Saturday, August 27, 2016 • Evening Edition • "Who invited Spektre?"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Tess Fowler: 'Brian Wood is a DICK'

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

alaska1125

dINGO

Postby alaska1125 » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:46 pm

ReturnoftheMack wrote:
Just curious.

And please, keep your doors locked. It's a dangerous world out there for saints.

I'll pass that on to the saints when I see them. But I like you. A good cautionary tale is important to remind one of what's out there. So thanks for that...
User avatar

McKegan

Zombie Guard

Postby McKegan » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:47 pm

ReturnoftheMack wrote:
Let me break it down.

If you had to swear an oath in court that you thought I meant that 100 less people buying Brian Wood's books would end his career, would you really say you did? If my intent wasn't clear, that's understandable, but I'm not an idiot. I don't think 100 less people can kill X-Men.

But the intent is still the same. What if more groups do what she said? Fine, not 10. 500. 1000. Nothing in my argument changes because of the number chosen.

Do you see the difference?

And those 10 groups don't have to be 10 groups of 10. It could be 10 retailers. 10 advertisers. Whatever. I don't know where 100 people even came from.


Sure, I'd swear to it in court, since the original discussion was about her group of friends that amounted to 10 and you didn't bother to quantify your initial statement. While you could have meant 500, 1000, or 10000 legless puppies who use Wood comics to piddle on, you could have also meant 10 similar groups of 10.

That's enough talk of math for me.
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:47 pm

alaska1125 wrote:I'll pass that on to the saints when I see them. But I like you. A good cautionary tale is important to remind one of what's out there. So thanks for that...


A cautionary tale of what? A good life. A great family. A great job.

Yes kids, don't become a rational successful human being. Be a hypocrite instead.

You still haven't answered my other question (and I answer all of yours). Do you have self-awareness? Do you see that you are doing the same things you accuse me of?
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:48 pm

McKegan wrote:
Sure, I'd swear to it in court, since the original discussion was about her group of friends that amounted to 10 and you didn't bother to quantify your initial statement. While you could have meant 500, 1000, or 10000 legless puppies who use Wood comics to piddle on, you could have also meant 10 similar groups of 10.

That's enough talk of math for me.


Ok, then it's a simple misunderstanding. I will work on my clarity.
User avatar

meinterrupted

Snake On A Plane

Postby meinterrupted » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:50 pm

I'm fairly certain that I'm be yelling into the void, so I'll just copy/paste an answer I wrote several months ago about "misandry" and sexism against men:

The thing is that ‘misandry,’ as it is, is a “joke” because that ‘misandry,’ as most Male Rights Activists (MRAs) and men in general understand it, cannot exist. Individual women can hate individual men, but because society as an institution is so skewed in favor of men, there’s no such thing as institutional misandry, as there is with misogyny. The word was coined in the 1970s, mostly to discredit feminists as “man-haters.”

Criticism of the word “misandry” (from the word’s Wiki article):

In his 1997 book The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, sociologist Allan G. Johnson stated that accusations of man-hating have been used to put down feminists and shift attention onto men in a way that reinforces male-centered culture.[21] Johnson said that the word misandry did not appear in dictionaries until recently[22] and that comparisons between misogyny and misandry are misguided because mainstream culture offers no comparable anti-male ideology. He says in his book that accusations of misandry work to discredit feminism because “people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people.”[21] He wrote that given the “reality of women’s oppression, male privilege, and men’s enforcement of both, it’s hardly surprising that every woman should have moments where she resents or even hates ‘men’.”[21]

There is no such thing as being “sexist” toward a man. To be sexist (or racist, etc.) implies that the person who is doing the hating has privilege and power over the object of their hate, which, in our society, is not true of women over men. So a woman can certainly be a misandrist, in the sense that she hates all men, but to say that that equates with sexism against women and institutional misogyny is a way men shift focus away from woman and back to themselves.


But GingerHaze is a much better writer than me, and she broke it down even further.
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:56 pm

I didn't use misandry in this thread, but that's stupid:

There is no such thing as being “sexist” toward a man. To be sexist (or racist, etc.) implies that the person who is doing the hating has privilege and power over the object of their hate, which, in our society, is not true of women over men.

I agree that many white males try and turn racism and sexism around, but you can be racist and not have privilege and power. Are we seriously saying (and I know it's not racist, but bigotry) that Catholics and Protestants in Ireland weren't racist towards each other?

The only reason there is an implication that only the powerful group can be racist/sexist is because they usually use it to oppress the weak, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work in reverse.
User avatar

thefourthman

Outhouse Editor

Postby thefourthman » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:56 pm

meinterrupted wrote:I'm fairly certain that I'm be yelling into the void, so I'll just copy/paste an answer I wrote several months ago about "misandry" and sexism against men:



But GingerHaze is a much better writer than me, and she broke it down even further.

That's a faulty argument you can hate me cause I'm a man, George Wallace can hate blacks, and black people can hate me cause I'm white. Regardless of power, it's just wrong to hate because of sex, race, creed, religion... Hell it's just wrong to hate.
It's another tactic, like crying tone argument to allow you to argue in what ever manner you want to. Which is also wrong.
User avatar

alaska1125

dINGO

Postby alaska1125 » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:57 pm

ReturnoftheMack wrote:
A cautionary tale of what? A good life. A great family. A great job.

Yes kids, don't become a rational successful human being. Be a hypocrite instead.

You still haven't answered my other question (and I answer all of yours). Do you have self-awareness? Do you see that you are doing the same things you accuse me of?

Yep. I'm aware and, frankly, embarrassed that I let myself drop to that level. I find your views on what's acceptable male-female behavior reprehensible and won't back down on that. Based on past interaction with you, you are comfortable with your base. You and I will probably never agree (thank God), and that's ok. You get to live with your morals, I get to live with mine. Ugh.
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:58 pm

Who is Ginger Haze?
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:59 pm

alaska1125 wrote:Yep. I'm aware and, frankly, embarrassed that I let myself drop to that level. I find your views on what's acceptable male-female behavior reprehensible and won't back down on that. Based on past interaction with you, you are comfortable with your base. You and I will probably never agree (thank God), and that's ok. You get to live with your morals, I get to live with mine. Ugh.


"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
User avatar

alaska1125

dINGO

Postby alaska1125 » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:04 pm

ReturnoftheMack wrote:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."

I'm ok judging people who support drunken passes on unwilling parties.
User avatar

thefourthman

Outhouse Editor

Postby thefourthman » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:05 pm

Furthermore, taking a definition to a specific degree like that is how frag defends wood's actions as not being harassment because it's not in the work place and therefore doesn't qualify. So now you are arguing in the same manner as he.
User avatar

fieldy snuts

Rain Partier

Postby fieldy snuts » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:06 pm

ReturnoftheMack wrote:Who is Ginger Haze?
sounds like a porn star.
User avatar

Tintin Quarantino

Rain Partier

Postby Tintin Quarantino » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:06 pm

ReturnoftheMack wrote:Who is Ginger Haze?


Just some random person on the internet, it seems like. This'll probably be legitimate academic citation use at your college in 5 years or less, the way the younger generations are going these days. :lol:
User avatar

alaska1125

dINGO

Postby alaska1125 » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:06 pm

thefourthman wrote:Furthermore, taking a definition to a specific degree like that is how frag defends wood's actions as not being harassment because it's not in the work place and therefore doesn't qualify. So now you are arguing in the same manner as he.

Fair.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Popeye McFly and 51 guests