have that right. But don't expect it to help your cause or change people's minds. Hate can't change someone's heart.

When it comes to lust in that form, it's a bit more delicate a balance; on the one hand one can never, ever say that every temptation a man feels is the fault of the woman he just saw. A man can be tempted by a quite modestly dressed woman. However, the woman does have the duty to guard her own body as well.

 

So what you're saying is that it's the woman's job to fight for herself...but earlier, you're saying she shouldn't be allowed to fight alongside men in war.

 

-Tyler

Considering I provided evidence, I fail to see how I insulted anyone in the first place. Expressed shock and outrage? Most certainly. I can easily understand who someone would favor insulting someone who is in favor of discrimination.

 

Hm. You know what also creates a nasty world? Discriminating based on biology.

Considering I provided evidence, I fail to see how I insulted anyone in the first place. Expressed shock and outrage? Most certainly. I can easily understand who someone would favor insulting someone who is in favor of discrimination.

 

Hm. You know what also creates a nasty world? Discriminating based on biology.

/ENDQUOTE

 

Be the better man and walk away, then. Hate isn't going to help your cause any.