It is a fact that "9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003". In that same period, over 90 percent of reported cases of rape were perpetrated by males. It's not an "oversimplification" to state that most rape cases are male on female. It's a fact.
Even if only one rape of a man by a woman happened EVER, you can't say that rape is something that only happens to women. THE FBI STILL HOLDS THAT RAPE IS ONLY MALE ON FEMALE FOR JACE'S SAKES! You don't see the issue here? You rather word play than argue to point? Fine, Stereotype was the wrong word, your point still lacks credibility nor substance.
Even if only one rape of a man by a woman happened EVER, you can't say that rape is something that only happens to women. THE FBI STILL HOLDS THAT RAPE IS ONLY MALE ON FEMALE FOR JACE'S SAKES! You don't see the issue here? You rather word play than argue to point? Fine, Stereotype was the wrong word, your point still lacks credibility nor substance.
Noone is saying this.. where does the FBI hold this? What point are you even getting at anymore? This is just ridiculous to be honest.
Well look at cards like Monomania and Browbeat. The artwork depicts close to what the card is doing, even without any explanation of the card within context. Monomania shows dementia/mental illness, someone in tattered clothes being assaulted by mental illness taking on a physical form. Browbeat shows someone browbeating someone, "give me what I want or I'll pummel you."
So, out of context, the artwork alone of this Triumph card gives off a bad vibe to a lot of people. Neither Monomania nor Browbeat have any sexual undertones or overtones attached to them. The tattered clothes in Monomania remind me of someone in Solitary Confinement or a mental hospital, to be honest.
Noone is saying this.. where does the FBI hold this? What point are you even getting at anymore? This is just ridiculous to be honest.
Here is a bit of source on the FBI thing, i'll be finding more in a sec
Edit: Here is pretty much the same thing copy-pasted from the FBI website:
Forcible Rape
Definition
Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
Well look at cards like Monomania and Browbeat. The artwork depicts close to what the card is doing, even without any explanation of the card within context. Monomania shows dementia/mental illness, someone in tattered clothes being assaulted by mental illness taking on a physical form. Browbeat shows someone browbeating someone, "give me what I want or I'll pummel you."
So, out of context, the artwork alone of this Triumph card gives off a bad vibe to a lot of people. Neither Monomania nor Browbeat have any sexual undertones or overtones attached to them. The tattered clothes in Monomania remind me of someone in Solitary Confinement or a mental hospital, to be honest.
That is because both the subjects in the pictures are male.
If Monomania showed a slightly emaciated woman clad only in cast off tattered rags with long hands of darkness pawing at her body and grabbing her, would this be offensive, or be considered to have 'sexual overtones'?
That is because both the subjects in the pictures are male.
If Monomania showed a slightly emaciated woman clad only in cast off tattered rags with long hands of darkness pawing at her body and grabbing her, would this be offensive, or be considered to have 'sexual overtones'?
Yes, I think if the subject of Monomania was female, then that art would be highly scrutinized. Man getting grabbed by his own dementia taken form in shadow is perfectly legit. No one bats an eyelash at it.
Yes, I think if the subject of Monomania was female, then that art would be highly scrutinized. Man getting grabbed by his own dementia taken form in shadow is perfectly legit. No one bats an eyelash at it.
Right, or maybe we are all highly scrutinizing FANTASY ART. Seriously how is it this pic got this community so riled up but no one says anything about how the real housewives shows and Katy Perry are pushing back womens lib 100 years...
Right, or maybe we are all highly scrutinizing FANTASY ART. Seriously how is it this pic got this community so riled up but no one says anything about how the real housewives shows and Katy Perry are pushing back womens lib 100 years...
I personally am not riled up. I am actually enjoying this debate, this is the most fun I've had in a thread since i joined MTGS.
On topic though, i believe that people are not talking about womens lib and things like those shows is because the problem is that the card supposedly depicts rape, so that is what people end up debating.
Rape? Same exact pose almost, except this guy is full on crotch to crotch wrapped in another man's legs. But we both know it isn't rape. Just like we know Garruk isn't raping Lilliana.
Happens in every UFC fight just about. Because it's a fighting position that tends to happen when people get physical. I wouldn't be surprised if the artist looked at a pose just like this when making the piece vs. them looking at a rape. This whole idea is preposterous. So what if one of his legs is between hers.
There's no room for chivalry when you cursed me and ruined my life with black magic. Seriously, I'm punching you in the face when I see you, woman or not. Don't like it? Don't throw around life-ruining curses on the oafish thug of a planeswalker who solves his problems with brute force. Problem solved.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
That is because both the subjects in the pictures are male.
If Monomania showed a slightly emaciated woman clad only in cast off tattered rags with long hands of darkness pawing at her body and grabbing her, would this be offensive, or be considered to have 'sexual overtones'?
For Monomania, no. It wouldn't have been sexual for me. I would still see a mentally disturbed person, due to the tattered clothes, provided they were, shall we say, tastefully tattered (not torn unrealistically to show cleavage, thighs, or other nonsense) And the problem is, if an artist, particular a male one, chose to put a woman here, would he do that? Would he draw this kind of tattered clothes, on a, shall we say, exaggerated female figure? Isn't a bit tiresome to see women who obviously have fought in many bloody battles wear armor that clearly provides no essential protection to their vital organs?
For browbeat, you would definitely get some flak for, "violence against the innocent shopkeeper woman." Even in the pic you see the person who is presumably his wife or sister or relative trying to stop Kamahl from kicking his ass, so we see the gender roles clearly here. Kamahl goes for the man to browbeat, not the woman, and presumably will not lay his hands on her, for established, possibly chivalrous reasons. I mean in general, it's a red card, so it captures the brutal nature of that kind of intimidation REALLY well. I've always like the artwork on that card. Reversing the gender roles there, same pic, would not have been sexual in my opinion (no knee in groin, grabbing of shirt cuff a common macho intimidation thing), but I think it would have caused an uproar, because obviously society reacts more negatively toward that kind of violence toward women. The fact that it's more tolerable in this way is in fact a problem. The solution, however, is of course to see that Kamahl is being guided by emotions too strongly here, and really just being a jerk overall, not favoring cunning or sheer intimidation of presence, but rather brute strength to get what he wants. Instead of pushing to make it more acceptable to reverse the roles of gender here, it's better to transcend even the gender aspect and just talk about how it's wrong to use these kinds of tactics against people of either gender. But the card is just so unambiguously red. I love it for this, because, again, it shows that side of what the color is supposed to represent.
Rape? Same exact pose almost, except this guy is full on crotch to crotch wrapped in another man's legs. But we both know it isn't rape. Just like we know Garruk isn't raping Lilliana.
Happens in every UFC fight just about. Because it's a fighting position that tends to happen when people get physical. I wouldn't be surprised if the artist looked at a pose just like this when making the piece vs. them looking at a rape. This whole idea is preposterous. So what if one of his legs is between hers.
To be honest, theres such a fine line between violence in sport an homo eroticism to begin with.. sometimes in these kinds of contests, especially UFC, they get so into it trying to murder one another, they might as well be having sex at that point .. Lol.
Everyone loved the Spartan guys in 300 and their visceral manliness, but seriously. Go look up a bit on Spartan , Roman, and other ultra violent, warrior societies. Homosexuality, even between shall we say, normally straight men, was encouraged in these cultures while the soldiers were out and about, fighting and pillaging and whatnot. The bond between a man and man was revered in those societies, as fraternal brotherhood, as warriors, and yes, that even extended into the realm of sex. It makes stuff like WWE and UFC really, really funny to me. It also makes me think that the repeal of DADT is going to strengthen our branches of military, especially the Marine Corps.
For Monomania, no. It wouldn't have been sexual for me. I would still see a mentally disturbed person, due to the tattered clothes, provided they were, shall we say, tastefully tattered (not torn unrealistically to show cleavage, thighs, or other nonsense) And the problem is, if an artist, particular a male one, chose to put a woman here, would he do that? Would he draw this kind of tattered clothes, on a, shall we say, exaggerated female figure?
So, if the person in monomania was dressed EXACTLY the same, except for a tube top that showed NO cleavage, but was a woman, would you find the image sexual?
Isn't a bit tiresome to see women who obviously have fought in many bloody battles wear armor that clearly provides no essential protection to their vital organs?
Yes, except this is not a problem in MTG. In fact, MaRo and others have talked about how much MTG depicts the strong, independant, butt-kicking female instead of any damsels in distress. In fact, MTG shows men in positions of vulnerability more than women.
So, if the person in monomania was dressed EXACTLY the same, except for a tube top that showed NO cleavage, but was a woman, would you find the image sexual?
Yes, except this is not a problem in MTG. In fact, MaRo and others have talked about how much MTG depicts the strong, independant, butt-kicking female instead of any damsels in distress. In fact, MTG shows men in positions of vulnerability more than women.
I don't mind any realistically made character, with proper motivations, be it a damsel in distress type who hasn't needed to fight before, a strong female character (especially one with magical powers) , a man with power, a man with weakness, and everything in between. Characters in general have become too stereotypical, as the story has taken a backseat in recent years. The weatherlight saga, or what have you, had characters that ran the gamut. You had warriors like Sisay and Mirri, a more intelligent, savvy, delicate type like Hanna, comic relief types (Squee best character ever), huge dynamic geniuses like Urza, Barrin, Rayne, those who studied under them like Teferi (another great character), and everyone in between. Later on, to some extent, you had all kinds of Planeswalkers bickering amongst each other, with different personalities, etc. etc.
And no, I wouldn't have found Monomania to be sexual if a woman of a fairly normal body type, just like the man, who wasn't particularly skinny/emaciated nor ultra muscly, was being assaulted by what clearly to me appear to be personifications of mental duress. You can quote me on that. Notice how they aren't tearing off the man's clothes here, just sort of clawing at him in a menacing way. That is where the line is drawn, subtlety, for the viewer of the art.
Here is a question I don't get. A woman can dress up all sexy and its empowering, but if you make a character that is dressing up all sexy to show she is empowered, that is sexism? What...Why?!?!
Here is a question I don't get. A woman can dress up all sexy and its empowering, but if you make a character that is dressing up all sexy to show she is empowered, that is sexism? What...Why?!?!
The devil is in the details. Does she just happen to be beautiful, knows it, and shows it, or is she a grotesque caricature, merely drawn to be nerd eye-candy? The question is of authenticity. Does she just exist to be sexualized, or is the fact that she is beautiful, just that, a mere fact of the way of the features she was born with, and how she accentuates them with her dress? The problem is the collusion of the words "Sexy" , "Beautiful", and let's say, "Self Esteem." Looking good is one thing, but to say that every woman who tries to look good does it so that every man who see her will idolize her, and want to have to sex with her, is patently false.
Liliana of the Veil is a great example of this. Or Captain Sisay for instance. Or Hanna, Ship's Navigator. These are tasteful, not over the top. I can totally buy that they would dress this way. There is beauty in the way that they are portrayed, especially in their non-sexualized-pornstar-esque-perfection. But, you could reach a level in the art where the proportions became, lets say, too unrealistic, the clothes far too tight, to the point where you scratch your head and say, "well, wouldn't that actually functionally, kind of hurt her? Like maybe cut of circulation or something?" Lol, I know, silly, but this is where the line between realistic/semi-realistic characters and mere sex objects is drawn.
theres no tearing off in the garruk-liliana pic either
Right. But any "tearing off" would have put this one in the "Are you serious, how do you not see this," category, instead of the "semi-ambiguous, lets discuss it" category. If there was tearing off, and people showed apathy or hostility toward (more justified) complaints, then at that point I'd probably have another infraction for flaming.
I think his knee placement and her dress riding up are what is doing it for these people. That, and if you ever, EVER show a woman looking weak, you are obviously a sexist in most women's eyes, just from my perspective (If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, is what I'm saying)
I do think his knee should be placed differently, maybe just pull his leg back, more like he's falling on her, and have her dress still down.
You know what I love? When she looks triumphant, happy, and secy in Liliana of the Veil? Yay! Female Empowerment! We love the sexy dress she's in!
Sexy dress looks bad when she's on her back? MAGIC IS SEXIST!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Getting Back into the swing of MTGS. Bear with me folks~
Rape? Same exact pose almost, except this guy is full on crotch to crotch wrapped in another man's legs. But we both know it isn't rape. Just like we know Garruk isn't raping Lilliana.
Happens in every UFC fight just about. Because it's a fighting position that tends to happen when people get physical. I wouldn't be surprised if the artist looked at a pose just like this when making the piece vs. them looking at a rape. This whole idea is preposterous. So what if one of his legs is between hers.
There's no room for chivalry when you cursed me and ruined my life with black magic. Seriously, I'm punching you in the face when I see you, woman or not. Don't like it? Don't throw around life-ruining curses on the oafish thug of a planeswalker who solves his problems with brute force. Problem solved.
This is a pretty good point, UFC is widely accepted. They get into these positions ALL the time. One of Jackie Lee's points was that the triumph art will be seen without the context of it's counterpart and backstory. Yet here we have an even more graphic image, and yet it's fine.
Are we saying that UFC has lower standards? Are we calling them sexist? I doubt it. It's probably because of the context that it's ok, which works, it's a fight. Similar in the way that magic is a fight to kill each other, vicious aggressive things happen.
Can anyone say why this image, which is a common thing in UFC is ok, but Triumph isn't?
Well yes, I would argue that feminism and calls of "sexism" from woman are much more reactionary and defensive... can't put my finger on it but the years of oppression and marginalization, being paid less on average for the same jobs, not even getting to fricken vote in this country until the early 20th century, might have something to do with it... work to the even up the playing field, call out the pigs for their piglike behavior, and you will see society as a whole move toward the middle, for the better of everyone.
This is a pretty good point, UFC is widely accepted. They get into these positions ALL the time. One of Jackie Lee's points was that the triumph art will be seen without the context of it's counterpart and backstory. Yet here we have an even more graphic image, and yet it's fine.
UFC is accepted, but so is bareknuckle boxing, which leaves many boxers literally half-retarded from repeated concussions, for the entertainment of others.
I don't actually think this graphic image is fine.. I am quite disturbed that we as a society find this entertaining, for the sake of the violence.
For the sake of the exercise, for the self-defense training, male bonding, for the real sport of it, I appreciate it. But here, I fail to see how this is much different from Roman coliseum bloodsport, except that it is much more, "toned down" in gruesome brutality.
Still, this is comparing apples and oranges. It's two men fighting, with money on the line, in the real world, and unless theres something going on here I'm not aware of, there isn't any sexuality at all between the two. Just competitors rivalry, and the urge to win fame, glory, and cash. Versus a fictionalized fight between a man and a woman, with a similar position.
Also, very important, notice here that the two men in the picture are evenly matched, physically. The card art clearly portrays a much more powerful man dominating a physically small woman.
As many others have pointed out, there is a substantial difference in violence by men against women and the other way around. The former has a lengthy history of being an acceptable practice. The latter does not. In addition, as I've already pointed out many times, even if I am being a hypocrite, it does not invalidate an argument. Saying that it does is tu quoque, a logical fallacy.
I'm sorry do we live in the past or the present? Id would also argue currently in society female violence committed on males is considered much more acceptable the male on female violence.
It's not Tu quoque either. Your argument isn't invalid because you are sexist or a hypocrite(that would be Tu quoque). Your argument is invalid because it is self defeating.
Man-on-man domestic violence is a problem?
Man-on-man (both being fully grown men) sexual assault is a societal problem that happens to people outside of prisons at high rates of occurance?
Men are frequently stereotyped as submissive and shown to be dominated, to the level where it is an issue?
That pose implies male on male sexual assault?
Jace was wearing a skirt?
1) Yes
2) Yes, but a high rare of occurrence isn't relevant. Is a murder any less of a crime because it is committed on a demographic less?
3) Yes, almost every "nerd" char in movies or tv today. Do you see the way the women treat the men on "The Big Bang Theory"
4) Yes
5) Lolz wut? So jace has to be a cross dress too?
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
So post some? I know there is probably some WRT seduction, ie, taking advantage of a man's supposed peon brain through womanly guile, charm, and looks.
Oh please. The, "people who take offense are the REAL sexists/racists/blankists" is so tired and old. Take that crap back to Reddit, please.
How is it worse for society, how is it "sexism", for women to be losing fights? "Equality", except in dry, pedantic terms, isn't really about Men being able to treat Women like they would treat other Men, especially WRT violence. Equality in general isn't REALLY about this at ALL. The civil rights movement wasn't about letting black people treat white people like white people treated them in the past. The emancipation movement sought to end all slavery, it didn't seek to allow blacks to now own white slaves. These movements were about ending cultural practices that made a group feel unwelcome, alienated, scared for their lives, and economically disadvantaged based on characteristics beyond their control, ie the color of the skin they were born with.
Liliana doesn't even lose this fight, FFS. Bugger off.
So this is my take on the situation after reading a bit.
Many people have a feeling of injustice at the thought of giving women special treatment, ie preventing art that shows women in vulnerable positions but allowing it for men. This feeling of injustice primarily comes from a misunderstanding of feminism.
Here's how an uneducated (but not culpably so) person develops vague ideas about feminism:
Beginner: Think that feminism is all about equality. Early on people get the notion that feminists want equality for men and women because they hear slogans for equal pay, equal opportunity for employment, etc. Equality is a very easy concept to understand, so this outlook is enough for a simpleton to be satisfied with.
Viricide level: Feminism is about equalizing the natural or socially constructed inequalities between men and women, despite the high probability that they will always exist. It makes sense to give women special treatment because they are not the same as men. They have different strengths and weaknesses. It is only realistic to acknowledge and correct for these inequalities instead of being an idealist and pretending that everyone is equal when they suffer unequally.
You can imagine people feel a sense of injustice when they transition from outlook A to B. "But I thought feminists believe men and women are equal!" This is why you'll see posts from strong women who say the art doesn't offend them - they personally want to be considered equal and they are ignoring the supposed needs of their weaker sisters who need protection, or rather who have a higher emotional response to abuse which according to feminism must be neutralized.
The incongruencies between the two outlooks are enough to generate a lot of grievances, ones that are less significant in comparison to the next step below. After all, most men and women would not be angry if they believed justice was being served when a member of the opposite sex is being protected. Sure there are political questions, such as what role does government play in providing contraceptives to women; and there are questions of freedom of artistic expression, but by and large there is no desire to see a member of the opposite sex oppressed. This is not a zero sum game; their loss is not our gain.
But that brings us to the next point - the third outlook that generates the most vitriol grievances.
Outlook #3 - Feminism is not about equality. Feminism is a movement to empower and protect women while leaving men's needs in the dust.
Corollary: The more feminist indoctrination there is, the greater risk that men's issues will be ignored and even ridiculed and labeled as "misogynistic".
The grievances brought about from this view transcend the discussion about the art: they see the case not as a call to justice and equality, but as another demand for special rights for women and zero consideration for men. They're not upset if women get the special treatment they should get as per outlook #2; they're upset because they realize the trajectory of the complaint. It is clear that Jesse Mason is a feminist, the kind that only fights for women and shames white males. What is going to happen in the next few years? 4-9 more articles about how women need more special treatment? 0 articles that seek justice for men? At what point is it unfair that there is such a high ratio of pro-women to pro-men articles? This ties back to outlook #1 - a desire for simple equality, which is realistically false. But, presuming that it is fair to give pro-women activism more weight and frequency than pro-men, who can determine what a fair ratio is, and what's to stop feminism from spiraling out of control from seeking justice for all to ignoring any sense of fairness and only seeking female empowerment and protection, as some people already suspect it is doing?
If a case can be made for the justification of censoring the artwork being discussed, that is good, and I have no objection to that. Apparently, in general, women have fears of being raped, so it's nice to sidestep triggers, even if they are unintentional. But where is the justice for people who don't have an angry, self-righteous mob of bloggers looking out for them? What happens when, not only are they not looked out for, but people who suggest that they are victims too are shamed for trying to oppress the other side? What happens when people are shamed just for being who they are, and when they make a mistake, instead of being politely corrected as I believe Viricide tried his best to do here, they are ridiculed and mocked for being ignorant, selfish, hateful men? This is the reality we live in today. To speak of men's rights is to be cast out as a misogynist, to have pride in culture is ok for everyone but whites, and no matter if you call these inequalities strawmen arguments or less significant than the problem of the presumed Patriarchy, the verbal abuse and condescension happen day after day with no end in sight.
So, what if it turns out that men are more likely to be afraid of getting robbed, and there is a card that triggers those fears? Nothing, because the men's rights movement is not taken seriously by our feminist blogger overlords. What if ... No. Nothing. You get nothing. You've had your turn.
Now I'm going to quote some things that upset me. Because you can still say, "hey I'm a feminist and I'm not like that." To which I say, good for you, and I wish there were more like you, but the problem is not that all feminists are like that, but so many are. Here are some quotes from twitter showing how biased and childish these people are:
In other words, THIS IS WHAT [some] FEMINISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!
Quote from Jesse Mason »
Are they women you know personally? Women that would likely hold the same kind of mental illness that makes you see rape undertones in every
Here we see a snippet of Jesse defending a comment that his views are biased because he has so many feminist influences in his life. Instead of defending himself politely or rationally, he instead implies the the commenter is misogynist and believes that women are mentally ill. Real classy.
Quote from Jesse Mason »
whenever someone says "misandry" i imagine their invisible friend
Here we see a prime example of a feminist who has no sympathy or respect for issues outside their own agenda. Here Jesse becomes everything he mocks: a person who is selfish and only cares about how something will affect his prerogative, and makes light of or ignores issues that he doesn't care about.
Quote from jon corpora »
As if to imply that having "feminist influences in your life" is worthy of death by firing squad or something. I'm going back to bed.
Related to above quotes, this is another case of putting words in others mouths. The feminists are accusing people who are seeking fair and balanced discussion of being bigots when they themselves are the bigots. Here you see that they need some moral justification for their views, like THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the people who don't agree with them are misogynists. Typical "I'm the good guy so you must be the bad guy" ; "You're the one with the warped mind, not me" view.
Quote from Jesse Mason »
oh wow just found the reddit thread on my article. this is so much worse than the comment thread
We see that everyone who has a different view must be ignorant. There is no earnest attempt to explain yourself or enlighten people. The lowly people who criticize you are scum, and you enjoy being above them. It's pathetic how so many of us behave like this, wanting to win arguments rather than learn something from them.
Quote from Jesse Mason »
i'd like to apologize to my fellow first-world middle-class straight white males. i'm selling y'all out
This sets up the problems of sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination as zero sum games, where the loss of the white male = the gain of everyone else. It doesn't have to be like that, but they insist.
people think i'm doing this for page views. i'm actually doing it to remind myself how terrible men are
I can't tell if this is serious or just trolling. If it's serious, it's disgustingly bigoted. If it's trolling, it's confusing to say these things while a serious discussion is being had.
"Simple fact is, there's flavor text on the card. Oversensitive people need to get a life."
"He wants to show that he can kill her but he won't if she undoes the curse she put on him. That's pretty ****ing nice if you ask me." lmao
Quote from Justin Treadway »
I wish comment threads had this feature: Sort by "MOST INSANE ARGUMENT"
More cases of retweeting comments they think are comically stupid instead of being respectful and arguing without condescension.
guys stop being offended at things that don't affect me. if you are mad about something please show first how it impacts ME.
Ironic because this is the feminist stance on men's rights. They don't take men's rights seriously because they don't experience the problems themselves, so they mock it.
Quote from Mike Sacco »
Are you seriously asking how rape relates to misogyny
Quote from Jesse Mason »
Welcome to Magic
Implying that Magic players are generally dumb and sexist. Putting words into others mouths to paint them as the bad guys.
Quote from Jesse Mason »
thanks for being every stereotype of men missing the point w/r/t sexism
Thanks for being every stereotype of a comment that shames a person without explaining why they are wrong.
first of all, the article was specifically NOT inflammatory. i called no one a sexist/misogynist/etc if they disagreed...
And yet his twitter comments reek of misandry, bigotry, and privilege shaming.
Let's laugh at all these fools and feel better about ourselves for having superior intellect and moral values!
That's all I've got for now. I don't know how to feel but upset about everything. I want to listen to people and care about correcting injustices as they happen. I am unsure about the cost of artistic freedom vs the risk of making people feel uncomfortable. I don't like making generalizations about people, and I value individual strength. I would like to be compassionate about issues that don't affect me personally. I am afraid of being blinded by self-righteousness and sphere of influence circlejerking. I don't know. I'm most ashamed of how childish we are - how we trivialize others' problems, divide ourselves and then assume that the other side is wrong and ignorant, the bigotry, the condescension, the insincerity.
**** this *snip* earth.
Fixed. Please don't use "gay" in an inappropriate manner.
-Memnarch
Even if only one rape of a man by a woman happened EVER, you can't say that rape is something that only happens to women. THE FBI STILL HOLDS THAT RAPE IS ONLY MALE ON FEMALE FOR JACE'S SAKES! You don't see the issue here? You rather word play than argue to point? Fine, Stereotype was the wrong word, your point still lacks credibility nor substance.
Noone is saying this.. where does the FBI hold this? What point are you even getting at anymore? This is just ridiculous to be honest.
Well look at cards like Monomania and Browbeat. The artwork depicts close to what the card is doing, even without any explanation of the card within context. Monomania shows dementia/mental illness, someone in tattered clothes being assaulted by mental illness taking on a physical form. Browbeat shows someone browbeating someone, "give me what I want or I'll pummel you."
So, out of context, the artwork alone of this Triumph card gives off a bad vibe to a lot of people. Neither Monomania nor Browbeat have any sexual undertones or overtones attached to them. The tattered clothes in Monomania remind me of someone in Solitary Confinement or a mental hospital, to be honest.
Here is a bit of source on the FBI thing, i'll be finding more in a sec
Edit: Here is pretty much the same thing copy-pasted from the FBI website:
Forcible Rape
Definition
Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/rapemain
That is because both the subjects in the pictures are male.
If Monomania showed a slightly emaciated woman clad only in cast off tattered rags with long hands of darkness pawing at her body and grabbing her, would this be offensive, or be considered to have 'sexual overtones'?
Yes, I think if the subject of Monomania was female, then that art would be highly scrutinized. Man getting grabbed by his own dementia taken form in shadow is perfectly legit. No one bats an eyelash at it.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
Isn't that sexist in and of itself?
Right, or maybe we are all highly scrutinizing FANTASY ART. Seriously how is it this pic got this community so riled up but no one says anything about how the real housewives shows and Katy Perry are pushing back womens lib 100 years...
Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com/
Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
I personally am not riled up. I am actually enjoying this debate, this is the most fun I've had in a thread since i joined MTGS.
On topic though, i believe that people are not talking about womens lib and things like those shows is because the problem is that the card supposedly depicts rape, so that is what people end up debating.
Rape? Same exact pose almost, except this guy is full on crotch to crotch wrapped in another man's legs. But we both know it isn't rape. Just like we know Garruk isn't raping Lilliana.
Happens in every UFC fight just about. Because it's a fighting position that tends to happen when people get physical. I wouldn't be surprised if the artist looked at a pose just like this when making the piece vs. them looking at a rape. This whole idea is preposterous. So what if one of his legs is between hers.
There's no room for chivalry when you cursed me and ruined my life with black magic. Seriously, I'm punching you in the face when I see you, woman or not. Don't like it? Don't throw around life-ruining curses on the oafish thug of a planeswalker who solves his problems with brute force. Problem solved.
Her exact words were:
I think this should sum up the card nicely, and we need no further debate.
More cleavage certainly wouldnt hurt.
For Monomania, no. It wouldn't have been sexual for me. I would still see a mentally disturbed person, due to the tattered clothes, provided they were, shall we say, tastefully tattered (not torn unrealistically to show cleavage, thighs, or other nonsense) And the problem is, if an artist, particular a male one, chose to put a woman here, would he do that? Would he draw this kind of tattered clothes, on a, shall we say, exaggerated female figure? Isn't a bit tiresome to see women who obviously have fought in many bloody battles wear armor that clearly provides no essential protection to their vital organs?
For browbeat, you would definitely get some flak for, "violence against the innocent shopkeeper woman." Even in the pic you see the person who is presumably his wife or sister or relative trying to stop Kamahl from kicking his ass, so we see the gender roles clearly here. Kamahl goes for the man to browbeat, not the woman, and presumably will not lay his hands on her, for established, possibly chivalrous reasons. I mean in general, it's a red card, so it captures the brutal nature of that kind of intimidation REALLY well. I've always like the artwork on that card. Reversing the gender roles there, same pic, would not have been sexual in my opinion (no knee in groin, grabbing of shirt cuff a common macho intimidation thing), but I think it would have caused an uproar, because obviously society reacts more negatively toward that kind of violence toward women. The fact that it's more tolerable in this way is in fact a problem. The solution, however, is of course to see that Kamahl is being guided by emotions too strongly here, and really just being a jerk overall, not favoring cunning or sheer intimidation of presence, but rather brute strength to get what he wants. Instead of pushing to make it more acceptable to reverse the roles of gender here, it's better to transcend even the gender aspect and just talk about how it's wrong to use these kinds of tactics against people of either gender. But the card is just so unambiguously red. I love it for this, because, again, it shows that side of what the color is supposed to represent.
To be honest, theres such a fine line between violence in sport an homo eroticism to begin with.. sometimes in these kinds of contests, especially UFC, they get so into it trying to murder one another, they might as well be having sex at that point .. Lol.
Everyone loved the Spartan guys in 300 and their visceral manliness, but seriously. Go look up a bit on Spartan , Roman, and other ultra violent, warrior societies. Homosexuality, even between shall we say, normally straight men, was encouraged in these cultures while the soldiers were out and about, fighting and pillaging and whatnot. The bond between a man and man was revered in those societies, as fraternal brotherhood, as warriors, and yes, that even extended into the realm of sex. It makes stuff like WWE and UFC really, really funny to me. It also makes me think that the repeal of DADT is going to strengthen our branches of military, especially the Marine Corps.
So, if the person in monomania was dressed EXACTLY the same, except for a tube top that showed NO cleavage, but was a woman, would you find the image sexual?
Yes, except this is not a problem in MTG. In fact, MaRo and others have talked about how much MTG depicts the strong, independant, butt-kicking female instead of any damsels in distress. In fact, MTG shows men in positions of vulnerability more than women.
I don't mind any realistically made character, with proper motivations, be it a damsel in distress type who hasn't needed to fight before, a strong female character (especially one with magical powers) , a man with power, a man with weakness, and everything in between. Characters in general have become too stereotypical, as the story has taken a backseat in recent years. The weatherlight saga, or what have you, had characters that ran the gamut. You had warriors like Sisay and Mirri, a more intelligent, savvy, delicate type like Hanna, comic relief types (Squee best character ever), huge dynamic geniuses like Urza, Barrin, Rayne, those who studied under them like Teferi (another great character), and everyone in between. Later on, to some extent, you had all kinds of Planeswalkers bickering amongst each other, with different personalities, etc. etc.
And no, I wouldn't have found Monomania to be sexual if a woman of a fairly normal body type, just like the man, who wasn't particularly skinny/emaciated nor ultra muscly, was being assaulted by what clearly to me appear to be personifications of mental duress. You can quote me on that. Notice how they aren't tearing off the man's clothes here, just sort of clawing at him in a menacing way. That is where the line is drawn, subtlety, for the viewer of the art.
That's why I'm cool with zombies grabbing Garruk by the face. He had the upper hand for like one card.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
The devil is in the details. Does she just happen to be beautiful, knows it, and shows it, or is she a grotesque caricature, merely drawn to be nerd eye-candy? The question is of authenticity. Does she just exist to be sexualized, or is the fact that she is beautiful, just that, a mere fact of the way of the features she was born with, and how she accentuates them with her dress? The problem is the collusion of the words "Sexy" , "Beautiful", and let's say, "Self Esteem." Looking good is one thing, but to say that every woman who tries to look good does it so that every man who see her will idolize her, and want to have to sex with her, is patently false.
Liliana of the Veil is a great example of this. Or Captain Sisay for instance. Or Hanna, Ship's Navigator. These are tasteful, not over the top. I can totally buy that they would dress this way. There is beauty in the way that they are portrayed, especially in their non-sexualized-pornstar-esque-perfection. But, you could reach a level in the art where the proportions became, lets say, too unrealistic, the clothes far too tight, to the point where you scratch your head and say, "well, wouldn't that actually functionally, kind of hurt her? Like maybe cut of circulation or something?" Lol, I know, silly, but this is where the line between realistic/semi-realistic characters and mere sex objects is drawn.
Right. But any "tearing off" would have put this one in the "Are you serious, how do you not see this," category, instead of the "semi-ambiguous, lets discuss it" category. If there was tearing off, and people showed apathy or hostility toward (more justified) complaints, then at that point I'd probably have another infraction for flaming.
I do think his knee should be placed differently, maybe just pull his leg back, more like he's falling on her, and have her dress still down.
You know what I love? When she looks triumphant, happy, and secy in Liliana of the Veil? Yay! Female Empowerment! We love the sexy dress she's in!
Sexy dress looks bad when she's on her back? MAGIC IS SEXIST!
Done by Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery signatures!
Are we saying that UFC has lower standards? Are we calling them sexist? I doubt it. It's probably because of the context that it's ok, which works, it's a fight. Similar in the way that magic is a fight to kill each other, vicious aggressive things happen.
Can anyone say why this image, which is a common thing in UFC is ok, but Triumph isn't?
My Helpdesk: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=7776298#post7776298
My friend's awesome mtg dice: http://www.etsy.com/listing/120956030/magic-the-gathering-mini-d6-dice-set
UFC is accepted, but so is bareknuckle boxing, which leaves many boxers literally half-retarded from repeated concussions, for the entertainment of others.
I don't actually think this graphic image is fine.. I am quite disturbed that we as a society find this entertaining, for the sake of the violence.
For the sake of the exercise, for the self-defense training, male bonding, for the real sport of it, I appreciate it. But here, I fail to see how this is much different from Roman coliseum bloodsport, except that it is much more, "toned down" in gruesome brutality.
Still, this is comparing apples and oranges. It's two men fighting, with money on the line, in the real world, and unless theres something going on here I'm not aware of, there isn't any sexuality at all between the two. Just competitors rivalry, and the urge to win fame, glory, and cash. Versus a fictionalized fight between a man and a woman, with a similar position.
Also, very important, notice here that the two men in the picture are evenly matched, physically. The card art clearly portrays a much more powerful man dominating a physically small woman.
I'm sorry do we live in the past or the present? Id would also argue currently in society female violence committed on males is considered much more acceptable the male on female violence.
It's not Tu quoque either. Your argument isn't invalid because you are sexist or a hypocrite(that would be Tu quoque). Your argument is invalid because it is self defeating.
1) Yes
2) Yes, but a high rare of occurrence isn't relevant. Is a murder any less of a crime because it is committed on a demographic less?
3) Yes, almost every "nerd" char in movies or tv today. Do you see the way the women treat the men on "The Big Bang Theory"
4) Yes
5) Lolz wut? So jace has to be a cross dress too?
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
Oh please. The, "people who take offense are the REAL sexists/racists/blankists" is so tired and old. Take that crap back to Reddit, please.
How is it worse for society, how is it "sexism", for women to be losing fights? "Equality", except in dry, pedantic terms, isn't really about Men being able to treat Women like they would treat other Men, especially WRT violence. Equality in general isn't REALLY about this at ALL. The civil rights movement wasn't about letting black people treat white people like white people treated them in the past. The emancipation movement sought to end all slavery, it didn't seek to allow blacks to now own white slaves. These movements were about ending cultural practices that made a group feel unwelcome, alienated, scared for their lives, and economically disadvantaged based on characteristics beyond their control, ie the color of the skin they were born with.
Liliana doesn't even lose this fight, FFS. Bugger off.
Many people have a feeling of injustice at the thought of giving women special treatment, ie preventing art that shows women in vulnerable positions but allowing it for men. This feeling of injustice primarily comes from a misunderstanding of feminism.
Here's how an uneducated (but not culpably so) person develops vague ideas about feminism:
Beginner: Think that feminism is all about equality. Early on people get the notion that feminists want equality for men and women because they hear slogans for equal pay, equal opportunity for employment, etc. Equality is a very easy concept to understand, so this outlook is enough for a simpleton to be satisfied with.
Viricide level: Feminism is about equalizing the natural or socially constructed inequalities between men and women, despite the high probability that they will always exist. It makes sense to give women special treatment because they are not the same as men. They have different strengths and weaknesses. It is only realistic to acknowledge and correct for these inequalities instead of being an idealist and pretending that everyone is equal when they suffer unequally.
You can imagine people feel a sense of injustice when they transition from outlook A to B. "But I thought feminists believe men and women are equal!" This is why you'll see posts from strong women who say the art doesn't offend them - they personally want to be considered equal and they are ignoring the supposed needs of their weaker sisters who need protection, or rather who have a higher emotional response to abuse which according to feminism must be neutralized.
The incongruencies between the two outlooks are enough to generate a lot of grievances, ones that are less significant in comparison to the next step below. After all, most men and women would not be angry if they believed justice was being served when a member of the opposite sex is being protected. Sure there are political questions, such as what role does government play in providing contraceptives to women; and there are questions of freedom of artistic expression, but by and large there is no desire to see a member of the opposite sex oppressed. This is not a zero sum game; their loss is not our gain.
But that brings us to the next point - the third outlook that generates the most vitriol grievances.
Outlook #3 - Feminism is not about equality. Feminism is a movement to empower and protect women while leaving men's needs in the dust.
Corollary: The more feminist indoctrination there is, the greater risk that men's issues will be ignored and even ridiculed and labeled as "misogynistic".
The grievances brought about from this view transcend the discussion about the art: they see the case not as a call to justice and equality, but as another demand for special rights for women and zero consideration for men. They're not upset if women get the special treatment they should get as per outlook #2; they're upset because they realize the trajectory of the complaint. It is clear that Jesse Mason is a feminist, the kind that only fights for women and shames white males. What is going to happen in the next few years? 4-9 more articles about how women need more special treatment? 0 articles that seek justice for men? At what point is it unfair that there is such a high ratio of pro-women to pro-men articles? This ties back to outlook #1 - a desire for simple equality, which is realistically false. But, presuming that it is fair to give pro-women activism more weight and frequency than pro-men, who can determine what a fair ratio is, and what's to stop feminism from spiraling out of control from seeking justice for all to ignoring any sense of fairness and only seeking female empowerment and protection, as some people already suspect it is doing?
If a case can be made for the justification of censoring the artwork being discussed, that is good, and I have no objection to that. Apparently, in general, women have fears of being raped, so it's nice to sidestep triggers, even if they are unintentional. But where is the justice for people who don't have an angry, self-righteous mob of bloggers looking out for them? What happens when, not only are they not looked out for, but people who suggest that they are victims too are shamed for trying to oppress the other side? What happens when people are shamed just for being who they are, and when they make a mistake, instead of being politely corrected as I believe Viricide tried his best to do here, they are ridiculed and mocked for being ignorant, selfish, hateful men? This is the reality we live in today. To speak of men's rights is to be cast out as a misogynist, to have pride in culture is ok for everyone but whites, and no matter if you call these inequalities strawmen arguments or less significant than the problem of the presumed Patriarchy, the verbal abuse and condescension happen day after day with no end in sight.
So, what if it turns out that men are more likely to be afraid of getting robbed, and there is a card that triggers those fears? Nothing, because the men's rights movement is not taken seriously by our feminist blogger overlords. What if ... No. Nothing. You get nothing. You've had your turn.
Now I'm going to quote some things that upset me. Because you can still say, "hey I'm a feminist and I'm not like that." To which I say, good for you, and I wish there were more like you, but the problem is not that all feminists are like that, but so many are. Here are some quotes from twitter showing how biased and childish these people are:
In other words, THIS IS WHAT [some] FEMINISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!
Here we see a snippet of Jesse defending a comment that his views are biased because he has so many feminist influences in his life. Instead of defending himself politely or rationally, he instead implies the the commenter is misogynist and believes that women are mentally ill. Real classy.
Here we see a prime example of a feminist who has no sympathy or respect for issues outside their own agenda. Here Jesse becomes everything he mocks: a person who is selfish and only cares about how something will affect his prerogative, and makes light of or ignores issues that he doesn't care about.
Related to above quotes, this is another case of putting words in others mouths. The feminists are accusing people who are seeking fair and balanced discussion of being bigots when they themselves are the bigots. Here you see that they need some moral justification for their views, like THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the people who don't agree with them are misogynists. Typical "I'm the good guy so you must be the bad guy" ; "You're the one with the warped mind, not me" view.
We see that everyone who has a different view must be ignorant. There is no earnest attempt to explain yourself or enlighten people. The lowly people who criticize you are scum, and you enjoy being above them. It's pathetic how so many of us behave like this, wanting to win arguments rather than learn something from them.
This sets up the problems of sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination as zero sum games, where the loss of the white male = the gain of everyone else. It doesn't have to be like that, but they insist.
I can't tell if this is serious or just trolling. If it's serious, it's disgustingly bigoted. If it's trolling, it's confusing to say these things while a serious discussion is being had.
More cases of retweeting comments they think are comically stupid instead of being respectful and arguing without condescension.
Ironic because this is the feminist stance on men's rights. They don't take men's rights seriously because they don't experience the problems themselves, so they mock it.
Implying that Magic players are generally dumb and sexist. Putting words into others mouths to paint them as the bad guys.
Thanks for being every stereotype of a comment that shames a person without explaining why they are wrong.
And yet his twitter comments reek of misandry, bigotry, and privilege shaming.
Let's laugh at all these fools and feel better about ourselves for having superior intellect and moral values!
That's all I've got for now. I don't know how to feel but upset about everything. I want to listen to people and care about correcting injustices as they happen. I am unsure about the cost of artistic freedom vs the risk of making people feel uncomfortable. I don't like making generalizations about people, and I value individual strength. I would like to be compassionate about issues that don't affect me personally. I am afraid of being blinded by self-righteousness and sphere of influence circlejerking. I don't know. I'm most ashamed of how childish we are - how we trivialize others' problems, divide ourselves and then assume that the other side is wrong and ignorant, the bigotry, the condescension, the insincerity.
**** this *snip* earth.
Fixed. Please don't use "gay" in an inappropriate manner.
-Memnarch