[002]
SevenDeadPineTrees
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Again, 7/5 is more to highlight the fact that \'\'there is no excuse for Charlie Brown\'s behavior\'\'. He is \'\'stalking her\'\', whether he means malicious intent or not, and the hand-wave \
to:
Again, 7/5 is more to highlight the fact that \\\'\\\'there is no excuse for Charlie Brown\\\'s behavior\\\'\\\'. He is \\\'\\\'stalking her\\\'\\\', whether he means malicious intent or not, and the hand-wave \\\"boys will be boys, he doesn\\\'t mean any harm\\\" attitude (an attitude that does exist in the real world and is responsible for a lot of sexual assault in schools going unpunished) is dismissive of the harm it actually does: Glossy did not file the restraining order, because he is not stalking her, she just served him the papers. The little red-haired girl did, because it was obviously making \\\'\\\'her\\\'\\\' uncomfortable. That was the point of the strip: to make you think about the little red-haired girl for once, instead of Good Ol\\\' Charlie Brown. It\\\'s an AlternativeCharacterInterpretation for \\\'\\\'him\\\'\\\', not a chance to make Glossy look good.
EDIT: More on the 7/5 note, let\\\'s compare the little red-haired girl to the rest of the Peanuts cast: unlike Linus or Charlie himself, AFAIK she has no face, no name, no agency, no ability to defend herself, even if it would be futile. She exists only for Charlie Brown to admire from behind trees. I don\\\'t really feel a deep need to analyze an extremely minor character in the Peanuts cast, but it seems the simplest reason for why Glossy came to the little redhaired girl\\\'s defense is because her character concept depends on the fact that \\\'\\\'she literally can\\\'t do it herself\\\'\\\'.
Further, saying that since Glossy isn\\\'t shown serving similar papers in male characters\\\' defense is, again, the silence fallacy. If you buy your friend lunch instead of donating the cost of that lunch to a soup kitchen, does that mean you hate the homeless? Of course not. But that\\\'s the thing: she isn\\\'t shown doing anything. And if you absolutely \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' use that example, there\\\'s the 7/15 strip, which shows the Sisterhood tearing down stripper poles in order to make a playground \\\'\\\'for everyone to play on\\\'\\\'. If the Sisterhood really was misandrist, wouldn\\\'t it have a \\\'\\\'No Boys Allowed\\\'\\\' sign, with only Monique, Fuschia, Baby Blue, Lady Liberty, and Tangerine playing on it?
I\\\'m not going to dignify the concept of \\\"true feminism\\\" with a response, because we\\\'re not arguing about the validity of feminism as a concept, just a divisive character in a webcomic. Glossy is a radical, yes, and she does seem to have more in common with the ideals of first-wave feminism.. because in the Sinfest world, \\\'\\\'she is a first-wave feminist\\\'\\\' in a world where the Patriarchy \\\'\\\'is a literal Matrix built around oppressing and dividing the sexes\\\'\\\'. She lives in a world rife with rampant, unapologetic sexism, that up until her arrival, had only a handful of major female characters, most (if not all of whom) were built around their sex appeal, in-universe and to the audience. I know the very obvious real-world parallels get thick at that point, but those parallels do exist, Telling girls to shut up because they\\\'re too noisy and get in the way of your fun is something that happens in the real world all the time.
That being said, yes, the Patriarchy plot has taken over the comic and I can see where that gets annoying, but that\\\'s no reason to damn a character who does ride at the forefront of that parade for things she \\\'\\\'has not done\\\'\\\'. Even good, chivalrous men (both in the comic and in the real world!) can do themselves and the world a great good if they take a minute to understand the concept of \\\'\\\'privilege\\\'\\\', and to be aware of how deeply it affects the lives of everyone around them, including themselves and everyone in their lives, male OR female.
EDIT:
As much as I\\\'d like to avoid any unintended assumptions, it seems to me that most of the people who make these kind of gross over-accusations of Glossy and a general dismissal of the Patriarchy plotline for being too preachy and message-heavy, don\\\'t really have a full understanding of what the real-world Patriarchy looks like, or at least haven\\\'t looked closely enough to find something that really disturbs them personally (and there\\\'s a \\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\' for \\\'\\\'anyone\\\'\\\' to find personally disturbing). The arguments against her are upsettingly close to the same arguments people use against feminism as a whole (blaming her for things she is not responsible for because she was involved in the circumstances surrounding them; accusing her of being too preachy because her message demands uncomfortable truths, discrediting her cause because, in a \\\'\\\'single instance\\\'\\\', her depiction of protecting a little girl was seen as discrediting a little boy, and then she is blamed for \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' protecting little boys in the same canon)
EDIT: More on the 7/5 note, let\\\'s compare the little red-haired girl to the rest of the Peanuts cast: unlike Linus or Charlie himself, AFAIK she has no face, no name, no agency, no ability to defend herself, even if it would be futile. She exists only for Charlie Brown to admire from behind trees. I don\\\'t really feel a deep need to analyze an extremely minor character in the Peanuts cast, but it seems the simplest reason for why Glossy came to the little redhaired girl\\\'s defense is because her character concept depends on the fact that \\\'\\\'she literally can\\\'t do it herself\\\'\\\'.
Further, saying that since Glossy isn\\\'t shown serving similar papers in male characters\\\' defense is, again, the silence fallacy. If you buy your friend lunch instead of donating the cost of that lunch to a soup kitchen, does that mean you hate the homeless? Of course not. But that\\\'s the thing: she isn\\\'t shown doing anything. And if you absolutely \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' use that example, there\\\'s the 7/15 strip, which shows the Sisterhood tearing down stripper poles in order to make a playground \\\'\\\'for everyone to play on\\\'\\\'. If the Sisterhood really was misandrist, wouldn\\\'t it have a \\\'\\\'No Boys Allowed\\\'\\\' sign, with only Monique, Fuschia, Baby Blue, Lady Liberty, and Tangerine playing on it?
I\\\'m not going to dignify the concept of \\\"true feminism\\\" with a response, because we\\\'re not arguing about the validity of feminism as a concept, just a divisive character in a webcomic. Glossy is a radical, yes, and she does seem to have more in common with the ideals of first-wave feminism.. because in the Sinfest world, \\\'\\\'she is a first-wave feminist\\\'\\\' in a world where the Patriarchy \\\'\\\'is a literal Matrix built around oppressing and dividing the sexes\\\'\\\'. She lives in a world rife with rampant, unapologetic sexism, that up until her arrival, had only a handful of major female characters, most (if not all of whom) were built around their sex appeal, in-universe and to the audience. I know the very obvious real-world parallels get thick at that point, but those parallels do exist, Telling girls to shut up because they\\\'re too noisy and get in the way of your fun is something that happens in the real world all the time.
That being said, yes, the Patriarchy plot has taken over the comic and I can see where that gets annoying, but that\\\'s no reason to damn a character who does ride at the forefront of that parade for things she \\\'\\\'has not done\\\'\\\'. Even good, chivalrous men (both in the comic and in the real world!) can do themselves and the world a great good if they take a minute to understand the concept of \\\'\\\'privilege\\\'\\\', and to be aware of how deeply it affects the lives of everyone around them, including themselves and everyone in their lives, male OR female.
EDIT:
As much as I\\\'d like to avoid any unintended assumptions, it seems to me that most of the people who make these kind of gross over-accusations of Glossy and a general dismissal of the Patriarchy plotline for being too preachy and message-heavy, don\\\'t really have a full understanding of what the real-world Patriarchy looks like, or at least haven\\\'t looked closely enough to find something that really disturbs them personally (and there\\\'s a \\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\' for \\\'\\\'anyone\\\'\\\' to find personally disturbing). The arguments against her are upsettingly close to the same arguments people use against feminism as a whole (blaming her for things she is not responsible for because she was involved in the circumstances surrounding them; accusing her of being too preachy because her message demands uncomfortable truths, discrediting her cause because, in a \\\'\\\'single instance\\\'\\\', her depiction of protecting a little girl was seen as discrediting a little boy, and then she is blamed for \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' protecting little boys in the same canon)
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Again, 7/5 is more to highlight the fact that \'\'there is no excuse for Charlie Brown\'s behavior\'\'. He is \'\'stalking her\'\', whether he means malicious intent or not, and the hand-wave \
to:
Again, 7/5 is more to highlight the fact that \\\'\\\'there is no excuse for Charlie Brown\\\'s behavior\\\'\\\'. He is \\\'\\\'stalking her\\\'\\\', whether he means malicious intent or not, and the hand-wave \\\"boys will be boys, he doesn\\\'t mean any harm\\\" attitude (an attitude that does exist in the real world and is responsible for a lot of sexual assault in schools going unpunished) is dismissive of the harm it actually does: Glossy did not file the restraining order, because he is not stalking her, she just served him the papers. The little red-haired girl did, because it was obviously making \\\'\\\'her\\\'\\\' uncomfortable. That was the point of the strip: to make you think about the little red-haired girl for once, instead of Good Ol\\\' Charlie Brown. It\\\'s an AlternativeCharacterInterpretation for \\\'\\\'him\\\'\\\', not a chance to make Glossy look good.
EDIT: More on the 7/5 note, let\\\'s compare the little red-haired girl to the rest of the Peanuts cast: unlike Linus or Charlie himself, AFAIK she has no face, no name, no agency, no ability to defend herself, even if it would be futile. She exists only for Charlie Brown to admire from behind trees. I don\\\'t really feel a deep need to analyze an extremely minor character in the Peanuts cast, but it seems the simplest reason for why Glossy came to the little redhaired girl\\\'s defense is because her character concept depends on the fact that \\\'\\\'she literally can\\\'t do it herself\\\'\\\'.
Further, saying that since she isn\\\'t shown serving similar papers in male characters\\\' defense is, again, the silence fallacy. If you buy your friend lunch instead of donating the cost of that lunch to a soup kitchen, does that mean you hate the homeless? Of course not. But that\\\'s the thing: she isn\\\'t shown doing anything. And if you absolutely \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' use that example, there\\\'s the 7/15 strip, which shows the Sisterhood tearing down stripper poles in order to make a playground \\\'\\\'for everyone to play on\\\'\\\'. If the Sisterhood really was misandrist, wouldn\\\'t it have a \\\'\\\'No Boys Allowed\\\'\\\' sign, with only Monique, Fuschia, Baby Blue, Lady Liberty, and Tangerine playing on it?
I\\\'m not going to dignify the concept of \\\"true feminism\\\" with a response, because we\\\'re not arguing about the validity of feminism as a concept, just a divisive character in a webcomic. Glossy is a radical, yes, and she does seem to have more in common with the ideals of first-wave feminism.. because in the Sinfest world, \\\'\\\'she is a first-wave feminist\\\'\\\' in a world where the Patriarchy \\\'\\\'is a literal Matrix built around oppressing and dividing the sexes\\\'\\\'. She lives in a world rife with rampant, unapologetic sexism, that up until her arrival, had only a handful of major female characters, most (if not all of whom) were built around their sex appeal, in-universe and to the audience. I know the very obvious real-world parallels get thick at that point, but those parallels do exist, Telling girls to shut up because they\\\'re too noisy and get in the way of your fun is something that happens in the real world all the time.
That being said, yes, the Patriarchy plot has taken over the comic and I can see where that gets annoying, but that\\\'s no reason to damn a character who does ride at the forefront of that parade for things she \\\'\\\'has not done\\\'\\\'. Even good, chivalrous men (both in the comic and in the real world!) can do themselves and the world a great good if they take a minute to understand the concept of \\\'\\\'privilege\\\'\\\', and to be aware of how deeply it affects the lives of everyone around them, including themselves and everyone in their lives, male OR female.
EDIT:
As much as I\\\'d like to avoid any unintended assumptions, it seems to me that most of the people who make these kind of gross over-accusations of Glossy and a general dismissal of the Patriarchy plotline for being too preachy and message-heavy, don\\\'t really have a full understanding of what the real-world Patriarchy looks like, or at least haven\\\'t looked closely enough to find something that really disturbs them personally (and there\\\'s a \\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\' for \\\'\\\'anyone\\\'\\\' to find personally disturbing). The arguments against her are upsettingly close to the same arguments people use against feminism as a whole (blaming her for things she is not responsible for because she was involved in the circumstances surrounding them; accusing her of being too preachy because her message demands uncomfortable truths, discrediting her cause because, in a \\\'\\\'single instance\\\'\\\', her depiction of protecting a little girl was seen as discrediting a little boy, and then she is blamed for \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' protecting little boys in the same canon)
EDIT: More on the 7/5 note, let\\\'s compare the little red-haired girl to the rest of the Peanuts cast: unlike Linus or Charlie himself, AFAIK she has no face, no name, no agency, no ability to defend herself, even if it would be futile. She exists only for Charlie Brown to admire from behind trees. I don\\\'t really feel a deep need to analyze an extremely minor character in the Peanuts cast, but it seems the simplest reason for why Glossy came to the little redhaired girl\\\'s defense is because her character concept depends on the fact that \\\'\\\'she literally can\\\'t do it herself\\\'\\\'.
Further, saying that since she isn\\\'t shown serving similar papers in male characters\\\' defense is, again, the silence fallacy. If you buy your friend lunch instead of donating the cost of that lunch to a soup kitchen, does that mean you hate the homeless? Of course not. But that\\\'s the thing: she isn\\\'t shown doing anything. And if you absolutely \\\'\\\'must\\\'\\\' use that example, there\\\'s the 7/15 strip, which shows the Sisterhood tearing down stripper poles in order to make a playground \\\'\\\'for everyone to play on\\\'\\\'. If the Sisterhood really was misandrist, wouldn\\\'t it have a \\\'\\\'No Boys Allowed\\\'\\\' sign, with only Monique, Fuschia, Baby Blue, Lady Liberty, and Tangerine playing on it?
I\\\'m not going to dignify the concept of \\\"true feminism\\\" with a response, because we\\\'re not arguing about the validity of feminism as a concept, just a divisive character in a webcomic. Glossy is a radical, yes, and she does seem to have more in common with the ideals of first-wave feminism.. because in the Sinfest world, \\\'\\\'she is a first-wave feminist\\\'\\\' in a world where the Patriarchy \\\'\\\'is a literal Matrix built around oppressing and dividing the sexes\\\'\\\'. She lives in a world rife with rampant, unapologetic sexism, that up until her arrival, had only a handful of major female characters, most (if not all of whom) were built around their sex appeal, in-universe and to the audience. I know the very obvious real-world parallels get thick at that point, but those parallels do exist, Telling girls to shut up because they\\\'re too noisy and get in the way of your fun is something that happens in the real world all the time.
That being said, yes, the Patriarchy plot has taken over the comic and I can see where that gets annoying, but that\\\'s no reason to damn a character who does ride at the forefront of that parade for things she \\\'\\\'has not done\\\'\\\'. Even good, chivalrous men (both in the comic and in the real world!) can do themselves and the world a great good if they take a minute to understand the concept of \\\'\\\'privilege\\\'\\\', and to be aware of how deeply it affects the lives of everyone around them, including themselves and everyone in their lives, male OR female.
EDIT:
As much as I\\\'d like to avoid any unintended assumptions, it seems to me that most of the people who make these kind of gross over-accusations of Glossy and a general dismissal of the Patriarchy plotline for being too preachy and message-heavy, don\\\'t really have a full understanding of what the real-world Patriarchy looks like, or at least haven\\\'t looked closely enough to find something that really disturbs them personally (and there\\\'s a \\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\' for \\\'\\\'anyone\\\'\\\' to find personally disturbing). The arguments against her are upsettingly close to the same arguments people use against feminism as a whole (blaming her for things she is not responsible for because she was involved in the circumstances surrounding them; accusing her of being too preachy because her message demands uncomfortable truths, discrediting her cause because, in a \\\'\\\'single instance\\\'\\\', her depiction of protecting a little girl was seen as discrediting a little boy, and then she is blamed for \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' protecting little boys in the same canon)
