I am concerned about the alleged change to the ending though...

If what we are being teased with in the trailer IS the new ending, then I don't understand how it would actually achieve what Ozy was after in the comics... It would surely just spark off WW III and Armageddon...

I kinda hope it's all a big double-bluff...

And as far as I'm concerned, it's time for new flash-pasteurized blood in City Hall. Heck, it's time for new blood everywhere! I miss voting for old Cowboy Ellis, though...

Let's get together at ABC Books, whaddaya say? Right near my house, now: so I've ended up getting some benefit from the Olympics after all!

And let's just dismiss the undesirable T. I pity the fool.

Welp, on to the next trainwreck...

So have you had sufficient feedback by now to revise your original statement “the only women who really complain about the objectivication of women are the ugly feminists who can’t use sexuality to sell themselves?”

No.

Or do you stand by it still?

I do.

I just always find these "reasonable" defences for unreasonable ideas very provoking: someone might make the mistake of crediting them just because they have a superficially conciliating tone, and that would be a bit of a tragedy.

But I probably should've taken steps to come across less snotty, so that one's on me.

Anyway, I suppose I've said my piece.

(Hey, Fourthworlder, you said "Skytrain"...! But only one place in the world makes portmanteaux that dumb-sounding, surely?)

Gosh, T., whatever do you mean "people are way too sensitive about feminist issues on this site?"

So have you had sufficient feedback by now to revise your original statement "the only women who really complain about the objectivication of women are the ugly feminists who can't use sexuality to sell themselves?"
Or do you stand by it still?
I'd like to think that maybe you were just being a bit too glib and quickly dismissive and cute, and didn't really stop to think about what you were saying before you said it, and that now on sober second thought you'll retract the statement and apologize to girls and women everywhere.
If not, then I'll deem you firmly as something likely less than neanderthal, since there's considerable evidence that Neanderthals were matriarchal.
I know, I know, they died out. Your point is...?

And Plok, I hope you'll likewise look back and realize just how overbearingly dismissive your initial response to haggie was. I know you're an big Watchmen fan, so I'm figuring that the tone of your sneer at these posters just sort of carried over into your comment.
But your horse/zebra zoo metaphor was good enough to file away for future borrowing, so you get a mulligan on this one.

And about the posters.... I guess what bothers me even more than Laurie's gleaming buttcheek is just the REALITY of seeing these characters all slick and processed and packaged and ready for the cereal boxes and Skytrain stations. No movie can hope to capture the richness and depths of this book, but it's a bummer (sorry Laurie) to see how disappointed I'll inevitably be, even as the relentless fanboy in me looks forward to the sheer wondrous spectacle .

But hey, they say there's no giant telepathic squid in this movie (oops spoilers, sorry, too late) but that New York gets nuked or something instead.

Sigh. Anybody heard anything more definitive?

And eww yes, Seven of Nine, absolutely.
Thanks so much for that.

"Hardcore feminists argue that objectification is wrong. Period. That’s completely ridiculous."

Now that's a statement that doesn't invite dialogue, so much as critique: because that's not even Women's Studies, that's Phil 100 right there. "Are other people ends or means: discuss", etc. Apparently you believe it's in your power to settle the issue comprehensively, by saying sometimes they are means but that's okay. Or in other words: it's not really an issue at all.

If you just, y'know...duck it.

Also, your conception of what makes an "extreme" feminist, or a "hardcore" feminist, is (to put it delicately) inutile: if the definition of "feminism" were a zoo, yours would apparently have only two cages in it, one for the horse and one for the zebra.

You're working from a knowledge deficit.

You actually make quite a few other assumptions, both implicit and explicit, which I consider unwarranted. But I won't bother pointing them out, because neither you nor I are getting paid for this, and anyway it doesn't change the upshot, which is: you should get yourself some better information.

That's really all I've got to tell you. Take it as you will.

EEEEuuuuuwwww!

I really wish you hadn't said that...

That's just ruined both...

The hard thing about where you went with your stance is that there is an immediate reaction to what is perceived as "anti-feminist" statements in today's culture. I think you have a very solid point about how there are two sides to the feminist argument against "objectification." Hardcore feminists argue that objectification is wrong. Period. That's completely ridiculous. Objectification is used regularly in a very healthy fashion, especially the arts. Most specifically in photography and fashion. Creating or observing a beautiful image, especially of women because we all can admit that they are generally the more physically beautiful sex, is not inherently bad. Objectifying a person for a moment does not mean that we will objectify them in the next. I might view a supermodel objectively when I see her beautifully photographed on a billboard, but I'm sure my idea of her would be completely different if she and I were holding a conversation. I understand the argument about how the constant barrage of these images damages the self images of our female youth but saying objectification is bad is an oversimplification.

Like all activists, feminists take their stance to the extreme in hopes that the culture will meet them in the middle. I should say "feminist-activists" because I think that most of us are actually "feminists" these days since the term really comes from the notion of female equality. The more extreme sides of feminism, which is a very negative movement IMO, really have to do with female dominance; a sort of revenge against males for centuries of oppression or a perception of oppression by people of today. I say a "perception" because extreme feminists will tell you that women were oppressed by gender roles when that is really only a half-truth. There's no guarantee that women on the whole felt oppressed by the gender roles that most likely developed as a way for society to run efficiently. That's not to say that gender roles are a good thing (nor are they inherently evil) so much as we need to study their existence from all angles and find a healthy way to change the notion of what a woman is and what a man is. There is middle ground. The problem with the feminist-activist movement is that the participators fail to realize that some of their (mostly unrealized) motives are of the same ilk as their "oppressors." Extremist and sexist.

Am I an anti-feminist? Of course not. I am a firm believer of the feminist movement as it relates to the equality of men and women, as I believe in the equality of all humans across the board. However, I know that my comments above (and more comments, if I chose to write them out further) would lead to some strong emotional response from some people. Unfortunately, political correctness has led to the inability to argue about feminism. You can't easily challenge some of the notions of modern feminist-activism without being called a misogynist.

My sister-in-law, who is a feminist-activist, and I got into a good (productive) argument about the magazine industry and how they feed the notion of women "needing" to look like supermodels. I argued that the magazines weren't inherently evil because, while they were escalating a problem, they were obviously serving a need. Those magazines were initially successful because women bought them, and they still do buy them. She believes that women buy them because of pressure by society. I argued that she was half correct because the other half is that women also buy them because of genetic makeup (no pun intended). The argument ended when my sister-in-law burst into tears and screamed that I just wasn't listening. Now, if I really wanted a slam dunk, I could have pointed out to her that her emotional, crying response was due to her genetic makeup being different than that of a man. It's ok that men and women are different; it doesn't make one sex less worthy than the other, it just makes humankind more interesting. However, I know that if I'd said anything, she would have called me a misogynist because men and women are the same. Period.

Sorry for the long rant but it had to be done.

He actually reminds me of Chris O'Donnel Robin. Now, back to your regularly scheduled diversion from the original post.

Not as ugly as you trying to defend this, though.

Just because something is ugly doesn't make it untrue. The ugliness or positivity of my statement is irrelevant to their truth value. I don't know why you keep bringing up the "ugliness" of what I say as if that relates in any way to their validity.

Your formulation here is kinda bullshit. Women's right to consent to be "judged and appreciated for their beauty and sexuality"...a very ugly equivocation there, by the way...their right to consent to this...

What right is that, exactly? The right to acquiesce to the inevitable? The right to give up your personal credibility as anything but an apologist for the local normal? The right to play ball?

You're doing it again. Sure, if a beautiful woman goes into acting or modelling, she likes being objectified, right? Only the ugly women who go into acting or modelling don't want to be ogled, clearly. But then why would they, when they're so ugly?

Not as ugly as you trying to defend this, though.

Are women judged by their looks? Yes, mostly. There are all kinds of studies about how better looking women are more likely to be hired, etc. I would say that the same probably holds true for men, but I've only read studies discussing women. Does that mean women use their sexuality in social situations. Some do, certainly. Again, men do as well. Flirting works both ways, even if men and women respond to different aspects of it.

The argument breaks down when T. says "hot women do not mind" being objectified (how would you know?), and then argues that consent is an issue. If one is looking at a beautiful woman and she notices and responds negatively, it is only right to stop looking. Regardless of how she is dressed. Regardless of how flirtatious she is. Yes, T., women have a right to dress and act how they want, and men have a right to appreciate it. That doesn't mean women don't mind it, especially if one crosses any line (and I'm not saying or implying that you would) into unwarranted behavior.

Also, implying "hot women" are (or act) dumb is ridiculous (that's my reading of your Jeopardy! comment). Women don't have to work hard or learn if they look good? That's absurd, and sexist.

I see, T., that you write about people being easily offended and PC. I also notice you leap to the defense of the GOP whenever someone criticizes Republicans. Everyone has their button.