• TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Treating a controversy about a fictional character wearing different shoes with the same severity as literal child slavery sounds absolutely exhausting and absurd to me

    • kwomp2@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t know if you have noticed, but cartoon characters depicted as female are usually depicted as sexy. Almost always in pubs.

      If you care about oppression, you will understand how the reduction to being sexy for men (“objectification”) of women all over society is important. Imagine the violence of not being seen as a person by default, an agent, but an object to male desire, the male gaze.

      Again and again, since the wake of feminism, men bring up that relativist argument. Oh you feel oppressed because over your whole lifetime and that of your mother and sisters men treat you like a peace of pretty meat? Well, wrong, honey, look at “literal real problems”.

      • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ok, but the controversy over the mnm character was them de-sexualizing the character. This should not be a controversy because this is a positive change. However it’s treated as a controversy in the same level as child slavery in this wiki article. I think this is where we’ve gotten mixed up

        • kwomp2@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ooh I see. Thats one solid mix-up. But I still think its good to take it seriously as a controversy, even though it shouldn’t be as it’s positive change. The backlash shows it’s still a fight to be faught