Comment by oulipo2
9 hours ago
The fact that EVERYBODY here sees it but you, tells you that perhaps you should take a step back and try to understand... it might be YOU who don't get it at all...
9 hours ago
The fact that EVERYBODY here sees it but you, tells you that perhaps you should take a step back and try to understand... it might be YOU who don't get it at all...
I think the poster gets it. As do I. And I do not believe either of us care all that much about the vocal minority.
Isn't that funny, considering you seem to be the vocal minority here?
Folks, we're now 5 levels deep on this thread and I still haven't heard it spelled out what's wrong.
I see "it's obvious" "cringey" and allcaps being used. Being able to vocalize specific problems and having the courage to clearly state it is a life skill.
Please be specific about the problem and why. Bonus points for replacement suggestions.
The boys-fight-for-girl is a very typical movie trope and this is a scene-based product. Maybe that's why they defaulted to it.
Well, here goes. The "story" told shows a woman as something men possess ("Backoff! She's mine!".) She even asks "do I get a say?" (hah, as if!) and is ignored, of course. If two men want to possess the same woman, they get into a physical fight, where the winner gets to own the woman. Oh, plot twist! She "decides" for the nice guy (lucky her, getting a man!)
Do you seriously think this is a story still worth telling? Is that how you view women? Is that how you view men?
But since you asked specifically about someone spelling it out letter by letter for you:
Women are not a prized possession, but individual humans, like men. You do not "take" them, you don't "fight over" them, you don't "own" or "win" or "loose" or "deserve" them - because they are not objects, but humans. They can also decide to pick neither of the two men if they so desire, and pursue a career in neuroscience.
Men who disagree over something do not, in fact, need to hit each other immediately, or throw rocks to their heads. They have the ability to talk and listen to reason. Because they aren't chimpanzees, but sapiens, a species with extraordinary capable brains.
Regurgitating this very trope, which works just as well with aforementioned chimpanzees instead of humans, proliferates the stereotypical depictions of women and men. Science is very clear about the fact that repeated exposure to an idea increases acceptance of this idea, so telling the tale of boys-fight-for-girl time and time again ensures its firmly planted in people's heads, influencing their view on other people negatively.
Women are exposed to severe violence all around the world, every day. If you don't believe this, I don't feel obligated to convince you with any particular slice from the mountain of freely available scientific material on the topic. Alternatively, for a fun little experiment, consider asking five female and five male relatives or friends each about the three worst things they can imagine happening to them on the way home at night. No spoilers, but the answers are going to be very different.
+1 This is a good if verbose response and the points and questions will be easy for the library author to address.
I'm going to take "you" here to mean the author instead of myself b/c I already found the example distasteful for reasons similar to yours.
> But since you asked specifically about someone spelling it out letter by letter for you:
You took time to do this and I appreciate it. I like to think you're teaching others how to respond clearer. I hope we can see this level of organized thought and direct challenge at the top level instead of reactionary slang and huffing.
I think you're discounting people's reaction of not liking it. That is communicative. Not everything has a well established model to communicate efficiently using words.
And being a trope is not enough of a defense; tropes can drift away from culture over time.
The demo is not egregious by itself, it's the choice of the demo for this circumstance. Why boy-hits-boy-with-rock-for-girl for an animation DSL?
If the choice is meaningless, why defend it?
And if the choice is meaningful, why this?
> If the choice is meaningless, why defend it?
> And if the choice is meaningful, why this?
Well said. So many of these painful "discussions" could be ended quickly if people would just honestly answer these :)