Ladies and relatively few gentlemen, what’s up with your feminist* arguing?
More specifically, when you are arguing about a feminist topic (particularly ones dealing with pop culture and the depiction of women characters), why is there a sometimes a constant switch between obvious surface qualities and underlying intentions?
For example: damsels in distress on pulp novels. This is an often referenced example, but there seems to be a tendency to start discussing things such as ‘the actual character’s behavior versus the cover pic’ or whether these covers were drawn due to males being the artists or males being audience-
But suddenly, you get distracted and start focusing on the physical depiction (she’s wearing leopard panties!). Not only does that derail the train of discussion, but it’s almost immediately followed by some pseudo-Jungian nonsense (and what does that say about men’s view of animals, are we just leopard vagina to them) and this is no good for anyone. No, this is not limited to feminist articles; this also happens with wingnut political bloggers and Glenn Beck. And it’s not a blanket all-feminists accusation, but I’ve run into a lot of similar articles lately.
Look, I want to hear the important, meaningful argument. Speculation is perfectly fine. But keep it rational- and when you start getting so far into your own argument that deep frustrations and insecurities start coming out twisted instead of things that make sense, please step back a moment and collect yourself. Think back to high school debate, or your logic and reasoning class. Get an editor. Because, as thousands of years of fallen politicians have shown, if you start talking crazy, you can’t go back.
*No, not all feminists. Just the ones whose judgment is skewed by anger and frustration, or are only feminists because you didn’t get a date in high school. You know who you are.