File: Spider-Woman's Big Ass is a Big Deal!.swf-(9.83 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)04:16 No.2537397
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)04:55 No.2537418
>>2537397
When did Maddox get old?
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)05:03 No.2537423
As much as this guy annoys me, he brought up good points.
Good job you cunt.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)05:13 No.2537429
yep, pretty much nails it on the head. Media and select groups being a bunch of cunts as always.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)05:17 No.2537432
god damn maddox obliterated them
by far his greatest video
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)05:23 No.2537438
>>2537418
he's always been old
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)05:47 No.2537451
I'm just gonna come out and say it; I'm a feminist.
As it happens, I have no issue with either cover. The variant is undoubtedly more sexualised, but
this is the style of the artist and a degree of sexualisation is fine, I'd go as far as saying a
completely sexually neutral character would just be bad writing. Sexuality is part of the human
experience and a medium looking to explore this (even in the context of super humans) should
recognise that.
However, his whole argument boiled down to 'do not ignore context', which Maddox himself managed
to do so eloquently by forgetting how unrepresented women are in pretty much any mainstream
media. Context works both ways, and he should have recognised that.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)05:51 No.2537453
>>2537429
Too bad the nails will never admit it. From the comments on Maddox's video: "How can you say it's
the exact same pose when Spider-Man is clearly leading with his right hand instead of his left,
thus changing the entire artistic context of the illustration?"
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)05:54 No.2537455
>>2537451
>how unrepresented women are in pretty much any mainstream media
:^)
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)05:54 No.2537456
>>2537451
No, his argument was that every issue that the media has brought up with the representation of
women in comics is either inherent to the style (e.g. costumes that look like bodypaint) or is
equally applicable to male characters (e.g. sexually suggestive poses).
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:01 No.2537462
>>2537451
And oh look, here we have another feminist trying to make excuses for their attention whoring.
Women are "underrepresented in mainstream media?" Seriously? If anything women are far
overrepresented, with an unending array of talk shows, news feeds, and even entire cable channels
dedicated to womens' issues. Context matters, but your "context" only exists in your delusional
little imagination.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:05 No.2537465
>>2537451
but did we ask you to tell us if you were a feminist?
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:06 No.2537466
>>2537465
I think they were just being upfront about any potential bias.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:17 No.2537472
>>2537466
i like how feminists blatantly announce that theyre feminists like it would gives their
viewpoints more impact, its cute.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:23 No.2537475
>>2537455
>>2537462
>>2537465
>Male tears
>>2537456
Fair enough. I guess you could argue that it could be avoided for the sake of furthering equality
(positive discrimination as a levelling tool) but yeah I see your point.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:23 No.2537476
>>2537465
hello, im the guy you responded to,
anyways i feel that there isnt a need to announce yourself with a label or title when expressing
an opinion nor generally debating a topic.
it makes it feel as if what >>2537472 says is fact. of course this plays into anyone who
announces themselves. I.E. "Im a christian, Im an Athiest, Im a liberal, etc.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:24 No.2537477
>>2537476
fucked that up i ment it to go to this one >>2537466
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:32 No.2537481
>>2537476
To clarify, I announced I was feminist because posting about equality without that context tends
to cause threads to derail in cries of 'pussy whipped' or 'feminazi' or whatever else. Coming
right out and saying it at least limits the chance of shit-posting to claims I'm being an
attention whore.
Not that it's relevant to this discussion, it just seems you're a bit riled by my choice of
opinions.
Also, as >>2537466 said it makes it clear I may be talking from a point directly against this
video, and as such may be biased.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:39 No.2537484
>>2537481
The amazing lack of substance in each and every one of your long-winded posts is triggering me
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:42 No.2537486
>>2537484
I'm glad you gave an example of a post with substance. Now I what to do for next time. Thanks
based anon.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:42 No.2537488
>>2537481
Thread derailment in 4chan is imminent, best one can do is ignore the obvious trolls and continue
with the topic as best as possible. If you let them get to you then whats the whole point of your
strong front? a few words that have an empty meaning shouldn't hurt, less alone veer you from
your point.
Also im speaking from a anonymous point of view, whats the whole point of staying incognito of
you are just going to personify yourself? Im one of those the quite frankly believe that one
should stay " " on the internet to provide an equal ground, but don't mind me im just a passer by.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:46 No.2537490
>>2537486
>I've got no issue with this
>except women are unrepresented in media(what?) whcih means he shouldn't bitch about the people
bitching about this woman in media
>btw I'm a feminist ;)
Your post was fucking stupid as hell.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:48 No.2537491
>>2537488
Very good point. I remember when 'tits or gtfo' became a thing to stop femanons attention whoring
and it was great, I suppose what I did was no different. Cheers for making me notice and stuff.
As for thread derailment, do you think it's got worse since /b/ raided tumblr and /v/ has done
the whole GG thing? Seems that suddenly most of the shit boards have become worse.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:50 No.2537492
>>2537475
His point was literally, "I watched the whole video and didn't deny the facts."
If you actually watched the video you'd see that pretty much everything Maddox said is true.
If you want Superheroines (and by extension Superheroes) to be realistic (read 'fat/ugly') or
wearing burqas then you better start making your own comics. Heads up: you won't sell any.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:50 No.2537495
>>2537490
There was another paragraph between but I forgot /f/ has character limits. The gist was that
positive discrimination (i.e making an effort to keep female characters less sexualised than male
ones out of recognition of gender inequality) would be preferable in this case. It filled in the
blanks.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:53 No.2537498
>>2537491
oh that was something to be expected.
Shit will just be shit, then turn into food for something else that will just shit the shit out.
something to do with us human turning into massive douche-whore when we are bored. Y'know idle
hands and some shit and what not
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)06:54 No.2537500
>>2537495
>female characters less sexualised than male ones
>positive discrimination
This is an opinion and it is incredibly sexist.
