Disempowerment · 9:28pm Sep 28th, 2014
Note: This blog post has been rewritten. The rewritten version can be found here. I have left up the original for the sake of posterity.
For those of you who aren't aware, White Diamonds, Ltd, one of the foremost RariJack artists in the fandom (and in my eyes, one of the better fanartists) has been putting together a daily Tumblr consisting entirely of art featuring Rarity and Applejack. Some of it is shipping, some of it is friendshipping, but it is generally very lovely.
However, today's art bothered me, and as it exhibited something which I've been thinking about making a post about for quite some time, I thought I would share.
So, what is wrong with this image? The problem, fundamentally, is that Rarity is cast as a damsel in distress. Now, if you're Anita Sarkeesian, this alone would be enough to say "well, clearly this is misogyny in action". But it isn't, not really; the damsel in distress role is not inherently misogynistic; it is frequently used in a non-misogynistic manner, and yet, it can also be used in an unfortunate manner. So how can you distinguish between the two?
If you read the title of this blog post, I've spoiled this for you already.
The real key is disempowerment. When we're talking about someone like Rarity, Rarity has been established as being tough. When confronted with a dangerous situation, she doesn't cower, she fights back, be it kicking a manticore in the face, punching out a changeling, or driving diamond dogs mad with the sound of her voice. She is self-confident and is not content to just wait to be saved, and when she does end up "in distress", it is for good, story-related reasons - she got grabbed by the diamond dogs (and worked to free herself), and her captures by Discord, Tirek, and the changelings were due to overwhelming force, not due to her being the designated damsel.
Princess Peach, in in the mainline Mario series, is not this. She gets captured by Bowser on a regular basis (every game) and she doesn't really have any character to speak of. Indeed, in her role in the game, she isn't really a character at all; she's a MacGuffin. For those of you who are not familiar with the term, a MacGuffin is a sought after but ultimately mostly interchangeable object; what is important about the MacGuffin is that one or more characters wants it and the conflict arises from them seeking it out. But what the MacGuffin is frequently doesn't matter; it can be Princess Peach, President Ronald Reagan, medicine for your father, or a pile of bananas. A great film example of this sort of thing is the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. What is in the briefcase? It doesn't matter, because all that matters is that it gets delivered and someone else wants it. The audience never even finds out what is inside! And we don't need to, because as far as the plot is concerned, what matters is the conflict, not the contents.
Now, is it possible for this trope to be used in a manner which is demeaning to women? Yes, as with all things, it is possible to use it in a demeaning manner. There are, however, two big things which set off major red flags when it comes to the use of this trope. The first is when the woman in question is heavily sexualized, with the notion that rescuing her entitles you to rescue sex. The problems with this are fairly obvious, and I think don't need to really be gone into here.
The second issue, however, is what I wanted to focus on here: disempowerment. This is when you take a strong female character and put her in the damsel in distress role when, logically, she shouldn't be put into that role. The above picture is a great example of this; Rarity, in the show, has proven willing to attack those who threaten her friends, but here she is cowering so that Applejack can protect her from the big scary timberwolves. Princess Peach isn't disempowered because she never was empowered in the first place. Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite is not disempowered when she is captured because she isn't a fighter - she is competent in her own ways, but it was established early on that while her abilities are helpful, she isn't very comfortable with guns, doesn't know how to use them, and while her abilities can be very dangerous, it is dependent on there being a rift nearby she can exploit (and her rifts can sometimes expose her to danger as well, making them somewhat hazardous to use). A character who isn't and shouldn't be expected to be capable of fighting back, or someone who is faced with force which would logically exceed their capability, is not being unfairly disempowered. But when you take a character like Rarity and cast her in a situation where otherwise she has proved herself to be competent, and recast her in the damsel in distress role, that is disempowering, and it is wrong. It is out of character, and it is done so that someone else - the hero - can protect them.
Is it misogyny? It can be. But a lot of the time it is simple thoughtlessness, not bigotry. Given that a female character is being cast as the protector in the above image, it seems a bit strange to call it misogynistic, despite the fact that it is exactly the same sort of thing that we see when male characters do the same. But it is definitely unfortunate, and something which should be avoided.
Note: I have now written a follow-up to this piece, Context Is Important: The Fires of Friendship, which is about the fanfic that the piece of art at the start of this post is based on.
To clarify: I enjoy White Diamonds Ltd's art, and I was not accusing her of being misogynistic.
It is so refreshing to see someone actually talk about this issue in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. Certainly an interesting blog post, and you've introduced me to a fantastic artist as a bonus!
I'my not sure this has anything to do with misogyny. I'm not even convinced that the artist is necessarily all that partial to the 'damsel in distress' trope at all.
People have a habit of simplifying characters. The fact that Rarity would kick a manticore in the face isn't as prominent a trait as her love of fashion and her tendency towards being overly dramatic.
I think what's happening here is that Rarity is being reduced to what's common for her archetype.
Excellent art, though, makes me a bit envious.
2491244
The idea that a female character who loves fashion and is overdramatic would cower in the face of danger is an example of misogyny in the sense of being prejudiced against women, because absolutely none of those traits suggest that she would cower in the face of danger.
The fact that people think of characters like that as weaklings is itself an example of bigotry.
It also isn't even really consistent with the stereotype; if you look at, say, the Devil Wears Prada or similar works about people in the fashion industry, while fashion models are stereotypically weak and depicted as emptyheaded, oversensitive idiots, fashion designers are frequently depicted as being pretty ruthless, even outright villainous.
So, thank you for being thoughtful in discussing this. I appreciate a lot of the caveats you threw in, and the conclusion that these things stem from habit and negligence more often than malice.
I feel it's noteworthy that there is an unfortunate implication in making a female character a MacGuffin, as you are literally objectifying (or objecTIVEfying in the case of Peach) them, but of course you also (unintentionally) point out that men can be made MacGuffins as well, so its less sexism and more bad or just unfocused writing.
So, you know, not bad work all and all.
Contrast Peach to Princess Zelda from A Link to the Past: Yes, she gets kidnapped, and yes, Link needs to come rescue her, but he does so by following her telepathic instructions. Zelda initiates her own rescue, and actively participates in it.
2491263
Are there any analogous depictions of male characters that you would consider misandry?
2491319
MacGuffins aren't a bad thing; they're a tool. They're very useful tools in plots, and are useful in a wide variety of works. They are actually particularly useful in video games which have what are known as "Excuse Plots", which are basically where you have some extremely basic plot which is not focused on at all but which serves to create a goal for the player. Megaman, the mainline Mario games, Donkey Kong Country, Super Meat Boy, most Roguelikes which are actually like Rogue (particularly Nethack), and similar games frequently have some sort of very simple goal (beat the big bad guy or go save the princess/the president/your pile of bananas or retrieve a magic item from womewhere) and a very simple plot which gets little, if any, attention; the game isn't about the plot, it is about the gameplay, with the excuse plot providing some sort of tangible goal beyond "get through this level" while simultaneously avoiding wasting time on a plot that doesn't matter and detracts from what actually makes the game fun - getting through the levels or what have you.
Likewise, in movies, there are movies where the what doesn't matter, and in that case, a MacGuffin will do just fine because it saves you time on something which doesn't really matter much at all - the focus is on the action and the characters, not the object. Conversely, LotR puts a lot of focus on the One Ring, because it is central to the plot and its attributes cause a lot of things to happen.
I'll note that games which do away with such things entirely, and just have stuff to do, oftentimes cause me to lose interest fairly quickly, because I simply have no reason to care at all. I know why I'm trying to get through Super Mario Bros, but I don't remember what I was supposed to do in Gish, and Gish lost my interest.
Excuse plots tend to be rarer in movies, but they certainly exist; Shoot Em Up is a great example of such, as are movies like Pacific Rim (or so I've heard, anyway; I've never actually seen it, but it looks like it is just an excuse to have giant robots fight giant monsters).
While it is true that making the sought-after goal a person can have unfortunate implications, I don't think it does in general; the problem arises not from the person as a MacGuffin, but the reason why you're after them. Rescue Sex or Rescue Romance, for instance, can have Unfortunate Implications, while someone setting out with the GOAL of getting such always does, unless it is being played for laughs. Saving someone for altruistic or personal reasons tends to be much less problematic. You can give anything unfortunate implications if you try hard enough, but generally speaking, it won't rise to that level in something with an excuse plot simply because there isn't enough of a plot to give rise to said implications.
2491538
They created the fire to drive away the timber wolves which are surrounding them - you can see them in the background (they're the shadowy figures with green eyes and mouths).
The image is actually fanart of something from a fanfic, which has different cover art:
fimfiction-static.net/images/story_images/19711.jpg?1333937964
You'll note there that Rarity is brandishing a torch to drive back the timber wolves, which is (presumably) the source of the fire here.
2491577
Yeah, but on the other hand, the Zelda games actually have plots with characters in them (or at least, the later ones do; the NES one did not, to the best of my recollection); they aren't excuse plots.
There's nothing wrong with having female characters in a position of weakness, and never portraying female characters in such situations has its own unforutnate implications. There's nothing wrong with female characters losing or being captured or whatever. The problem arises when it is either contextualized in a misogynistic manner or you disempower someone who is empowered. Princess Peach getting captured is par for the course; Samus being captured is not. This is because they have very different roles.
2491585
Gay men (especially the more limp-wristed types) sometimes get stereotyped as cowards, as do more metrosexual guys. Male politicans get typecast as being personally cowardly, too, though that may be because they're politicians rather than because they're men, though a lot of female politicians in modern-day political dramas seem to be more inspired by people like Margeret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton and thus are not depicted as cowards. Depicting men of other cultures as being evil is much more common than depicting women as the same, though this is probably a function of men being in charge of most such places anyway.
I dunno if I would define most of those as misandry per se, though, as usually they're based on something else and the characters, while always male, are not depicted in that manner because they're men but because of whatever other trait they possess.
Talking about pure misandry, I'd say that the biggest problem is that men are seen as disposable, and that it is a bigger deal if women and children die than if men die. This is something which is pretty much across all of our culture, though. This manifests itself in video games with lots of faceless male characters dying, enemies being much more male than female, female enemies being more likely to be spared, ect. though in many cases this does actually reflect reality, given that IRL men are considerably stronger than women, so it is hard to actually pin down as misandry rather than realism.
One could also argue that male leads are pretty much always pretty and muscular, though I think this is more of a universal trope and not an example of misogyny or misandry - people just LIKE pretty people, so either your protagonist is handsome/beautiful (or at the least attractive), or they're interesting looking.
2491727
LttP definitely is an excuse plot, though. It was before we had even the one-dimensional characterizations of 'Courage' or 'Wisdom'!
(Sheesh, now I feel old.
)
2491758
Full disclosure: I've never played A Link To The Past. I've only played the NES original and the N64/Gamecube/Wii ones.
When someone shared this picture with me earlier, I knew there would be discussion about it. And frankly, there should be. I think it's also really important to note what the actual problem with it is, as you did.
Rarity feels wrong in this picture because it goes against what we know of her character. Yes, she is undoubtedly what I'd call a more feminine character in respect to the rest of the mane six. It is part of who she is, and she accepts and embraces that part of herself. But this does not mean she's a character that can simply be thrust into the damsel role because of this.
As you pointed out, it's part of a tumblr by an artist who specializes in RariJack art. As someone... crudely brought to my attention earlier, it brings into question what the artist is trying to say about Rarity and Applejack in this picture. Is Applejack in more of a 'masculine' role, putting herself selflessly in the line of danger to protect her family and friends? Is Rarity in more of a 'feminine' role because she's pictured acting weak in the face of danger?
No. These traits are not inherently masculine or feminine. Applejack has been shown on more than one occasion to take on the protector role when it comes to her family and friends, so it's not hard for us to see her standing up to the immediate danger surrounding them. However, this is where we get back to my original problem with the picture: Rarity's depiction. While being afraid for your life or the lives of others in the danger is a completely normal emotion to feel, we've also seen that Rarity is fiercely loyal to her loved ones in much the same way as Applejack is. She would not cower and rely on Applejack to save them from a timberwolf attack, or any other immediate danger. She is a strong pony and could use her magic or even her physical strength to help drive the timberwolves away somehow.
So, is it misogynistic? No, not in my opinion. But it doesn't provide what I view is an accurate portrayal of the characters.
I must bring an interesting point here. Rarity (along with other characters in the show) has been shown to have both traits in different situations. Tough against somethings (manticore), and weak against others (dirt, other gross things), and sometimes she reacts both ways to the same sort of situation. Other characters are the same way, reacting differently to the same thing despite having "established" a certain trait of courage or cowardice in some earlier episode.
It is because of this that the term "OOC" is thrown around too frequently on this site. It is because of two things: The fact that the writers of the show each have different understandings of the characters and as such will give them seemingly past-personality-conflicting reactions to different situations (to serve the story they are trying to tell), and the fact that we in real life are very much the same. We might be brave and encouraged on one day, and cowardly and discouraged on another, depending on the situation, our mood, events leading up to the situation, etc.
We change as well.
To simplify, some see Rarity as a prissy self centered mare who fears getting dirty, having her reputation tarnished, and other things, while others see her as an independent, strong willed mare who is willing to do anything to defend her friends.
The fact is, she's both, depending on the situation, the writer, and the story being told.
What we should really be questioning isn't whether or not this is disempowerment, but whether or not our interpretation of the character is any more correct than the interpretation of the artist who presented her in the situation we see there.
That's the nature of the beast. We see in others what we want to see, especially in cartoon characters who have multiple personalities depending on who's writing.
So is it disempowerment? I don't know, and we can't really say. That depends on how the artist views Rarity.
Then again the picture could be taken a different way. I definitely see your point, but honestly the scene that came to mind when I saw the image went more like this.
Where it wasn't a case of Rarity afraid and cowering, just her being inconvenienced and sidelined by Applejack's typical action-first approach. I'm not saying I'm right, or that you aren't. Hearing the artist's take on what was meant to be conveyed would be interesting to hear.
2491727
That's what I thought too. In the original post, it seemed like Rarity was being portrayed as weak because she was an overdramatic fashionista (and not so much because she was a female overdramatic fashionista). I also wouldn't apply the term "misandry" to your politician examples for the reason you gave, but for the same reason I wouldn't apply the term "misogyny" to Rarity in that drawing.
I'm also having trouble coming up with misandristic examples portraying "X males as Y" that (1) don't reduce to prejudice against all X people and (2) are consistent with your original example. I think that's because we're trying to come up with examples of disempowerment, whereas prejudice against males doesn't normally take the form of disempowerment.
How about this: Depicting an effeminate guy as being loyal to his wife, while depicting a muscular guy in a suit cheating on his wife. I'm guessing you would call that misandry?
I wouldn't because it shows a preference against masculinity, not against men. For me, there's a clear separation between the terms "masculine" and "male", and between "feminine" and "female".
2492363
Rarity isn't phobic of dirt, she just doesn't like it. She turns her nose up at it. She isn't interested in being in it, and dislikes having to get dirty. But if she needs to get dirty for some reason, she'll do it. Heck, she buried herself in mud in Sisterhooves Social, because some things are more important than mud. Likewise, when she was going nuts in Simple Ways, she reacted when Applejack got dirty, but Rarity didn't freak out over getting dirty herself - she fussed over Applejack because she was worried she'd ruined her nice outfit. She shrugs off getting dirty in many episodes. It is only when she is in prim and proper mode that she bothers herself with it; otherwise, it is something she doesn't especially care for, but doesn't freak out over.
Indeed, one of the problems with Rarity's dramatics is that they're an act. Rarity is an actress, in-character, in that she loves to overact and is consciously aware of the fact that she is a large ham. The drama couch is a great example of such, but really, that is how she is ALL THE TIME. Even when she's sobbing her eyes out eating ice cream, once Spike says something silly which distracts her from her acting, she forgets about it and five seconds later is fine. That's not to say that she doesn't get upset - she does - but that a lot of her dramatics are exactly are intentional.
She has an image to maintain, after all.
It is true that not everything is defined about characters, but the characters are, in the end, defined by the show, and some depictions are consistent and others are not. That is not to say that everything about the characters is fleshed out, but that some things are established while others are not.
2492532
It is all about stereotyping, really. Men being disposable is about as good of an example as you can find, really, and it is totally true. Basically, men make up both the top and the bottom of society - a worthless man is seen as more worthless than a worthless woman, more or less, and men dying, ect. is considered to be less worrisome. People frequently emphasize how many women/children die in bombing raids, as if civilian men are any different. But it isn't really that big of a deal in games on the whole; games are very rarely misandrist.
2491577
Or let's contrast Princess Zelda from A Link to the Past to Princess Zelda in WindWaker. Zelda in WindWaker was the sassy, strong leader of the pirate bands who begrudgingly gave Link help when he needed it. Then she put on a dress and became totally helpless and just sat around and waited for Link to come save her.
Probably the best example of disempowerment I've ever seen.
2492462
The fact that Rarity is crying seems to lend more to the 'afraid and cowering' idea. Your view is possible, but small details sometimes suggest otherwise.
2492363
Along that same line of thought, though, is one person's reaction to this any less correct than another's? We're all shaped by our experiences, and those led some of us to think the artist was portraying Rarity contrary to how we've seen her act for most of the show. Now, sure, Rarity isn't perfectly captured by any one writer. But the fact that more than a few of us looked at this picture and thought "You know, there's something not quite right here..." speaks to a problem. And while the artist certainly might not have intended his or her work to be viewed this way, the fact of the matter is that it did. The artist said something about Rarity and Applejack, and we took that and interpreted it. And that's one of the beauties of art: it can be viewed in numerous ways, none of them incontrovertibly correct.
2493014
You're right. I didn't notice the tears
On the other hoof, I could totally see rarity playing the damsel in distress role if she knew that AJ was coming for her and that no one was in immediate danger... but that's just her being dramatic.
As for the picture in question: nothing about it is indesputibly gendered, so assigning -isms to it is problematic and Rorschacian in a way. I will agree with 2491972 though, and say that the biggest problem with the picture is that Rarity isn't acting like Rarity, not that she's acting "like a girl."
2492692
That's one way of interpreting Rarity. I have other views from what I've seen. But who's to say who is right?
Although, the points that you raise in the blog post are quite valid for a variety of reasons and situations, but there's just one thing that bothers me.
It's that so many people are worried and speaking out against racism and sexism and other things like those, when in reality, I don't think most people hold any real biases in that sense today (unless of course your part of a group like ISIS or something). I've always found these discussions to end up being a whole bunch of people agreeing that racism and sexism is wrong. It's as if we're defending against a non-existent group.
Unless of course you're trying to attack some of the subconscious biases and stereotypes that everyone has thanks to their life experiences and what they have seen. In that sense, it's perfectly reasonable to say that when media or otherwise constantly presents only one aspect of something, it is teaching those biases, and that they should stop it.
But all in all, I've found the "Oh no! Everything is racist and sexist and whatnot!" sort of stuff to be quite... I dunno, very assumptive, and unnecessarily defensive. It's not as though people intend to offend others. Most of the time, it's us who choose to be offended.
2492692
Noted. I'm trying to understand your blog post.
Is it misogyny to attribute a negative trait to a female character (like in your politician example)? Or is it misogyny to suggest that "feminine" should be grouped with negative traits (like in my husband example)? Or is it misogyny to suggest that females should be feminine, and that "feminine" should be grouped with negative traits?
I think we both agree that (1) is incorrect, and that (3) is not what's being depicted by the Rarijack artist. But that leaves (2), which I don't consider misogyny. Hence my confusion about why you say it might be misogyny. There's a fourth option that I'm not seeing, which is what you're thinking when you say that picture "might be misogyny".
2495091
The real problem, to be frank, is that the word "misogyny", like the word "racism", is such a charged word to begin with.
In the end, what we're really talking about is prejudice. But there are many types and degrees of prejudice; Trenderhoof's comment about respecting the work ethic of earth ponies in Simple Ways was very unfortunate (and racist), but it isn't the same thing at all as someone going out and setting a cross on fire in your front yard.
When we disempower someone on the basis of their external traits (being female, gay, or whatever), that can have unfortunate implications. Most of the time, it is accidental, and most of the rest of the time, it is unconscious; overt racism and sexism is unacceptable in civil company
I dunno if I would really use the word "misogyny" to describe this picture, and I'm pretty sure that the intent of the artist was not to do any of this, but it does bother me, and I do feel that it is bothersome. It isn't the end of the world, it isn't a huge deal, but it is the same sort of subtle nonsense which creates discomfort.
2495464
Misogyny is prejudice against what? I assume it's prejudice against females. Even if the artist knew what s/he was doing with Rarity, the picture would be depicting prejudice against femininity, not against females. Applejack is female, and the picture doesn't show any prejudice against her. Rarity is female, and the picture does show prejudice against her. It would make sense to say that the creator might be prejudice against femininity, but it doesn't make any sense to say that s/he is prejudice against females.
I feel I need to express how offensive I find this particular entry. To you, you are holding up an image to focus discussion on a topic you clearly feel very strongly about. However, to me, you are simply removing an image from all context while disparaging the very real flesh-and-blood artist with terms like "misogynist" and "thoughtlessness" because she did not illustrate a scene from a story in which Rarity suffers from a crippling fear of fire due to a childhood trauma to your satisfaction. You did not even grant her the courtesy of mentioning that the original source of this image you have moved here links to this story that provides the context needed to understand why a strong character like Rarity would be afraid. I would like to believe that you perhaps simply missed this link, and didn't leave it out purposefully so as to keep it from muddying your point, as that would strike me as disingenuous.
Regardless, I find your attack on a real woman's personal expression of a story she loves to be far worse than any hypothetical damage done to society from the release of an image of one female horse defending another female horse from fire and wolves. I find it unlikely that any reasonable person, devoid of all context as to whom these characters are could ever make the leap to assume "disempowerment" is being represented by a mare aiding another mare. And if they are to be given enough context to know who Rarity is then I feel they should be allowed the context to know the actual scene being depicted.
Those who follow the link she provided to The Fires of Friendship (http://www.fimfiction.net/story/19711/the-fires-of-friendship) are instantly provided with the next part of this scene, where Rarity overcomes her fears and savagely fights back. The two images work in conjunction to complete a part of the story. Both the story and the title image (drawn by myself) were created as birthday presents for White Diamonds, who loves the character of Rarity dearly... All of the character, from her moments of weakness to her moments of triumph. She also clearly wished to draw more attention to this story and did not wish to supplant my cover artwork with some of her own depicting the exact same moment from the story. She is anything but "thoughtless".
2491972
2491244
2492363
2492462
2492532
2493198
2495091
For those questioning the intent of the image, I have provided the missing context below. In short, the image is an illustration from the story "The Fires of Friendship" (a link to this FimFiction story was provided with the original posting of the image) in which Rarity suffers from an intense fear of fire due to being caught in a burning building as a child.
2499212
As you'll note in my comment here:
2499212
I did in fact look at the cover art and summary of the story. I did not read the actual story, but I did note that the cover art for the story depicted Rarity very differently from how she was depicted in the art by White Diamonds Ltd. So I wasn't TOTALLY lazy. I just was too lazy to read the story.
And for that I must apologize. People frequently criticize Anita Sarkeesian for not doing the research and misrepresenting the material she shows, and here I go doing the same thing.
That was all the context that I had.
I added an apology to the end of the blog post. If White Diamonds Ltd was upset by the post, let them know that I did not, and do not, consider them to be misogynistic, and that was not really the intent of my post to begin with, nor was the post actually intended to claim that they were such (nor did it claim such).
The joys of context.
dipettamortgage.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/real-estate-statistics.jpg
2499237
Incidentally, I'm working on a follow-up blog post to this.
I wrote the short story, "The Fires of Friendship," which inspired this artwork. I wrote the line that my dear friend illustrated above: "Applejack twirled her rope over her head as Rarity and the others cowered behind her." I wrote this too: "[Rarity] curled up in terror, thoughts and memories of smoke and flame coming to her unbidden, scenes flashing before her eyes." You see, in this story Rarity experienced a severe trauma when she was younger, very nearly dying after being trapped in a burning building.
If you read on, you will shortly learn that Applejack is subsequently injured by one of the timberwolves, and it is Rarity who finds the courage to face to her fears and save the other ponies:
I wonder if White Diamonds had drawn that scene instead—Rarity facing off against the wolves while Applejack huddled with the fillies—you would have written this same post? In both examples, one of the mares has been laid low by an injury, whether physical trauma or emotional.
Would you have still accused my friend of "subtle nonsense" and misogyny if she had drawn the brash and daring Rainbow Dash cowering in fear before her debut at the Best Young Fliers competition, because after all, Rainbow Dash is tough, just like Rarity? "Logically," she she shouldn't be depicted in a moment of weakness, right? Or can ponies (and people) be both strong and weak in different circumstances? Is context important in evaluating art? Would it make a difference that the artist is a woman, a huge fan of both characters, and a cursory examination of her body of fandom work over the years provides conclusive proof that she does not depict either character as a shrinking violet, wilting lily, or damsel in any sort of distress? Does it strike you that making wild claims about an artist on a fanfiction board where she does not have an account, rather than on deviantArt, is poor form?
At the very least, consider reading the story which the artist so helpfully linked. If you still feel that Rarity is a damsel in distress, blame me. That's how I usually write her, after all.
2491152
2491244
2491972
2492363
2492532
2493198
2499212
I wrote a follow-up to this blog post here, where I talk about the story in question and how the story puts it into context.
Or, more accurately, fails to.
2499427
You have overplayed your hand here. I have read your story; it does a poor job of convincing the reader of Rarity's plight.
I never called you, nor White Diamonds Ltd, misogynistic. As I noted in my post:
If White Diamonds Ltd is upset at me, she can feel free to talk to me about it. I don't consider her to be misogynistic, and I like her art, and it was not my intent to upset her, but to note disquiet over the imagery depicted here.
Being aggressive is seldom the best way to convince them that you've been wronged; it tends to make people defensive.
2499212
2499371
Incidentally, out of curiosity, how did you folks find my blog post? Not that I mind; I'm glad you guys came here and challenged me about it, as it is always important to challenge people when they're being lazy.
2499603
2499427
I personally feel that this is getting a little more venomous than it really has to be. I can understand Ponydora's frustration, but I think the way just the first line of the post is written isn't conductive of getting someone to see your point. Most people's backs go up, and dialogue is pretty much impossible after that.
This is where I would normally, If I'm lucky, take a deep breath, write out a post, and sit on it for a while.
As for this:
Might have been better off just saying that it 'does a poor job of convincing the reader of Rarity's plight' and left it at that. The overall quality of the fic isn't necessary for this discussion. I think the absence of a single clause would have conveyed the same point, without appearing to be intentionally inflammatory.
That's not to say that I don't believe in criticism, because I most certainly do. I just think there's a time and a place for it, and here, emphasis on the quality of the story distracts from the topic at hand.
I meant to reply back to this earlier. Forget about the drawing, and the story, I think we're all bigots, every single one of us. I tend to think of it in relative term, and I can't be angry at subtle prejudice, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that it's to be ignored, and not something to be purged from society.
2499701
Edited to make more mild.
2499705
*Blinks*
I'm a bit surprised, to be honest.
2499717
Why? I think the review says what it needs to say about the story; there's no need to get heated.
2499720
Haven't quite gotten to know you yet, is all.
2499237
Thanks for the clarification. I'm just trying to get TD to clarify his thoughts on the issue he thought he raised, not on the image itself. Sorry for using the image as a prop for that, and sorry if any of my posts seemed to imply that the image runs foul of anything. It just bothers me when someone claims some foul that they themselves don't understand.