[UA] She just doesn't get it, does she? (was: UA unintenionally sexis...

[Twist0059 at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/1/00 2:02:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
redfern at thehub.com.au writes:

> > By making a female character caring and compassionate, you're being 
sexist.
>  > By making a female character tough and violent, you're being sexist.  
> Maybe
>  > you could avoid being sexist by making females into males...but wait, 
that'
> s
>  > sexist too!  :-)
>  
>  I think it's stereotypical, when it happens like that - and stereotyping 
is 
> at
>  the core of sexism.  A fully realized negative female character is not 
> sexist,
>  and nor is a fully realized positive female characters.  Two-dimensional 
> female
>  characters are a lot more prone to gender-based analysis.
>  


Wouldn't that mean pornomancy, being"fully realized" beyond just "watching 
porn and fucking", is not sexist?  

This would play into how Jo "doesn't get it", as you say yourself it looks 
like she hasn't read the game but shallowly.  Not a lack of ability to 
perceive, but a lack of study on the subject.  Hmm, maybe "doesn't know what 
she's talking about" would be more accurate, but it sounds harsher.   In 
debates like this you need to be very careful about the words you choose, for 
lack of inflection.

Pornomancy isn't just there to give guys thrills (okay, maybe some of the 
less reputable among us liked that chapter illo in PoMoMa...let's not speak 
of it), it's there to comment on society, be disturbing, and provide a neat 
little magick school.  Most of what is in UA is groundbreaking, and thus 
being new and unconventional takes a lot of heat.  Almost always undeserved, 
as it appears to be in this debate.  But I'm going to keep an eye on the 
pyramid boards to try and see if there are any broader strokes.





-Twist

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua