Lady Blackfish Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 [quote name='Mackaxx' post='1674554' date='Feb 4 2009, 22.53']By somes definition a sexist setting = a sexist book, if this is the case for them then the 'well duhhhhh' thing applies. In that context its stating the obvious. Also, some people [i]are [/i]saying that the author is sexist.[/quote] Who is saying he is sexist [i]merely[/i] because he has a sexist setting? That was my point. The people arguing it here seem to be arguing on grounds of the plausibility of the setting. [quote name='Mackaxx' post='1674554' date='Feb 4 2009, 22.53']Just responding to you talking about gender in respect to half the population being female, like you did. I can see how it would be unclear though, still, you know what i meant and what the point of the paragraph was...[/quote] No I guess I didn't and don't see how it follows. Half the population being female is a reason why it's important, it is no limiting factor about who it's important [i]to[/i], which was to what your statement about the entire population referred. You mention that not all books need to concern themselves about gender, but this thread is about a book that [i]did[/i] opt to concern itself about gender, at least the author's own words certainly seem to indicate he did (as he implies that he intended to problematize certain attitudes). [quote name='Mackaxx' post='1674554' date='Feb 4 2009, 22.53']Historically the former would have happened more than the latter through the army anyway. Its funny that in the Bakker series a lowly woman rises up to be in a position of power. Rallying against this cliche it seems.[/quote] Yes, but as I understand it, there are specifics about how this rising up was done that people find concerning. I know there was a rebuttal (by HE?) though. [quote name='Mackaxx' post='1674554' date='Feb 4 2009, 22.53']Star Trek seemed to mix it up fairly well, but the captain was a whitey I guess so someones going to bitch.[/quote] Why would you be dismissive of that complaint? Sooner or later it's going to be an issue if only white people are allowed to be in leadership roles, isn't it? Why would you be dismissive of that complaint, I can't find a reason unless you think that people should be grateful black people aren't slaves any more and just be content with the rest. One out of five Star Trek captains was black and your reaction is "I guess someone's going to bitch"? [quote name='Mackaxx' post='1674554' date='Feb 4 2009, 22.53']Im glad I don't have to read stuff like that all the time.[/quote] Fine, but once again, this is a thread about a book that decided to concern itself with "stuff like that", sooo ... what are you getting at here? Why do people persist in this strawman idea that people asking for gender/race/etc issues to be addressed are planning on replacing every single book in the bookstore with their eviol agenda? Nobody is taking other books away, what's the threat? [quote name='Mackaxx' post='1674554' date='Feb 4 2009, 22.53']Its fair to criticize in terms of the entire genre, but to pick on single books for not filling out your white knight checklist is stupid. This comment is directly meant for you incidentally, it goes for any other thread readers.[/quote] Who is using a checklist here? In fact people seem to me to be [i]trying[/i] to contextualize things and avoiding a checklist. [quote name='Mackaxx' post='1674554' date='Feb 4 2009, 22.53']Anyway, yes it would be great to have a working definition of tokenism but its one of those things that people are going to dispute anyway no matter where you draw the line.[/quote] It's better than to have arguments where people have no intention of being productive and are really just using other people as venting targets. Isn't that what people like Arthmail despise about the writer of the article linked in the thread Bellis linked here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.