|
Post by zaku on Jul 25, 2023 11:33:21 GMT -5
To bounce off what Icc posted, as a 46 year old online gamer (and denizen of discord) I talk to a lot of male teens and 20 somethings, and yes the climate of today's society involving the interactions of young men and young women has intimidated a lot to take a very cautious approach to move forward or just consign to a life alone. I've had at least half a dozen young men hit me up in discord PM asking for advice on what to do about interacting with women because one "misstep" and the retaliation is swift and brutal. Well, they're sadly in the transition between "Women are a buffet at your disposal and you can do with them what you want" to "Maybe you should make sure she's okay with it first, you know?" eras They are unfortunately victims of those who have come before. They blaze the trail for those who come after, I hope.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 25, 2023 12:28:40 GMT -5
Just to return to the subject of this image: I don't think everything can be excused with "it was a different time". There are things that are ethically wrong now and were ethically wrong then. It's kinda hard to sit on the sofa and enjoy, I don't know, "The Littlest Rebel" or "Birth of a Nation" thinking "that's okay, slavery was ok back then so I see this movie free from the biases of modern sensibilities." Even in the 80s a woman could feel violated in certain situations. But she was simply taught at the time that it was all right and good to be objectified by men and she had no right to complain. Heck, it's probably being explained to many even now. So when it comes to consent and sexual harassment, it's not just a fad, something that's in today and not tomorrow. It is something of which there is more awareness. What do we have here? Starfox laying his hands on someone he literally knew, I don't know, seconds ago? He squeezes her cheeks like she's some show animal. Imagine this scene in front of you. An acquaintance of yours, after one or two minutes that he has met someone, grabs her cheeks as in her image. Do you really think your friend is just a latin lover who is very good at hooking up or "Something's wrong here."? So what are the options? 1) he's using his powers. There's no need to even explain how wrong it is 2) he's using his natural "charm" to which we add his status as a superhero and avenger. At that point he grabs her like she's his property in front of everyone. If you think this last option in the 80's was perfectly acceptable and such a harmless and innocent practice was ruined by, I don't know, politically correct, wokeness or whatever, well, I throw my hands up. I come back to context. Again, that story has been reduced down to two panels and removed from the greater story, with judgement assigned to just those two panels. Here is the full context, from Avengers #233.... The Avengers react as parts of New York seem to be enveloped in some kind of field, which has created a barrier around it, blocking everything, even electricity. Nothing seems to be able to pass through or disrupt it, not even The Vision.... Eros, who a couple of issues before, comes to Earth in search of excitement and adventure and ends up with the Avengers, who he knows from the battles with Thanos and the death of Captain Mar-Vell. His abilities, as a Titan, are of no use here and he feels like a fifth wheel, totally useless. He is stuck being a bystander, like the rest of the crowd, behind the police barriers. He notices one, a woman, who is a paramedic. She notices him and his notice of her. Before anything happens, the crowd is distracted by the arrival of a Quinjet, with Vision and Scarlet Witch, as Vision is sent to try to phase through the barrier. He fails and falls. We learn than Annihilus is behind the barrier. Eros is speaking with the woman, getting to know her; but, part of the conversation is implied in the dialogue, rather than stated, such as introductions and the woman telling Eros about herself. In the first panel, that was cropped, they are casually speaking, but Eros does have his hand cupped at her chin, a gesture of affection. He does not appear to be grasping it, in that panel, to my eyes; but, the figures are too small to give you anything other than the impression. Your brain adds the details, based on your own experiences. We do not see the preceding actions or conversation that led to Eros placing his hand below the woman's chin. Had she looked down, in embarrassment or out of shyness? We can't say, because we didn't see it. We can only interpret, with very little information. In the next panel, his face is near hers, while his hand is cupped, but it is unclear if he is grasping her face or squeezing her cheek. She has turned her attention to the side and that action, alone, can make it appear that Eros has applied pressure to her cheeks; but, it could just as easily be that her turning pressed her cheek against his fingers. We then pull back and see what has distracted her, as the Baxter Building is glowing and the woman remarks about the appearance of the glow and it stirs something in Eros' mind, leading him to depart from her and go over to captain America to suggest a strategy. The exclamation, "Oooo" appears to be because of the Baxter Building glowing, which she has noticed, leading to the wider shot, in the next panel, not in reaction to Eros grasping her face with force. In the greater context of the story, things are not so cut and dry as you seem to want to make them. This is why I keep harping about context. You can't reduce human interactions down to absolutes that "this is right" and "this is wrong," with no exploration of context. At no point do we see Eros force his affections on the woman. At worst we see a gesture, which we then interpret one way or another. The argument you seem to give is that his mere touching of the woman's face is a clear violation of her person and was unwelcome by her. That is my inference of your interpretation. It may be correct; but, the bulk of the conversation across the whole scene suggests maybe not, that he has done nothing more than talk to this woman and talking between too people, especially if there is a romantic attraction, often involves touching. Even non-romantic interaction can involve touching. Is the touching of the hand or arm always a violation or does it depend on the context? Now, you can argue that touching her in the face is pushing it too far and many would agree with that; but, without a clear response from the female character, we have no idea of what her reaction was, due to Roger Stern and John Byrne & Joe Sinnott not giving is that information. Perhaps she was shocked and uncomfortable, perhaps she was merely surprised, but finding herself attracted to this man. It is certainly written and illustrated from a male perspective, and with a lot of earlier cultural subtext of the ladies man noticing someone, who appears to be shy in their presence or just overwhelmed by their charisma. Perhaps a female writer and/or artist might have suggested discomfort or resistance, perhaps not. Context does not mean we ignore things that were not right, morally, even if they were accepted, at the time. It was always morally wrong to hold people as slaves, even though it was legal and an accepted practice, in some societies. That doesn't mean some didn't object to it and try to abolish it. Holding a race of people as inferior, because they appear different or act differently was always morally wrong. Men dominating women and denying them civil rights was morally wrong. Men being allowed to treat women as property was morally wrong. Men pressing their amorous intentions upon a resistant woman was wrong. However, that doesn't mean that every time a man touched a woman, it was wrong; if the woman wanted him to touch her, then it was consensual; but, she makes the decision as to whether it was consensual, not we, as observers. Within this context, the woman is voicing no objections and making no clear cut physical movement to suggest Eros' attention is unwarranted. So, we are left with ambiguity. Personally, I would suggest that Eros is too bold; but, that is the personality he was given. Based on my experiences with comic book people, I would suggest that the writers and artists are using him as a metaphor for how they wished they could be, based on things they saw in movies, or their contemporaries who had no problem asking someone out. My experiences with comic book people is that they tend to shyness and can be awkward in human interaction, especially with someone they may find attractive. Not all; certainly, but, more than a few. Does that make the actions depicted right or wrong? My thesis is that it is too ambiguous to condemn outright and that we are left with a circular argument that is unlikely to ever reach a consensus. That is the problem of trying to apply absolute ethics to a morally ambiguous situation, based on the evidence at hand. I am reminded of my time in the military and things related to this subject. Sexual harassment is not a recent subject. It has been debated and condemned long before MeToo. The Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings led to testimony from Anita Hill, who had worked for Thomas and she laid out a pattern of harassing behaviors, but he was still confirmed to the position of Supreme Court Justice. The military had more women serving, since the mid-late 70s and men and women, away from home, has always been a delicate situation. Harassment existed and had been ignored, of not condoned. Women were pushing back and forcing the command structure to address things; but, in the usual military fashion, in rather ham-handed fashion. The US Navy created a video, in conjunction with a lecture, given by a female officer, about appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. However, the examples provided were only the most obvious behaviors that even the worst caveman would recognize as inappropriate. The more ambiguous situations and interactions, where real guidance and discussion would have been helpful, were ignored. It was also a one-time thing, not an entire seminar, with activities to help clear the ambiguities and stimulate meaningful discussion. There was just the video, which was about 20-30 minutes. During my tenure, in the Navy, there were notable instances of harassment. Whenever something went public, this video was trotted out for training purposes, then shut away until the next incident. We trained daily in damage control but things like sexual harassment and fair and impartial leadership were not regular training topics. Basic manners should have taken care of anything; but, past experience suggested that basic manners were not universal. After the Gulf War, the Tailhook Association, a group of Navy pilots, which dated back to Vietnam, had their annual convention in Las Vegas. These conventions were notorious for rowdy and even lewd behavior. This time, it spilled out of private party rooms and across a hotel and meeting complex, where 3 other conferences were going on, with large numbers of civilian women. Many were subjected to harassment by male naval officers and filed complaints. A female officer, an admiral's aid, was subjected to harassment and voiced her objection to the admiral, who told her to let it go, that it was men blowing off steam, boys will be boys, etc. She didn't let it go, as she shouldn't. The admiral was forced to resign. The Secretary of the Navy, who was at the convention, was forced to resign. other senior officers, who condoned it, were forced to resign. Investigations were carried out by the Navy and by Congress. The Navy issued letters of reprimand, but no officer faced court martial or expulsion for their actions. the Congressional report documented over 80s incidents of harassment or objectionable behavior; yet, not a single person faced severe discipline for their actions, which included groping women who were forced to pass through a gauntlet or were subjected to displays of strippers and "leg shaving" services, in party rooms. The Navy got a severe black eye and base commanders summoned all officers to meet for a lecture. At Naval Station Charleston, where I was stationed, the base commander gave a lecture to the junior officers (ensign to lieutenant), where he went on to blame the actions of junior officers at the convention, ignoring that the convention was attended by numerous lieutenant commanders, commanders, captains and even admirals, many of whom were engaged or present at these parties and condoned them by letting them occur, rather than exercising their authority to put a stop to the party activities. In my experience, junior officers follow the examples set by their superiors, just as a child follows the behaviors of their parents. Personally, I was disgusted and embarrassed by the Talhook incident and the general attitude that I encountered within the military, in regards to women serving. It was a rather misogynist society and I had grown up with strong influences of women in the workplace and equal opportunity and treatment of the sexes. It was part of why I decided to resign my commission, at the end of my commitment. Similarly, the actions in the Iowa explosion and other political events during my time made me question whether the current crop of people running the Navy lived up to the traditions they espoused and the values that had been instilled in me by my parents, comic books and my instructors, in NROTC, in terms of what constituted leadership and ethics. My long winded point, though, was that there was a context to those situations that was clear cut, but that context is necessary to make a clear judgement.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 25, 2023 13:09:32 GMT -5
Was Starfox bold? Well, women like bold confident men. Women are attracted to confidence no matter what todays silly rhetoric wants you to believe. Many women complain that todays men don’t approach them. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 25, 2023 15:12:37 GMT -5
There is a difference between having confidence and being a misogynistic asshole.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 25, 2023 20:51:16 GMT -5
To bounce off what Icc posted, as a 46 year old online gamer (and denizen of discord) I talk to a lot of male teens and 20 somethings, and yes the climate of today's society involving the interactions of young men and young women has intimidated a lot to take a very cautious approach to move forward or just consign to a life alone. I've had at least half a dozen young men hit me up in discord PM asking for advice on what to do about interacting with women because one "misstep" and the retaliation is swift and brutal. Well, they're sadly in the transition between "Women are a buffet at your disposal and you can do with them what you want" to "Maybe you should make sure she's okay with it first, you know?" eras They are unfortunately victims of those who have come before. They blaze the trail for those who come after, I hope. I hope so too. But the young men of today aren’t the same men that treated women like a “buffet”. The weight of the past men shouldn’t be on their shoulders. Why is society okay with chastising young men of Millenial and Gen Z for the transgressions of Boomer and Gen X men? Holding the innocent accountable for the mistakes of past generations of men isn’t progress, it’s redundant and counter productive. No more than today’s men should be punished for the homophobia of the past. Progress is found in leaving the past in the past and paving the way with teaching and nurturing positive action in the future.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 26, 2023 0:00:25 GMT -5
There is a difference between having confidence and being a misogynistic asshole. Yep! I don't know how many times I heard the excuse "Don't you know? Women really want this!"
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 26, 2023 6:41:27 GMT -5
Well, they're sadly in the transition between "Women are a buffet at your disposal and you can do with them what you want" to "Maybe you should make sure she's okay with it first, you know?" eras They are unfortunately victims of those who have come before. They blaze the trail for those who come after, I hope. I hope so too. But the young men of today aren’t the same men that treated women like a “buffet”. The weight of the past men shouldn’t be on their shoulders. Why is society okay with chastising young men of Millenial and Gen Z for the transgressions of Boomer and Gen X men? Holding the innocent accountable for the mistakes of past generations of men isn’t progress, it’s redundant and counter productive. No more than today’s men should be punished for the homophobia of the past. Progress is found in leaving the past in the past and paving the way with teaching and nurturing positive action in the future. Chastising a whole section of the population for the behaviour of a few is indeed counter-productive. I don't agree with the generational thing, though. While it's true that men were more likely to expect women to be subservient in a more unequal past, they were not the ones sending dick pics to girls they were hitting on like youngsters do nowadays. Acting like a jerk is unfortunately not strictly a boomer or a gen-X thing, and I doubt that an aberration like Andrew Tate would have been more popular in the '50s than he is today. Probably less so, in fact, because a man-child was not anything admirable back then. As far as I can remember, there have always been men who behaved like cads. It was true yesterday, it is true today, and although it not the way men are taught in my family, it is still common enough. Like a propension to aggression, it's the dark side of testosterone, powered by millions of years of evolution, untempered by reason and too little by education. The past also had good role models, too, let's not forget! Fantasy characters like Bob Morane, John Carter or Tarzan, whom I admired as a kid, were always chivalrous, always respectful, and never considered women as objects (either sexual, domestic or both). Those models are anything but modern, and replacing them with Caillou's dad is not progress, as far as I'm concerned. Quite the opposite, in fact, because it equates masculinity with toxicity. Now, is Eros acting like a jerk in that scene? Well, he's certainly not acting the way I would; on the other hand, the lady thinks he's sweet and doesn't walk away. I must therefore assume that she, as an individual, does not find his behaviour improper. It's her call. "Why do the bad boys always get the girls", eh? They don't always. But often enough to conclude that such a case is not just a statistical outlier, I would think.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 26, 2023 10:40:54 GMT -5
Now, is Eros acting like a jerk in that scene? Well, he's certainly not acting the way I would; on the other hand, the lady thinks he's sweet and doesn't walk away. I must therefore assume that she, as an individual, does not find his behaviour improper. So it's the victim's fault that she didn't voluntarily leave? That seems to me to be dangerous reasoning that I've heard a few too many times, especially when there's an inequality of power between the people involved. There can be a thousand reasons why she stayed. She didn't want to make a scene in public, she was in awe of a superhero or an avenger, her particular upbringing didn't allow her to calmly reject Starfox's advances. Saying "If she's a victim, why didn't she rebel right away huh??? Checkmate!!!" has been used a little too many times in the past. It makes the victims culprits forced to defend themselves
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Jul 26, 2023 10:53:47 GMT -5
As I read this thread, I am reminded of how I felt, as a teen, when people talked on the phone in movies and TV. It would drive me crazy that people would, simultaneously, decide it was the end of the call, and just hang up... no "Well, I've gotta go", or "Bye"... just talking and then they hang up. I understand now that it was really for the viewer's sake... to streamline the process and eliminate the "real life" part of the equation and more expediently deliver the information. The "real world" trappings would have only bogged it down and gotten in the way of the narrative. Simple is efficient.
What has this got to do with this thread?
I see a lot of hand wringing and decrying past behavior when compared to current behavior, etc. IN COMIC BOOKS. So that contentious scene with Starfox... Is he an asshole? Is his behavior excusable? Is he a rapist? A mysoginist? A creep?
He is a paper thin character, created for what is extensibly disposable entertainment, written on a fifth grade reading level. The way he acts towards the woman is one facet of an extremely limited number of facets. Part of a story that is told in a way to boil down the interaction to its extremely narrow focus, without fluff, without the trappings of reality. No one says "bye". Simplicity is efficient. He touches her face without permission? It's a metaphorical intrusion. Ever notice in movies how people argue nose-to-nose? Yeah, they don't do that in real life.
Now, I understand that the conversation has bled out to the greater debate as to what types of behaviors are "problematic" now while once being commonplace, and how that affects entertainment as a whole... but lay off the Starfox scene... it is what it is... either read it or don't. It will not bend society to its breaking point if it exists. Nor will any other transient piece of pop culture entertainment from the past. It exists, and that's that. Disagree with "Birth of a Nation?" Duly noted... you are now on Santa's Good List. But it does exist, and there are still things we can learn from it. You most definitely can't put it back in the bottle.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 26, 2023 11:09:44 GMT -5
As I read this thread, I am reminded of how I felt, as a teen, when people talked on the phone in movies and TV. It would drive me crazy that people would, simultaneously, decide it was the end of the call, and just hang up... no "Well, I've gotta go", or "Bye"... just talking and then they hang up. I understand now that it was really for the viewer's sake... to streamline the process and eliminate the "real life" part of the equation and more expediently deliver the information. The "real world" trappings would have only bogged it down and gotten in the way of the narrative. Simple is efficient. What has this got to do with this thread? I see a lot of hand wringing and decrying past behavior when compared to current behavior, etc. IN COMIC BOOKS. So that contentious scene with Starfox... Is he an asshole? Is his behavior excusable? Is he a rapist? A mysoginist? A creep? He is a paper thin character, created for what is extensibly disposable entertainment, written on a fifth grade reading level. The way he acts towards the woman is one facet of an extremely limited number of facets. Part of a story that is told in a way to boil down the interaction to its extremely narrow focus, without fluff, without the trappings of reality. No one says "bye". Simplicity is efficient. He touches her face without permission? It's a metaphorical intrusion. Ever notice in movies how people argue nose-to-nose? Yeah, they don't do that in real life. Now, I understand that the conversation has bled out to the greater debate as to what types of behaviors are "problematic" now while once being commonplace, and how that affects entertainment as a whole... but lay off the Starfox scene... it is what it is... either read it or don't. It will not bend society to its breaking point if it exists. Nor will any other transient piece of pop culture entertainment from the past. It exists, and that's that. Disagree with "Birth of a Nation?" Duly noted... you are now on Santa's Good List. But it does exist, and there are still things we can learn from it. You most definitely can't put it back in the bottle. While I agree that there are limits to overly dissecting a fictional scene as if it actually happened, it can be useful because: 1) is a chance to talk about the larger theme that the scene implies 2) in this way similar scenes are prevented from happening again in other stories, risking normalizing wrong behaviors. A great example is Avengers 200. It is obvious that according to the authors nothing bad happened and Carol was delighted to be brainwashed and become a human incubator. But it can be (and was) an excellent opportunity to talk about the more general issue of consent. And the fact that it is often not a very clear issue for the comic writers of the past generations. By the way, I love this video about the topic
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Jul 26, 2023 11:21:01 GMT -5
The only thing is... applying our "enlightened" standards of behavior to content of the past inevitably leads to that content being edited and sanitized... an abhorrent solution to a non-problem.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 26, 2023 11:24:04 GMT -5
Now, is Eros acting like a jerk in that scene? Well, he's certainly not acting the way I would; on the other hand, the lady thinks he's sweet and doesn't walk away. I must therefore assume that she, as an individual, does not find his behaviour improper. So it's the victim's fault that she didn't voluntarily leave? Not every human interaction is about victimization. In fact, most of them aren't, which is a good thing. Why must we assume that she's a victim? Two adults having a conversation in full daylight and in the middle of a crowd... where's the inequality, here? Is it that Eros has a superpower that makes people like him? Well, yeah, that's the point of this discussion. But other than that, it's just a guy hitting on a girl who doesn't seem unreceptive, as per her own words. I personally trust women to be as capable as men when it comes to telling people to leave them alone, espeially when no visible coercition is involved. That is all possible, yes, I grant that. Are you willing to grant that it is also possible that the lady actually thinks what she says and stays because she wants to stay? Why assume the worst? That is a common excuse for abusive behaviour, true,, and there are many circumstances in which we know why someone couldn't or wouldn't defend themselves (making the aggressor's excuse unacceptable). I don't think that a doctor having a chat with a flirty guy in public and saying that he's sweet fits that category, though. At face value, it looks like a lady-killer makes his move and that he hits a home run because she genuinely likes him.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 26, 2023 12:08:54 GMT -5
I'm saying you have no idea what her thought is and therefore people are projecting their own ideas onto her. That is both the benefit and curse of art, especially when ambiguous. People will project their own ideas into it. I've been looking over the series of issues around this, where Eros joins the Avengers. He is portrayed as impulsive, seeking glory and excitement, but with "Old World" manners (and a 1970s Hollywood attitude towards sex). He basically acts like a swashbuckler.....he basically acts like Errol Flynn, both onscreen and off (minus the question of potentially underage objects of affection). When he decides to leave Titan, even Mentor rolls his eyes at Eros' statement that the wanderlust has struck him..... He ends up at Avengers Mansion, runs into Jarvis, finds out where everybody is and helps save the day. That leads to him being given trainee Avengers status, since he doesn't have much experience in the hero game, as they did with the new Captain Marvel (Monica Rambeau, the future Photon). He is depicted as treating everyone with courtesy and respect, while also being impetuous, more than a bit full of himself and looking for excitement and glory. The story that provided the original discussion panels sees his abilities adding little to the conflict, so he is easily distracted by the paramedic...that is, until she spots the Baxter Building and draws his attention to it and he helps solve the problem. He goes through a n arc where he learns what it means to be a hero, though he still charms the ladies. We slowly find out, though, that the charm isn't just his manners and personality and interest in the women, it is also a field emitted by his brain which stimulates pleasure centers. He is shown using it to defuse a hostage standoff with a bankrobber..... Notice he doesn't mind control the robber; he just stimulate his pleasure center until he relaxes and lets the woman go free. Eearlier, he is late to a training session with Captain America, because he is busy making out with a woman, in a park. When Cap chews him out about being responsible for being at an assigned place, at the assigned time, he immediately apologizes and accepts the responsibility (Cap was taking out frustrations with Tony Stark on Eros). In subsequent issues, he is seen not so much hitting as giving them attention, to the point that even the female Avengers, including She-Hulk, who trashes a couple of jerks in previous issues, treats it like he is just flirtatious and harmless.... At no point does the art show Eros using his powers to influence the women. He flirts and when brushed off or told someone is married, he withdraws and moves his attention elsewhere. He is a key factor in helping the Vision recover, after he was struck immobile, while trying to enter the barrier, in the story where the original panels originate. He is stuck with monitor duty and lamenting his boredom, when the Vision regains consciousness, but not mobility. Eros hits upon the idea to contact ISAAC, the sentient computer on Titan, who then gives him schematics to build an analyzer, which helps restore Vision's mobility, though his personality is changed...into something more warm. Vision ends up chairman of the Avengers, after the bulk of them disappear, during Secret Wars. I haven't gotten further than #243, with the bankrobber; so, I haven't seen if there are consequences about Eros' natural field; but, this is where that idea originates. Roger Stern basically portrays Eros in the traditional Hollywood idea of the charming ladies man, who flirts with anything in a skirt, barring a Scotsman (though, you never know), but never presses himself upon the woman, merely charms them. The field seems to be something created to give him a unique ability, as his natural abilities, as a Titan, are a bit vague. In fact, Stern spends a lot of time on personalities and character development. She Hulk is depicted as a bit reactionary, as she goes jogging and blindly goes into a crosswalk, without the signals and a car is forced to brake and the driver honks at her. She punches the front end of his car and he yells at her. it almost escalates until Spider-Man, who is nearby, intercedes and points out to Jen that she did over-react a bit. The arc starts with hank Pym leaving the Avengers, after defeating Egghead, giving up the hero life and apologizing to Janet and leaving her, because he knows their relationship doesn't work (she reminds him of a past, lost love and that love is part of his mental health problems). Vision is waylaid and Scarlet Witch is distraught, until he is restored. Hawkeye is injured, then goes off to have his mini-series and then returns with his new bride, Mockingbird, leading into the formation of Avengers West Coast. Eros is portrayed as a flirtatious gentleman, but never a cad, never a wolf. I assume the field will factor more, down the line and will create questions, as early on, he and She Hulk have a one night stand. Stern's depiction is culturally dated, but you can argue whether Eros goes too far or not. Stern seems to have a purpose in this, to show growth in Eros, though, as I say, I am only up to the field being revealed and not further stories. He is definitely not forcing himself on anyone. It seems to me (unless there is something ahead, in this series), that Dan Slott then took that to an extreme, to give a personal history involved. I have a problem with retroactively applying agendas to past works of fiction and then applying a modern attitude to the situation, especially when taken out of context and the situation has an ambiguity. In such situations, people have a tendency to project their ideas into it, ignoring the original context and intent. Some situations are cut and dry, like offensive stereotypes or someone pressing affections on another, when they clearly reject the affection. Even in past, this was shown to be reprehensible, even in darker, noirish things. There is an old movie cliche of the hardboiled detective making the female admit she is in love or attracted to him, often physically. It is used in Blade Runner, when Rachel comes to Deckard's apartment. Even so, the guy's use of force to get through to the woman is usually shown as a negative thing; but taken out of the full context, it is magnified beyond the actual story. Even in old movies, someone who presses their affections either gets slapped by the woman or punched by her boyfriend/husband. No, the woman shouldn't have to defend herself; but,, it is drama. Drama does not always include realistic behaviors and consequences. It is metaphor. Speaking in absolutes is a dangerous thing. All men are not jerks looking to get laid and all men are not chauvinist pigs. Some are. Some are completely respectful. Some try to be and maybe unconsciously say or do the wrong thing, in ignorance. Eros isn't a rapist and he isn't a cad. He is juvenile and needs to learn look beyond infatuation. When he if first brought into the series, he expresses envy to Elysius in regards to her previous relationship with the late Mar-Vell.... It seems that Roger Stern's agenda is to treat Eros as a rookie, a kid, a raw recruit, and have him grow and learn how to be a hero and an Avenger. I'm not far enough along to see if he succeeds, but he is presented lessons along the way. That whole context tells more about him than two panels.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 26, 2023 12:12:19 GMT -5
I refuse to be offended for a person that might not be offended. Case in point, the Cleveland baseball team changed its name from Indians to guardians. They asked actual American Indians beforehand if they were offended. They said no.
Women like for men to make the first move. It bares out in all the polls and surveys. The real question in this thread is- does Starfox use mind control ? I don’t think his powers work that way.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 26, 2023 12:15:54 GMT -5
That is all possible, yes, I grant that. Are you willing to grant that it is also possible that the lady actually thinks what she says and stays because she wants to stay? Why assume the worst? So why does he have an attitude that can be interpreted as predatory at all? Let's examine for a moment what the worst and best outcomes are for those involved: Starfox treats the doctor like a show animal and his property, just like in the scene. 1) Best outcome for Starfox: hook up with the doctor. 2) Worst outcome for Starfox: he doesn't hook up with the doctor, so his personal situation remains exactly as before 1) best outcome for the doctor: she remains indifferent or fascinated by the advances of Starfox 2) Worst outcome for the doctor: she feels violated and treated like an object, but she can't do anything for many reasons Starfox does NOT treat the doctor like a show animal 1) Best outcome for Starfox: hook up with the doctor. 2) Worst outcome for Starfox: he doesn't hook up with the doctor, so his personal situation remains exactly as before 1) Best outcome for the doctor: she remains indifferent or fascinated by the advances of Starfox 2) Worst outcome for the doctor: she remains indifferent or slightly annoyed. The inequality of power between the two is clear and the only one who can lose is always only the doctor. So ethically the best possible behavior for Starfox would have been to not act in a predatory manner.
|
|