Pods of juffo-wup: True sons of Scotland.
First, one last nitpick on Damsels in Distress:
"One way to think about damsel'd characters is what's known as the subject-object dichotomy. In the simplest terms, subjects act, and objects are acted upon. In the narrative, the protagonist is the subject, while the damsel is relegated to the role of object... this is a form of objectification because as objects, damsel'd women are being acted upon."
Just in case anyone thinks this section made perfect sense...
1. The subject-object dichotomy is a philosophical problem, which seeks to sort out the relationships between a mind (observer / subject) and the world (of objects) - that is, the difference between "me" and "not-me." Its two main sub-questions, what this relationship is and how can we determine it, are core questions of ontology and epistemology.
The terms subject and object here are tied into the concepts of "subjective" and "objective."
In short, subject and object (in philosophy.)
2. "Subjects act and objects are acted upon" is first grade English and is, in fact, misapplied. The subject can indeed be acted upon in passive voice; indeed, consider the sentence "objects are acted upon by subjects!"
In short, a mislabelling of agent and patient (in grammar.)
3. Finally, we have objectification which is a moral problem. It is not merely being the patient of a transitive verb, nor is it merely being a subset of not-me. It's not quite even proper to use the term to relate a player to game characters, unless you are reverse-objectifying those characters yourself!
I mean, the crap you can do with player characters should tell you that. You can tell a character not to defend himself from the thugs, and he'll happily get killed for your poorly-playing enjoyment. No regrets for his ultimate failure to do whatever, just blinks out of existence and that, as they say, is that.
Just needed to get that out. Now let's crack open a can of juffo-wup, na?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/gaybros-trend-lgbt-community_n_2973838.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
So it seems that there are gay fellows called "gaybros," who are gay and act like bros and don't like girly men. What's silly is that there appears to be a controversy about this, as though there were a proper way to act gay. You know, the paint hell chartreuse lispy femboy stereotype. Oh, and the controversy is internal to the gay community.
Judging by the comments, it gets weird in other ways - everything from lesbians being accosted for having manicured / fake nails, to claims that gaybros are misogynists who only act like bros to avoid being effeminate, to an odd claim (from a self-proclaimed masculine gay man, no less!) that the gaybro message is DANGEROUS!
...y'know... I could go on about the "no true Scotsman" fallacy here.
But then again, it's not just in that community, but plays out all over the place as just another reflection of ancient tribal mentalities. It's silly, and can lead to patently stupid results... but it's one of the oldest examples of plus ça change out there: a "this way good, that way bad" going back into the depths of prehistory and even prehumanity.
Kinda sad, though, that for all the talk of inclusion and tolerance, this silliness is the norm. I suppose when you have a Pavlov's dog that's been drooling to the same stimulus for 6 million years, it's KINDA hard to change.
Iono, it's kinda interesting all the same, watching group dynamics like this.
"One way to think about damsel'd characters is what's known as the subject-object dichotomy. In the simplest terms, subjects act, and objects are acted upon. In the narrative, the protagonist is the subject, while the damsel is relegated to the role of object... this is a form of objectification because as objects, damsel'd women are being acted upon."
Just in case anyone thinks this section made perfect sense...
1. The subject-object dichotomy is a philosophical problem, which seeks to sort out the relationships between a mind (observer / subject) and the world (of objects) - that is, the difference between "me" and "not-me." Its two main sub-questions, what this relationship is and how can we determine it, are core questions of ontology and epistemology.
The terms subject and object here are tied into the concepts of "subjective" and "objective."
In short, subject and object (in philosophy.)
2. "Subjects act and objects are acted upon" is first grade English and is, in fact, misapplied. The subject can indeed be acted upon in passive voice; indeed, consider the sentence "objects are acted upon by subjects!"
In short, a mislabelling of agent and patient (in grammar.)
3. Finally, we have objectification which is a moral problem. It is not merely being the patient of a transitive verb, nor is it merely being a subset of not-me. It's not quite even proper to use the term to relate a player to game characters, unless you are reverse-objectifying those characters yourself!
I mean, the crap you can do with player characters should tell you that. You can tell a character not to defend himself from the thugs, and he'll happily get killed for your poorly-playing enjoyment. No regrets for his ultimate failure to do whatever, just blinks out of existence and that, as they say, is that.
Just needed to get that out. Now let's crack open a can of juffo-wup, na?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/gaybros-trend-lgbt-community_n_2973838.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
So it seems that there are gay fellows called "gaybros," who are gay and act like bros and don't like girly men. What's silly is that there appears to be a controversy about this, as though there were a proper way to act gay. You know, the paint hell chartreuse lispy femboy stereotype. Oh, and the controversy is internal to the gay community.
Judging by the comments, it gets weird in other ways - everything from lesbians being accosted for having manicured / fake nails, to claims that gaybros are misogynists who only act like bros to avoid being effeminate, to an odd claim (from a self-proclaimed masculine gay man, no less!) that the gaybro message is DANGEROUS!
...y'know... I could go on about the "no true Scotsman" fallacy here.
But then again, it's not just in that community, but plays out all over the place as just another reflection of ancient tribal mentalities. It's silly, and can lead to patently stupid results... but it's one of the oldest examples of plus ça change out there: a "this way good, that way bad" going back into the depths of prehistory and even prehumanity.
Kinda sad, though, that for all the talk of inclusion and tolerance, this silliness is the norm. I suppose when you have a Pavlov's dog that's been drooling to the same stimulus for 6 million years, it's KINDA hard to change.
Iono, it's kinda interesting all the same, watching group dynamics like this.