RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Edvyn · **03-18-2015, 10:24 PM**

(03-18-2015, 09:48 PM)Zyrusticae Wrote: I expect better from the RP community, but clearly my standards are too damn high. And this despite the literacy rate here being far, far higher than most other corners of the Internet.

I don't even know where to begin. I just... I can't. I can't.

not thinking like you â‰ stupid

you're passive-aggressively antagonizing this entire forum because your expectation or "standard" that everyone should agree with you turned out to be unrealistic

you are in no position to be condescending

Meoix · **03-18-2015, 10:27 PM**

The idea of "Is it Sexist?" in of itself is difficult to answer.Â
During any conversations or debates regarding this question regardless of the source I feel that various layers upon layers of abstract complexities are piled atop of each other creating a blurry sense ofÂ ambiguity.

In my opinion when it comes to this question and any similar questions I have reached a one sentence thought on the matter:

If the characteristic to whom the character belongs is only considered due to their gender (place what ever adjective you like in place of gender) then it 'MAY' be considered sexist in the eyes of others.Â

Granted some special case exceptions may apply to my statement above (body parts as an example).

Finally to the hard question of "Is Mary Sue sexist?"
I say no, as I see the term 'Gary Sue' as the male equivalent with all the same attributes as Mary Sue. Since the attributes of both genders are equivalent (at least in my opinion) then by definition the term is not sexist.Â

I see the terms of Gary/Mary Sue as being more of a term used for cliche character design with unoriginal qualities.

Gone. · **03-18-2015, 10:32 PM**

It can be sexist depending on context and intent, especially given that women are often a target for it more than men are.

That doesn't mean it's always as such, though. The world isn't exactly full of absolutes.

ChewableMorphine · **03-18-2015, 10:36 PM**

(03-18-2015, 07:37 PM)Cercil Wrote: Â tumblr

Well that's where you went wrong, buck-o.

That's where hugbox dependent people come to circlejerk over the same unpopular opinioN AND SING KUMBAYAH MY LORD KUMBAYAH GOD SAVE THE QUEEN JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS RONALD REGAN WAS THE DEVIL and Mary Sue isn't sexist.

[youtube]rXiqenfLgRk[/youtube]

Bryn · **03-18-2015, 10:41 PM**

(03-18-2015, 10:09 PM)Telluride Wrote: Maybe there are those of us in the RP community who might prefer to see some genuine willingness to debate, rather than the usual rabid finger wagging that tumblr represents, before we're willing to engage you? Maybe some of us are a LOT more experienced in this stuff than you think, and are holding back, because we already see little hints of arrogance instead of actual, valid requests for debate?

If you're referring to the instant and repeated dismissal of feminist critique of culture as either worthless on account of emotional basis or worthless on account of wrong and petty priorities, that was bothering me, too.

It's important for us to recognise several simple facts.

Firstly, someone criticizing or critiquing something doesn't mean that they're upset by it.

Secondly, it is completely possible to be both upset about something, and still have a valid argument regarding it. So whether or not people we disagree with are 'upset', the fact doesn't have any value or basis in intelligent debate.

Thirdly, people can have a plurality of concerns and focus their efforts on several issues at once. We're not beholden to focus on one concern exclusively until the job is done before we can move on to the next concern. We as feminists can be (and very often are) concerned about 'big' issues such as sex trafficking and the gender pay gap, and consider the gender issues behind language used in popular culture all at the same time.

Also, if like many feminists you believe sexism to be present not only in our institutions but also in the ways we speak to each other and conduct our relationships, and to have a presence in our behaviour, our social structure as well as our language, then it becomes evident that it isn't enough to just focus on the 'big' issues; it is apparent that language matters, and should be a feminist concern. Giving time and thought to the 'trivial' things doesn't harm the feminist cause; in fact, it's vital that we do so.

When we take these things into account, we can see that arguments that boil down to variations of, "you're way too sensitive" and "don't you have bigger things to worry about?" serve no purpose but to shut debate down before it begins.

As a final point I'll say that you know there's something deeply wrong with our culture when the notion that it is possible to "think too much" is taken seriously. I'd say that a large part of the world's problems are down to people not thinking enough. Whether it be the meaning of life or how to build a more formally inclusive society; for the Twelves' and all of our sakes, don't be afraid to think!

[edit] i do wurds gud

Enla · **03-18-2015, 10:42 PM**

(03-18-2015, 10:32 PM)hauntmedoitagain Wrote: It can be sexist depending on context and intent, especially given that women are often a target for it more than men are.

That doesn't mean it's always as such, though. The world isn't exactly full of absolutes.

Essentially how I feel about the matter. There can be sexism applied to the term, but that's the case with almost anything when you truly stop to think about it. It all depends upon how it's used, when it's used, and by whom is using it. By itself the term is no less benign than any other.

Cato · **03-18-2015, 10:42 PM**

(03-18-2015, 10:32 PM)hauntmedoitagain Wrote: It can be sexist depending on context and intent, especially given that women are often a target for it more than men are.

That doesn't mean it's always as such, though. The world isn't exactly full of absolutes.

I'd say that's debatable in itself. Men are often overlooked when it comes to sexism (and stuff like domestic abuse which still isn't taken seriously across the board, let alone when a wife beats up her husband).

People just tend to be dismissive of anything that doesn't fit their agenda and so they believe biased studies that focus on one particular aspect of 'sexism' or 'racism' and ignore the fact that it's happening all over the world to a great many different people from all sorts of varied backgrounds.

Edvyn · **03-18-2015, 10:49 PM**

"mary sue" refers to a specific shit character made long ago that set the precedent for shit characters in the minds of internet users

that's all there is

there isn't any more

i personally use "mary sue" for both male and female characters. what's the problem with using mary sue for both sexes? i can't be the only one who thinks "gary stu" is unnecessary. it's not really a gendered term.

Enla · **03-18-2015, 10:50 PM**

(03-18-2015, 10:49 PM)Edvyn Wrote: "mary sue" refers to a specific shit character made long ago that set the precedent for shit characters in the minds of internet users

that's all there is

there isn't any more

i personally use "mary sue" for both male and female characters. what's the problem with using mary sue for both sexes? i can't be the only one who thinks "gary stu" is unnecessary. it's not really a gendered term.

Honestly I prefer Mary Sue as a catch all term as well. Gary Stu just doesn't fall off the tongue as well, and there have been times when people have to have the term explained to them as they've never heard of it before.

Cato · **03-18-2015, 10:53 PM**

'Mary Sue' is much like 'Doctor' and 'Commander' as far as I see it. They're all titles applicable to both genders.

Flashhelix · **03-18-2015, 10:56 PM**

It is possible to think too much. If I pick up an apple and write a forty-page manifesto on how this misshapen apple is an accurate indicator on the plight of Pan-European dirt farmers, that's thinking too much. Writing a tl:dr article about how a term used to refer to a shitty fanfiction character is actually sexist is thinking too much. There's such a thing as overthinking, it's why the term "overthink" even exists.

Telluride · **03-18-2015, 10:58 PM**

(03-18-2015, 10:41 PM)Bryn Wrote:
(03-18-2015, 10:09 PM)Telluride Wrote: Maybe there are those of us in the RP community who might prefer to see some genuine willingness to debate, rather than the usual rabid finger wagging that tumblr represents, before we're willing to engage you? Maybe some of us are a LOT more experienced in this stuff than you think, and are holding back, because we already see little hints of arrogance instead of actual, valid requests for debate?

If you're referring to the instant and repeated dismissal of feminist critique of culture as either worthless on account of emotional basis or worthless on account of wrong and petty priorities, that was bothering me, too.

[edit] i do wurds gud

I do see that dismissal, and acknowledge that it is a potent thing, but I also see very quick and angry dismissals of a fair and honest attempt to incorporate a male perspective not to dismiss, but to understand and come to terms with, the stress and frustration these things develop.

My point is that there is pettiness on BOTH sides, and a refusal to acknowledge that from the beginning instantly turns me off from "debate" in which I might hear the word "mansplaining" be thrown about as quickly as dismissal of the feminine perspective.

ChewableMorphine · **03-18-2015, 11:00 PM**

There's people actually debating this.

There's people actually getting frustrated about this.

Whoever said earlier in the thread something about people trying too hard to find things to get mad at, you're right. And I should +1 you. If I find it.

[Image: Back+to+tumblr+you+go+_858953523b6831330...fd2a49.png]

Bryn · **03-18-2015, 11:08 PM**

(03-18-2015, 10:58 PM)Telluride Wrote:
(03-18-2015, 10:41 PM)Bryn Wrote:
(03-18-2015, 10:09 PM)Telluride Wrote: Maybe there are those of us in the RP community who might prefer to see some genuine willingness to debate, rather than the usual rabid finger wagging that tumblr represents, before we're willing to engage you? Maybe some of us are a LOT more experienced in this stuff than you think, and are holding back, because we already see little hints of arrogance instead of actual, valid requests for debate?

If you're referring to the instant and repeated dismissal of feminist critique of culture as either worthless on account of emotional basis or worthless on account of wrong and petty priorities, that was bothering me, too.

[edit] i do wurds gud

I do see that dismissal, and acknowledge that it is a potent thing, but I also see very quick and angry dismissals of a fair and honest attempt to incorporate a male perspective not to dismiss, but to understand and come to terms with, the stress and frustration these things develop.

My point is that there is pettiness on BOTH sides, and a refusal to acknowledge that from the beginning instantly turns me off from "debate" in which I might hear the word "mansplaining" be thrown about as quickly as dismissal of the feminine perspective.

Can't deny that, but I don't see it in this thread. I think we took different things from Zyrusticaev's post, as I read it as supporting the general sway of the thread. Which is why I wanted to clarify what you meant.

Telluride · **03-18-2015, 11:13 PM**

(03-18-2015, 11:08 PM)Bryn Wrote:
(03-18-2015, 10:58 PM)Telluride Wrote:
(03-18-2015, 10:41 PM)Bryn Wrote: [edit] i do wurds gud

I do see that dismissal, and acknowledge that it is a potent thing, but I also see very quick and angry dismissals of a fair and honest attempt to incorporate a male perspective not to dismiss, but to understand and come to terms with, the stress and frustration these things develop.

My point is that there is pettiness on BOTH sides, and a refusal to acknowledge that from the beginning instantly turns me off from "debate" in which I might hear the word "mansplaining" be thrown about as quickly as dismissal of the feminine perspective.

Can't deny that, but I don't see it in this thread. I think we took different things from Zyrusticaev's post, as I read it as supporting the general sway of the thread. Which is why I wanted to clarify what you meant.

Here's what I'm looking at:

"I expect better from the RP community, but clearly my standards are too damn high. And this despite the literacy rate here being far, far higher than most other corners of the Internet.

I don't even know where to begin. I just... I can't. I can't. "

Trying to start a discussion and quickly suggesting that all the potential audience is somehow inferior is a bad, bad sign, and that is exactly what I fear is demonstrated here. It too greatly suggests a brazen challenge and insult to the intelligence of people who may simply wish to maintain a peaceful forum.

We're critiquing the critique. And doing so calmly. Look, it can be done!

Poll: Is the term "Mary Sue" sexist? You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes, it is.	3.48%	4	3.48%
No, it isn't.	84.35%	97	84.35%
I'm a bit mixed.	9.57%	11	9.57%
Other, see response below,	2.61%	3	2.61%
Total		115 vote(s)	100%

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (11): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Next » Jump to page:

Opinion question: Is Mary Sue Sexist?

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes