- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/12851483
What’s the craziest or funniest Wikipedia outline you’ve seen?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/12851483
What’s the craziest or funniest Wikipedia outline you’ve seen?
Well, kinda, yeah. Discoursive power is a thing and brings sorrow. The recent change (also called “wokeness”) that adresses the reproduction of sexism is accordingly important.
As I understood that post, it redicules said change in discourse. So it contains this discoursive element of men making fun of feminism, or at least applying some whataboutism, as seen my fellow responder, doesn’t it?
And I mean that, maybe I’m wrong. I’m open to criticism.
I think the meme is just showing the ridiculous difference between the company being controversial for literal child labor and imperialist exploitation compared to simply making a female character “less sexy”
This is the relativist argument I was talking about
Playing off one kind of oppression against another has never done any good to emancipatory endeavor (aka the left)
Treating a controversy about a fictional character wearing different shoes with the same severity as literal child slavery sounds absolutely exhausting and absurd to me
I don’t know if you have noticed, but cartoon characters depicted as female are usually depicted as sexy. Almost always in pubs.
If you care about oppression, you will understand how the reduction to being sexy for men (“objectification”) of women all over society is important. Imagine the violence of not being seen as a person by default, an agent, but an object to male desire, the male gaze.
Again and again, since the wake of feminism, men bring up that relativist argument. Oh you feel oppressed because over your whole lifetime and that of your mother and sisters men treat you like a peace of pretty meat? Well, wrong, honey, look at “literal real problems”.
Ok, but the controversy over the mnm character was them de-sexualizing the character. This should not be a controversy because this is a positive change. However it’s treated as a controversy in the same level as child slavery in this wiki article. I think this is where we’ve gotten mixed up
Ooh I see. Thats one solid mix-up. But I still think its good to take it seriously as a controversy, even though it shouldn’t be as it’s positive change. The backlash shows it’s still a fight to be faught