|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 19, 2015 11:32:08 GMT -5
It's somewhat flattering that you see me as a valiant warrior but I am merely having a discussion about a topic I did not seek out, but which appeared on a forum I regularly frequent. "Outrage" is a bit strong, but is it wrong to be outraged by censorship, bullying, and a growing trend of submission to an irrational but loud minority? If so, then I don't want to be right. Hate to break it to you, but in this case, you're the loud minority. You're not speaking on behalf of all men, just a small like-minded group. I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. How am I loud? |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 19, 2015 11:33:15 GMT -5
If you believe the covers are "effectively identical", then we clearly have no frame of reference in which to continue the conversation. It's like saying Jupiter has been declared to be effectively identical to Earth because they're both round planets in the cosmic vicinity of each other. The only difference between the covers is that in 1990 we didn't have keyboard warriors trolling the internet in search of things to be outraged by. I've detailed the differences. If you don't see them, I don't see the point in going through them again. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 19, 2015 11:33:16 GMT -5
It's somewhat flattering that you see me as a valiant warrior but I am merely having a discussion about a topic I did not seek out, but which appeared on a forum I regularly frequent. "Outrage" is a bit strong, but is it wrong to be outraged by censorship, bullying, and a growing trend of submission to an irrational but loud minority? If so, then I don't want to be right. When it's the wimmens, it's outrage, but when it's you, it's a righteous crusade against the hysterical oppression of wimmenism.
Fight on, brave little toaster!
Now you're just making stuff up. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 19, 2015 11:38:15 GMT -5
It's not a matter of not believing you. It's a matter of that being completely irrelevant. A single anecdotal experience is completely irrelevant when you're considering a systemic matter at a macro level. That wage gap myth has been debunked over and over. You should Google it. Yeah...that would be the part where I talked about statistics being parsed poorly. I know exactly what I'm talking about. And about the problems with the "wage gap" argument. None of which makes your anecdotal statements that you aren't making as much money as you want to make in any way relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 19, 2015 11:43:56 GMT -5
That wage gap myth has been debunked over and over. You should Google it. Yeah...that would be the part where I talked about statistics being parsed poorly. I know exactly what I'm talking about. And about the problems with the "wage gap" argument. None of which makes your anecdotal statements that you aren't making as much money as you want to make in any way relevant. It's pretty relevant to me, at least. And although anything is possible, I doubt that I am unique in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 19, 2015 12:38:22 GMT -5
This is pretty far off the path, but how the heck is the wage gap a myth? That just crazy!
You have to do some real creative reasoning to justify it. For instance, one argument is women are out of the market for some amount of time for child rearing... there's not reason a woman has to be the one to do that... our societal conventions and biases make it so. The actual medical necessity of child birth wouldn't have a signfigant impact.
Less Education? Less math and science? Fewer Hours? All that stuff is the part of the same gender biases... just because you can define WHY women make less money doesn't make it not true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 19, 2015 13:10:26 GMT -5
The "wage gap" is a myth because the men-folk say it is, and they use their manly math to prove it, and then they raise up their manly voices and repeat it over and over, and thus the strength of their manly voices and their manly repetition and their manly steadfast resolve makes it come true.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 19, 2015 13:17:23 GMT -5
Actually I believe it's a myth because there was this guy who said he knew of women that made more than he did. Clearly irrefutable proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 19, 2015 13:24:47 GMT -5
It's true becuz ppl on teh interwebz says so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 19, 2015 13:25:51 GMT -5
The "wage gap" is a myth because the men-folk say it is, and they use their manly math to prove it, and then they raise up their manly voices and repeat it over and over, and thus the strength of their manly voices and their manly repetition and their manly steadfast resolve makes it come true. That actually doesn't help at all. The problem is in the way that the statistics are looked at. The 77 cents on the dollar figure takes all salaries and then finds what the average and the median is and postulates that women make less money. It's not necessarily the proper view of the actual statistics. Because women are far more likely to work in lower paying jobs as a group (child care, social work, etc.). Now that doesn't mean that there aren't systemic problems that can lead to that. On the other hand it doesn't mean that there are. If you take the numbers in like jobs with like experience women and men are very close to being at an equitable wage level. However they aren't there. Most people aren't going to call Huffington Post as a Right-Leaning "Man" site. www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.htmlAgain...this is the issue I pointed out. You have to actually analyze the statistics, look at how they're used and use them properly. Using stats incorrectly is no better than basing your argument on utterly irrelevant anecdotal evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 19, 2015 13:33:31 GMT -5
I think it's true that two people of different genders doing the same job with the same experience make about the same amount of money. That doesn't mean that women have a fair representation in high paying jobs. That's where the gap comes in, IMO, just because some left wing crazies don't really know how to frame an arguement doesn't mean their points aren't valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 13:40:46 GMT -5
It's true becuz ppl on teh interwebz says so. But those people are respected researchers. Not neckbeards from Reddit. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 13:43:05 GMT -5
I would like to know what kind of people complained about that cover. Sounds like many people these days are too sensitive and have knee jerk reactions for many non serious events. Why wasn't there an outrage over the following 2 covers from Barbara Gordons BOP series?   Some people have too much time on their hands. Probably because neither of these covers showed the female character (the one that had been famously crippled, stripped & degraded, and probably raped) in a cowed, submissive, powerless position at the hands of the lunatic who did the crippling, stripping, degrading, and (probable) raping. And the covers weren't used on a series that purports to be a "fun, lighthearted" series starring the victim. These covers have no connection to the aborted Batgirl cover, other than featuring the Joker. It wasn't the lighthearted reboot for tweens either. It was pretty much status quo with the rest of DC the entire time, not their attempt to reach beyond that market. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 13:44:19 GMT -5
And it's not nearly the same in tone. She's not shown cowed and crying and totally submissive. She looks scared, but she's fighting back. And Suicide Squad was not rebranded as "fun & lighthearted". I don't see her fighting back at all. And the gun is actually pointed at her! You are splitting hairs. The two covers are close enough to be effectively identical. Is he doing anything sexual to her? |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Mar 19, 2015 13:56:48 GMT -5
I imagine I could google the image and find it fairly easy ... but yeah not on my work PC, I bet. It's a scared looking Batgirl with The Joker leaning over her shoulder. A pistol in one hand, and with the other he's using his finger to draw Joker lips on Batgirl's face in red paint, or blood. It's an unsettling image, but not graphic, and not any more unsettling than any number of DC superhero covers over the years. But to the credit of the people who dislike it, it is not in the tradition of this new lighthearted Batgirl series, and does seem out of place on this title. It also robs her of being the hero of her own book, making her a scared (as you pointed out, she looks terrified) damsel-in-distress (while "distress" may be the understatement of the decade) and victim. Show me one male hero who looks like he just pissed herself on the cover of his own book. |
|
