8th Most Beautiful Female Character

"I'm totally not sexist but woman shouldn't serve in the military."

 

Seem to be the gist of your defense. I'm fairly certain the contradiction is apparent. 

I'm just going to detach myself and look at the situation this way: Yes, Basilisk and others have an easier position to defend, and Zarayna has a harder position to defend, but that is in part because he can't share the entirety of his views due to constraints here at BZPower.  I submit that you are both obviously in error because no one's argument is perfect, and that it's possible to have reasons for not wanting women in the military without following through with the implications and ideology stated.  The implications of his statement, I am assuming, are different, and while the soundness of his views might be in question, I am assuming that they are at least valid.  That being said, due to constraints he cannot give a full exposition on his views, and thus this discussion cannot serve its full discourse and it shows lack of tact to wish to pursue it, other than to find one way to drag one member down with statements about how he's disrespecting other members.

 

Before people jump to conclusions and think that I'm defending Zarayna because I agree with him, know that I do not.  However, I still think that his reasons are valid and don't follow the implications that some people are trying to throw on him with Straw Man arguments.

 

Now, in response to Zarayna's comment about Eponine, keep in mind that this isn't a list of best female characters.  I'm operating off of beauty, and in part these calls are based off of what I have found visually powerful about a character's depiction.  I have not ever seen a Les Miserables movie.  However, the actresses that I have seen play her on stage have always been beautiful.  Remember, too, that I said I was going to try to get this list done before the Les Miserables movie came out and turned this entire list upside down.

 

Also to Velox, who I know has been reading this and disagrees strongly with my attraction to Selina Kyle: I completely understand his reasons.  However, I also completely understand my reasoning behind this list, which isn't exactly some sort of authoritative, detached source.  So therefore I just plain like Selina Kyle and think she's cool.

 

24601

Samantha Barks isn't positively beautiful?

 

Oh, whew. I was going to question your eyesight and hearing.

I respectfully submit that any ideology that denies someone a basic right is fundamentally indefensible if we are using anything resembling logic, regardless of the circumstances. 

I said nothing that I was sexist. To call me such is entirely on your part. Furthermore, I must apologize for any bluntness, but please.

 
Please.
 
Be rational. Not raging, not flying into a tizzy, not being irrationally sarcastic. Just nice, civil and rational. Deal?
 
Don't make massive assumptions, 'kay? I say one thing, you assume I'm a bigot. I make a guarded statement and you assume you know my principles by heart. Seriously. I don't have a problem with woman not being in the kitchen, I don't have a problem with men being in the kitchen. If a man wants to cook, that's their choice, if a woman doesn't, that's hers, and vice versa. You're serious applying a label to me based on a few sparsely worded posts, and that's seriously not cool.
 
I don't believe women are stronger than men. Bam, we run into definitions of strength. Women can be very, very strong. Mother Teresa and other such amazing woman far outstep men like me in terms of strength. When it comes to men being physically stronger or not, it's all relative. My reasoning for the subject is a lot wider than that. As I said, it's also a lot different than this blog entry. Woman warrior? On topic. Military? Not so much.

 
So....are you going to actually explain what you meant by not wanting women in the military? I'm applying the label because that's how it comes across. I'm inviting you to defend yourself and not look like an cool dude. And you aren't doing that, you're just saying 'I'll just laugh if you call me sexist' which is no defence at all.
 
I'm sure you can back up your argument with the subtlety that keeps it in line with the rules. Personally, I'd rather break the rules and not look like a bigot, but that's just me. If it's the debate itself that you think might be breaking rules because it's somehow 'political', you're wrong - we can discuss sexism the same way we can discuss stuff like racism, homophobia etc - these are all things that have an undeniable 'right' approach and therefore debate doesn't (or shouldn't) get too heated. Just you gotta back up your points, that's all.
 
I don't know why you just said you don't believe women are stronger than men - you've obviously ignored the point of my original reponse. There is no 'men are stronger' or 'women are stronger', there is 'these female bodybuilders are stronger than fat couch potato men' and 'these male bodybuilders are stronger than these fat couch potato women'. The point being that gender is entirely irrelevant, which therefore makes your opinion on women serving in the military entirely idiotic.
 
UNLESS you're able to provide some overwhelmingly innovative argument for your opinion - and if you are, then do so. If you're not, then you shouldn't have brought up such a stupid viewpoint in the first place. Apologies for not 'respecting' this opinion, but some opinions you really gotta go out of your way to disagree with or 'disrespect' because they're based on hatred and bigotry, and there's no place for that these days.
 
- Tilius

Heeeey guys. Just checking in here to remind y'all to keep it civil. Don't exaggerate each others' comments and keep rhetoric to a minimum (this goes for both sides). It's always great to have debates like this, just keep it under control or we'll have to step in.

 

Have fun, don't be mean.

 

I was originally going to post in response to the main entry, but I'll probably just post my own blog entry now that things have escalated so much. I do want to post one thing, though, in response to Basilisk: 

 

Considering you outright stated you were in favor of treating someone differently because of their biology, I fail to see how you can even defend such a position.

 

Treating someone differently isn't necessarily wrong or sexist (and actually, those words come directly from a close female friend of mine). I do treat girls differently than guys -- I guess you could call it chivalry. If a guy is cold, and so am I, I'm going to keep my jacket on (I mean, if he's not like in really poor health or something, but just "normally" cold). But if a girl is cold and so am I, I'll offer her my jacket. I'll make a point to hold the door open for girls, but for guys, I'll only do it if it happens -- I won't specifically try to. And the list goes on. I'm not sure how treating a girl differently than a guy is sexist or wrong.

 

See, I'd also call that sexist. 'Chivalry' exists due to guys wanting 'other stuff' with girls. I'm sure there are genuinely nice guys who do it out of being nice (and would therefore do the same regardless of gender), but otherwise it's niceness BECAUSE they're a girl and because the guy wants something else. It's 'socially accepted' sexism, basically.

 

Then again, that could mean being anything other than bisexual is sexist, lol. I suppose if you're only holding doors open for girls you want 'other stuff' with rather than EVERY girl then it isn't sexism, because it's down to them being nice/HAWT rather than being female. Hm. Tough one.

 

- Tilius

I'm not sure how. I do it for girls not because I want something from them, but because they're girls -- I'm instinctively nicer to them. I'm not looking for anything in return, it's just how I act. I think that women should be treated nicer than other guys, but not out of any sort of expectation.

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

 

 

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.

I read through the latest post in the debate (not including TMD's, and apparently Velox might snipe me before I'm done with this post), and I encountered the words "and cool dude" (when the latter two words are preceded by a grammatically incorrect "an", that's usually not a good sign), and "idiotic", after which point I knew there was something wrong.  The latter term is a derivative of the former which gets translated to "cool dude".  There's a reason why that word is censored.  It's done that way to intentionally make people writing posts that would entail such word usage look silly so that they don't veer in the direction of that sort of language again, but more importantly so that people don't start expressing that sentiment.  The sentiment can be seen in this discussion, and on principle this is something that the founders of the site did not intend to see happen.  Therefore, I cannot support this conversation anymore, and if it continues in any form, those posts will be deleted, or such questionable content will be edited out at the very least.  People are free to discuss the subject matter of this blog, which are the values found in the character of Selina Kyle and countdown in general.  Let's keep the environment positive.

 

24601

Don't delete my comments. Apparently cutting off a discussion and censoring people is more important to you than rectifying a bigot's opinion, and you're fine with censorship yet not fine with insults.

 

You aren't allowed to spout such rubbish without backing it up. You just...aren't.

 

I don't believe black people should be allowed on buses. I don't want to go into why - I just want you all to know that.

 

You might not want to go into it, but you really should because right now you just look like a horrible person. And it'd take - what - two sentences to explain? Five tops?

 

Folk can continue here if they want. Heck, even if they don't want to, they probably should for their own dignity.

 

- Tilius

Have you ever raged so hard

 

 

That you broke a blog's formatting?

Can you go back to talking about Luna Lovegood again?

Or just continue on with the list and forget #8?

Kinda surprised at the outpouring of arguments here, and I'm more interested in seeing what other characters you're planning on highlighting.

Seriously, guys? Do we have to start fighting about the smallest things?

I was going to delete those comments, too, but that link brings proper closure to this off-topic strand of discussion.  I have deleted all continuations of the argument but yours, Tilius, since you seem to want it so badly, but really, the only reason these stay afloat just so passersby can look at your attitude and judge for themselves whether or not it's warranted or not.

 

Chols, that is a very funny image.  I don't understand how that happened, but I will start a ticket on it if nobody else has.

 

Meanwhile, I really like Anne Hathaway now.  She looks exceptionally stunning with her new haircut and I can't wait to see her in Les Miserables, where she will be even cooler by a factor of a hundred.

 

24601

 

I'm not sure how. I do it for girls not because I want something from them, but because they're girls -- I'm instinctively nicer to them. I'm not looking for anything in return, it's just how I act. I think that women should be treated nicer than other guys, but not out of any sort of expectation.

 

I absolutely know you don't mean anything by it, and are just being nice, and knowing what I do about your religious background, and especially the good chunk of it we share, what you're saying makes perfect sense and I know there's no sexist intent behind being chivalrous. It's a concept that's held in very high regard by the part of the population.

 

It's rooted in deep sexism. That doesn't mean you are, or that you're trying to be, or anything of the like. You want to be nice and chivalrous. Totes cool. 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. I think that's even more impressive, personally. (Also, as someone who enjoys holding the door open for anyone and everyone, watching surprised faces from every type of person is a delight!)

 

See, chivalry in the regard of women comes from viewing women as unfit and unable to help themselves, as the code of a Knight was to protect all those who were weak (it was literally named as women, elderly, and children). It outright states that women are not capable themselves, and need a warrior man to keep them safe. The role of courtly love helps- not at all. Since as chivalry evolved, the dedication to one woman became the attempt to woo a married woman of the court, to become her secret lover. In this way, dedication to her would be an attempt to win her heart, in order to enter into an illicit relationship with her.

 

I mean, none of that sounds good, right?

 

(I don't think so, anyway.)

 

 

Of course, it's obvious that you were referring to physical fighting. I could most likely make a long case for why I don't like the idea of woman in the military, or why I believe that men should fight in wars rather than women, but not only would it be rather edgy regarding BZP rules, but I also feel it would detract from the purpose of the blog entry. To add to that, this is not a position I can fluently defend. Defend, yes, but not fluently.

No, that is a position you cannot defend, because it is wrong. Factually and morally. Even making the statement is something you should not have done, because you are wrong. You go on to complain about how misrepresented you're being based on this statement, but your statement was incredibly rude, sexist, and out of line with BZPower's rules. It is not a position you can defende- period. I suggest you abandon ship on that one now.

 

So hey guys. I am okay with discussion on sexism and culture and in movies, etcetera. However, not okay with endorsing views that belittle or condemn entire swaths of humanity for their genetic makeup. Those views aren't okay. They aren't respectful and they aren't defensible, and the expression of them is against the "Respect everyone" rule BZP holds as most sacred. Also be nice. You guys are getting a little too heated.

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 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.

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.

 

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. 

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.