Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

July 7: Mind-Bam!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TragicallyUnhip wrote:
I don't remember posting anything about how I liked Monique's new look. Are you talking to me or perhaps someone else?

And I am glad you see the pattern. I don't. It all seems a bunch of fits, starts and loose ends that get stale until he figures out something to do with them - or just lets them go altogether.

Part of the argument with regards to clothing has been that Monique is just giving in to Glossy because she lacks self confidence/is being turned into a helpless victim. In any case, I doubt your logic for whatever you're referencing is significantly dissimilar.

The pattern is roughly "women trying to define themselves in a way other than in terms of their relations with men".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pixi-san



Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 79

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Kylra"]
TragicallyUnhip wrote:

Part of the argument with regards to clothing has been that Monique is just giving in to Glossy because she lacks self confidence/is being turned into a helpless victim. In any case, I doubt your logic for whatever you're referencing is significantly dissimilar.


Thanks for articulating the vibes. I always appreciated Monique as being ,above all, a highly intelligent, sensitive yet prone to occasional selfishness,in other words, complex character.

To me, her gently evolving inner qualities turn her from 'hot' to beautifully deep. I have described her as 'fap-worthy' in another post, simply to mock those who seem to place more emphasis on her pleasing sensual,sexual allure and are now enraged at her withdrawal of those attributes. In the comic.

I'm totally cool with whatever way she chooses to develop in line with her complexity.

Slick is lovable in his simplicity (in comparison to Monique). Monique's interest in "The Patriachy" seems to me a natural progression of her highly intelligent nature.

She does not NEED to abandon her femininity to prove her intrinsic self-worth, but if she WANTS to break away from the addicting "crutch" and "privilege" of being sexually appealing in a 'mans world' , I embrace that.

She is not a victim, she is simply becoming self aware. The soul/spirit/essence/core does not have to comply to socially enforced gender expectations.

Monique is trying to strip away all that to get to the core of who she truly is, beyond culture, gender and (animalistic) sexuality. Do not dismiss her efforts as simply being a weak willed victim to aggressive brainwashing. To me, the Sisterhood exist to jolt people into awareness. You dont HAVE to be anything other than who you are. And who you are is beyond man and woman and far, far removed from what we are all exposed to as roles growing up. Discovering who you truly are is ...an evolution.

I welcome change and evolution in Monique character not because I didn't like who she was before, but because I understand she needs to grow. And to know. Her Self.Tat has the freedom to do that as an independent comic artist...a proper artist, in my eyes...to explore that. Mainstream comics dont have that freedom to explore the depths of psyche.Read Archie if you want that warm-apple pie comfort and familiarity in your comics. Those comics want to maintain the status quo. I love my Sinfest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TragicallyUnhip



Joined: 30 May 2012
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kylra wrote:
TragicallyUnhip wrote:
I don't remember posting anything about how I liked Monique's new look. Are you talking to me or perhaps someone else?

And I am glad you see the pattern. I don't. It all seems a bunch of fits, starts and loose ends that get stale until he figures out something to do with them - or just lets them go altogether.

Part of the argument with regards to clothing has been that Monique is just giving in to Glossy because she lacks self confidence/is being turned into a helpless victim. In any case, I doubt your logic for whatever you're referencing is significantly dissimilar.

The pattern is roughly "women trying to define themselves in a way other than in terms of their relations with men".


Actually, I see all the characters here (with a few exceptions) as mainly defining themselves in a relationship with themselves. Monique is no real exception, she just seems to me to have shifted her personal style because now she sees her previous behavior as negative and is trying something radically new. Since she's gone, in her way, from thesis to antithesis, it would be neat to eventually see her reach a true balanced synthesis. Even so, she always was there mainly for herself. I never saw her in a real relationship with anyone, male or female, that was more significant than her own monologues or the narcissistic mike nights with an anonymous audience, or her relationship with her own body. She has existential crises on a fairly regular basis, but are they really about some man or men, or mainly about her, her clothes, makeup, hair, etc and how they might be perceived? Who is she trying to benefit outside of herself? No one I can see but herself.

Slick is especially self-directed in that regard - all his relationships with women seem to be about what they can do for him to feed his ego or his adolescent sexual fantasies. He's a complete child in most respects, and his views of women are utterly self-centered. Interestingly, though the artist has labelled him as misogynistic, I don't see it. That would imply an active antipathy. What he has is an infantile, selfish and completely unevolved notion of their worth and purpose in his life. A true misogynist actively resents women, seeks to put women in their place and actively degrade them to punish them for their imagined crimes. Slick is just pathetic in all of his unsuccessful attempts at courtship, and yet he continues to try, even to the point of laughably trying to up his feminist cred with Monique or with online trolls. He really wants girls to like him, and yet he has no clue how that really works because he has virtually no self awareness, no idea how oafish and insulting much of his behavior is. Yet the thing that keeps him from being a villain is that no matter how many times he gets shot down he keeps coming back for more. If we were to make him truly part of the power structure rather than merely one more victim of it, then we'd have him literally selling his soul to Big D and then finally getting everything he wants. He doesn't. Even that little Devil Slick shadow of his doesn't buy him any success - only failure. He has literally no power.

I think that the characters that really define themselves by their relationship with men are the Glossy Posse. Without men, without the Patriarchy, they would have absolutely no raison d'etre at all. They would have no characteristics, because we only ever see them when they are in direct opposition to male-centered power, attitude or behavior. Without men and the male power structure, what are they? Literally nothing. We know nothing of any other characteristics that they possess. So, if any female characters actually owe their existence to men, it's those two little stone-faced munchkins in shades.

Just my .02.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dawn



Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 123
Location: Malaysia

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TragicallyUnhip wrote:

I think that the characters that really define themselves by their relationship with men are the Glossy Posse. Without men, without the Patriarchy, they would have absolutely no raison d'etre at all. They would have no characteristics, because we only ever see them when they are in direct opposition to male-centered power, attitude or behavior. Without men and the male power structure, what are they? Literally nothing. We know nothing of any other characteristics that they possess. So, if any female characters actually owe their existence to men, it's those two little stone-faced munchkins in shades.

Just my .02.


*Gasp!* So the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi would not exist if it were not for their relationship to their oppressors!

Their whole lives were spent dedicated to achieving independence (Gandhi) and advancing civil right, would mean NOTHING if it were not for the oppressors, because there was nothing wrong with what they were experiencing in the first place?

See your flaw there? - These activists come up because they believe there is something inherently wrong in the system and they want to spread the word - become ACTIVISTS to promote change - whether by cutting down stripper poles or by 'awakening' women to the existence of the patriarchy. The Sisterhood (and every other human/equality/gay/animal rights activist) in essence can be comparable to Gandhi and Martin Luther King when it comes to the core reason they are acting out: and speaking against what they think is wrong.

Yes. All activists wouldn't exist without unfairness in the world. That is the truth.

Of course, we'd have nothing to talk about if women were happy being subservient to the men as stated in religions, or if blacks were happy being slaves to the white people for forever, or if the Indians were happy being ruled and treated as second class citizens by the British.

Jeez! Can't the Sisterhood just stop fighting this and accept that women are treated as sex objects and property by men?! It is culturally sanctioned, it is *religiously* sanctioned. They wouldn't even exist if it weren't for us!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TragicallyUnhip wrote:
Actually, I see all the characters here (with a few exceptions) as mainly defining themselves in a relationship with themselves. Monique is no real exception, she just seems to me to have shifted her personal style because now she sees her previous behavior as negative and is trying something radically new. Since she's gone, in her way, from thesis to antithesis, it would be neat to eventually see her reach a true balanced synthesis. Even so, she always was there mainly for herself. I never saw her in a real relationship with anyone, male or female, that was more significant than her own monologues or the narcissistic mike nights with an anonymous audience, or her relationship with her own body. She has existential crises on a fairly regular basis, but are they really about some man or men, or mainly about her, her clothes, makeup, hair, etc and how they might be perceived? Who is she trying to benefit outside of herself? No one I can see but herself.

She has crises over her clothes, makeup, hair and how the might be perceived and this is supposed to not at all be related to how men view it (in particular most of the "anonymous audience" that wants to see her ass)? You should take this paragraph back to the drawing board.
Quote:
Interestingly, though the artist has labelled him[Slick] as misogynistic, I don't see it. That would imply an active antipathy. What he has is an infantile, selfish and completely unevolved notion of their worth and purpose in his life. A true misogynist actively resents women, seeks to put women in their place and actively degrade them to punish them for their imagined crimes.

You're wrong. Even psychological science says so nowadays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism
Quote:
If we were to make him truly part of the power structure rather than merely one more victim of it, then we'd have him literally selling his soul to Big D and then finally getting everything he wants. He doesn't. Even that little Devil Slick shadow of his doesn't buy him any success - only failure. He has literally no power.

He's still part of the system though.
Quote:
I think that the characters that really define themselves by their relationship with men are the Glossy Posse. Without men, without the Patriarchy, they would have absolutely no raison d'etre at all. They would have no characteristics, because we only ever see them when they are in direct opposition to male-centered power, attitude or behavior. Without men and the male power structure, what are they? Literally nothing. We know nothing of any other characteristics that they possess. So, if any female characters actually owe their existence to men, it's those two little stone-faced munchkins in shades.

I think Dawn handled this quite well. So just read her post again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group