yes, I hear that you feel that way.
Pathologizing others on the internet has nothing to do with the other person, though, does it?
And there is a difference between saying I disagree with your idea, and saying I discount your idea because it’s obviously based in a personal problem.
But yeah, other people are attacking your personality, and you alone are rising above it… CLEARLY.
Every one else is the arrogant one. Uh huh.
SHIT!!! Ran out of likes… Pretend I liked this, K.
Yes, and it’s just not true. As someone who actively consumes this culture, I happen to like characters who just aren’t there for sex appeal.
Sorry everyone! I’m out of likes!
Semantics…
I don’t disagree with it because of that reason. It shouldn’t surprise me that you can’t think of another.
SeMANtics.
Sounds sexist to me. Misandry is alive and well.
Your POV is the only one that counts, obvs.
You know so much about me! I bet I want it.
And it should not surprise me that what you allow yourself to see is exactly what you expected to see.
Your reply implied there could only be one reason for me to think that way. I’m only going by what you tell me.
Oh, I’m responsible for what you imagine now? Wheeeeeeee!
what else did I say, without saying?? What other of your imaginations must I respect, and could you show me how it’s done?
Consent is hard. You don’t get it I think.
“Hyper-liberalized mob of online activists.”
Well, we can see your biases free and clear, even though I’m sure you’d claim you don’t have them. What does this even MEAN? Define your terms.
Oh of course that’s why. It couldn’t be because people (not just women) are interested in a female Thor, or the story, or that it’s a good story to begin with. Of course not. It’s the “car wreck” effect. I’m not even sure what you mean by that. The comics have been reviewed quite well; what’s such a wreck about that?
You’re the one that said it. I can’t help if you don’t understand the implications of your own “logic”.
So, I’m the one who said what you read into my words. Sure thing!
You have rights, I have responsibilities. Noted.
And I totally agree on one thing. You can’t help it. I am so sorry for that. Sorrowful, not responsible.
I’ll not make it worse for you.
I’m not sure that I buy that. Some is simply fashion’s relentless search for novelty. If buxom was popular in the 50s than thin must be popular again. If anything the thinner, straighter more “man like” image corresponds to women more “liberated” and taking on more roles in male-dominated environments. Certainly the 20s were a period where the “flapper” fashion was not all the hourglass figure that had been popular in the previous century, and it was a period of an increasing presence of women in previously male domains, like voting. OTOH the 50s was both a period of the “bullet bra,” and a social emphasis of women returning to the homemaker roles that had been abandoned by some during the war. And then in the 60s and 70s we see fashion returning to a straight, less curvy, profile.
Except that’s not what happened. It sounds like you’re just reciting canned responses from some imaginary conversation.
what happened?
Show us on the bear.
That we’re not the hyper-reactionary mob of online activists that the MRAs and their associated groups are?
