I could go long and drawn out ...

[quietprofanity]

But this is probably going out into the ether, so I'll be brief.

1.) For all this bullshit whining about how bad anger is and how it's hurting the feminist comics fan's cause. You know, I'm not much of an angry person ... Well, I kind of am. But I'm also a sensitive woobie and so then I get upset about it later. Anyway, I try to spread my anger where it's needed. I think I give creators a lot of leeway. ("High heels? Well, her powers ARE magic-based -- it's not like she HAS to run." This may be how I was able to watch Sailor Moon.)

So ... yeah, not extremely angry. I haven't gotten really mad over anything that happened this year except for the Mary-Jane-killed-by-semen subplot and I didn't really blog about it extensively. In fact, when I was first discovering WFA, I thought Karen Healey was overbearing. And I outright got in a fight with Valerie D'Orazio under my old name (and hers).

Now I read their blogs every day. What kept me coming back? Well, I kept coming back to Karen's blog because she was pretty insightful and witty, had really good recommendations for when she DID like something. And Valerie ... well, she makes me laugh (and in the good way, too). Usually don't agree with her still, but her insights are unique. And "Good-bye to Comics", obviously.

But yeah ... anger wasn't quite the deterrent in either situation. Yes, I'm not a creator and maybe since I was a feminist I was inclined to listen to them on one degree or another anyway. But hey, all those creators claim to like women and also, I think they blame it on anger, but I don't think they really listen to female fans much to begin with. Or maybe you really think Marvel would have pulled the Mary Jane statue or DC would have given Steph a Robin case if everyone just ASKED NICELY. Would you like to try?

2.) Why is everyone fighting with the SAME DAMN PEOPLE again and again?

---

And now that I have your attention ... can you think of any cartoon characters that don't have any physical attributes of a certain race but act like a certain race (or stereotypes of one). I'm thinking of Frylock (played by a black man) and Coach Z here. Got any others?

I just want to know your "thoughts on [blank]" regarding this. Seriously.

Comments

[quietprofanity.livejournal.com]

I'm always reluctant to label a cartoon character who acts camp/flaming/queen-like to to be "gay" (for canon purposes, not slash) because eventually the text will seem to go out of the way to establish that they are not. I'm thinking of a recent Alvin and the Chipmunks straight-to-video movie where they had a camp stereotype drama teacher and at the very last second threw him together with the dowdy schoolmarm. It's a really weird mentality but seems to have stayed intact. I think that's why Dumbledore being gay was still sort of a shock. There were subtextual hints, sure, but we're so used to the pink being made blue ... or whatever.

[sigh] I respect what Ragnell and Kalinara do ... and I get why they feel they need "all sides of the debate" in the issue. But I don't really like how it ends up with the same five or so people who are never going to see eye to eye just going on the merry-go-round again and again and again. The fact that two of the people on the anti-feminist side who get a big chunk of attention are probably sockpuppets is another factor.

[papajoemambo.livejournal.com]

I think the fact that Roger crossdresses and mimics what he perceives to be universally accepted forms of human behavior based on the work of Paul Lynde might be more accurate, you're right. I was more indicating that Roger was an alien who acts like a specific subsection of humanity, but that's kind of obvious isn't it? So I guess that's not really one who counts. Zoidberg's like that too - although when you meet other members of his race they all sound like borscht-belt comedians, and not just George Jessel.

The sock-puppet factor is something that just muddles and confuses me out here. It just seems like a licence to lie to me, or something like that.

I mean, I understand the neccessity some people feel to have an oinline persona that's different from their own, and how empowering that can be for someone who doesn't feel they usually have much of a voice. I see it as being extra-empowering to come into your own as a version of yourself online that is very similar to who you actually are. I've worked hard at keeping my online persona somewhat-more-or-less a cartoonishly simplified version of how I am in real life. Anyone who knows me offline knows that I may respond outwardly differently when I'm offline, but if they've read my stuff online they usually know what's going on in my head at all times. Sockpuppets, as a means of fluffing yourself or your point of view up, just seem like so much work wasted when the time spent could be better used to actually make something other than a transparent means of congratulating yourself. I think it would be better used, anyway.

I dunno, I "get it", I think, but I don't like what it says about people, I guess.

And now by talking too much about something that really only is something of little importance to anyone, really, is how I show you what I'm like when I'm *not* online. "Pappy" (aka Online Joe) is usually a lot more concise than I am in-the-meat-ternet. :P

[quietprofanity.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I got that. And it's good to bring it up. I'm trying to get a dialogue flowing about the issue here, not play minority bingo or anything. :-)

I think some people kinda like being jerks. I was surprised to find someone in my family actually likes trolling the Internet. Her explanation: "It's great! People think I'm really funny!" I'm like ... "Um, okay."

I don't know how much I can add to that topic, as I've been told Internet-self is not very much like real-life self. But I don't try to lie or anything ... I do think I act differently depending on the "mood" of a place or how well I know the person. (My Dad will do this stuff all the time.) But I just think I'm showing certain aspects of myself more, not always trying to hide others, if that makes any sense.

[papajoemambo.livejournal.com]

It does, and I'm not exactly the way I am offline when I'm on - I was thinking more of the people who devellop incredibly rich, detailed backstories about themselves only to disappoint all of their online friends when they realise that most of it was utter bullpucky.

I understand that I'm different with different people when I have the time to think about what I'm saying to them. I'm always concerned that if I *do* come across as a better person online, that I'm liable to disappoint the ones who do meet me, eventually.