Irrational Idiocy

[jmatonak]

In case you were having trouble turning up one on your own (shyeah), I've discovered an idiot on the internet.



For some crazy reason, many feminist comic book fans have a problem with female comics characters existing solely to be eye candy. Something about how there's plenty of room for male power fantasies and none at all for female power fantasies puts them on edge, somehow. So occasionally they voice a complaint. When they do, many other fans come back with a common retort- "why are you trying to take all the sexy fun out of our comical books?"

Cheryl Lynn, posting as Digital Femme, pointed out that many of the fans seen as evil harpy prudes really don't have that agenda at all in a post titled "Preserve the Sexy":

http://digitalfemme.com/journal/index.php?itemid=448

And in response, the internet at large gets this:



http://rationalmadman.blogspot.com/2007/08/we-can-keep-sexy-oh-thanks-you-massa-we.html

For someone who calls himself "rational", this fella is really bad at it.

What we get is a festival of entitlement, incoherence and hysteria, wrapped around a straw-woman argument. I especially like the part where men buying what they want is simply them voting with their dollars, whereas women asking for more palatable fare to spend money on are somehow dictating to this man what he must and mustn't read. And that's not even the funniest part.

Damsels in distress can be sexy? Sure. Submissiveness can be a turn-on? Absolutely. But, see, what you're describing are your tastes in pornography, "Rational Madman", and what the rest of us are trying to talk about is mainstream entertainment. You see, many people, when they buy a Wonder Woman comic, aren't looking for porn. The publisher insists it isn't trying to sell porn. And yet, here you are.

If you get a cheap thrill from reading the adventures of Hero Girl, that's great. That's your right as a reader and particularly as an on-line fan. That's also a pleasant byproduct of the work, not its reason for being. If you don't derive sexual satisfaction from the image of a female super-hero being a super-hero, that is absolutely fine. You actually aren't supposed to. What you appear to be doing is complaining that superhero comic books as posited by Digital Femme aren't porny enough for you. Which opens a perfect opportunity for this hackneyed response: go write your own damn porn. It's what the internet is for.

Comments

[catwhisperer42.livejournal.com]

If more mainstream comics had decent stories and didn't feel simply a vehicle for pretty pictures, I might actually read some of them.

[rationalmadman.livejournal.com]

Awwww is da widdle giwl mad dat someone buy into her buwshit?

See heres where you all fembots show y'alls idiocy. I wasnt talking about porn honey child. I was talking about titilation, power fantasies, and entertainment. Damsels in distress aren't sexy cause its porn my poor little estrogen poisoned pigtail, It sexy cause guys like saving girls. As to women asking for "more palatable" fare to spend money on, if thats all y'all are doing then why do you keep trying to change the fare us cave dwelling troglodytes are already spending money on? See what I have a problem with is entitled little princesses like yourself thinking y'all have either the right or the power to change a market you only comprise 5% of at best.

Like it or not little girl, sex appeal has always been a central part of comics, why else do female superheroes and villains wear such revealing clothing? The tradition of the costume itself in comics comes to us from circus performers whose acts usually mixed sex appeal with danger.

Ohh but keep ranting and raving little maid of mouth, we do find it ever so amusing after all.



OHH and jmatonak I unscreened your comments, I would never allow such delightful inanaity and retardation to be hidden undr a bushel. Let your eunuchness shine!

[caribou.livejournal.com]

Well, look at the bright side: I'm pretty sure that he does a good job of ensuring that no one will actually take him seriously. Especially after comparing a black feminist blogger to pre-Civil War slave owners in the United States.

[nenena.livejournal.com]

Yeah, see... I avoid RMM's posts because he's a racist idiot. That's all that I need to know.

I mean, the title of his blog post - the first line - and as icing on the cake, his comment right here (*points up*) - that's pretty much all that I need to know about his lack of intelligence, empathy, and ability to write a coherent argument. If somebody thinks that making racist jokes is funny, then there's no hope for anything remotely approaching a genuine argument in any of his verbal spewage.

Is that Micheal Richards or Don Imus?

[thekamisama.livejournal.com]

I threw up a little in my mouth reading that god awful attempt to emulate old racist "slave/negro" stereotypes.

It came across as racist on two whole different levels, one just on the usage and tone. The other more insidious and offensive level is that he seems to be trying to equate being a bit put out by someones opinion in a blog as somehow equal to the oppression of slavery.

Really f'ing classy.

[ravenveil.livejournal.com]

I have given up on arguing with him. He is like a dog with Rabies. Nothing you say will deviate him from his straight path, no rational argument, no amount of pointing out facts, etc. The frothing at the mouth isn't that attractive either.

[ravenveil.livejournal.com]

Yep. Best thing to do with him is to stay out of the way or risk bashing your head onto your desk. He has found a new stage to get attention with. I have a feeling that he's going to start infecting a lot of blogs with his frothing slobber.

[lilithchilde.livejournal.com]

The title on his post is a nice touch, particularly since it's in response to a prominent blogger of color. It would have been disgusting and racist in any case, but that's just stunning.

(Hello; here via WFA, and really happy to see someone putting that idiot in his place a little.)

[kadymae.livejournal.com]

Jesse --

I've had fun poking at him, because the "logic" he spews is like nothing I've gotten in my undergrad Philosophy or grad level Rhetoric classes. (It's not any earth logic I'm familiar with.)

Also, he demands that I point out all the flaws in his logic, and when I did just the first page of one of his diatribes, the comment somehow never got unscreened ... quelle suprise.

And finally, he seems to think that pointing out the structural flaws in his logic is some how an attack on their content. IIRC, I've yet to say a word about whether or not I agree with his opinion in his posts, I've only commented on his formal logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy). Or, in other words, I don't think his points are wrong because I disagree with them, I know they are wrong because they are improperly structured and thus, illogical.

I've also urged him to take one of his essays to his local JuCo and have a neutral 3rd party who teaches Philosophy 101, Composition 101, or Rhetoric 101 sit down and point these things out to him, but of course, RMM knows that they can't possibly be right and that Aristotle, Plato, Socraties, Descartes, etc. are just tools of the "Hive Vagina."

[(Anonymous)]

The guy dosen't want a rational argument, so my suggestion is not to give him one. Just mock him for the thing he is.

Incoherence

[leanmc.livejournal.com]

I'm going to have to disagree that the original post in question by rational madman was incoherent. I think his post is remarkable coherent once you unpack the metaphors he uses at the beginning and use them as keys to understand what he is talking about.

The first metaphor casts men who read comics as slaves and women who read comics as masters, is delivered in a shuck and jive tone, and is almost certainly intended to be ironic. The second compares women who read comics to a Christian living in Saudi Arabia, in other words second class citizens who have no power to engage the broader community with their concerns. In these metaphors, there are not fine shades of differentiation to how power is wielded. One group has absolute power, the other group has none and must accept the dictates of the group with power. These metaphors are not expressions of what Rational Madman wants to see in comic books, these metaphors describe how Rational Madman sees the real world itself.

Of course, what Rational Madman wants to see in comic books is pretty much in line with his view of the world. He believes that Men are powerful and Women powerless, so he expects to see images of powerful men dominating submissive women. He finds that sexy. While he does allow that there may be a place for powerful women to rescue a submissive man, but he gives no indication of whether or not he finds *that* sexy (many men would). There's some extended discussion of whether women have any right to find other women sexy that is laughably hetronormative.

The key to understanding what Rational Madman is trying to say is that men dominate women and that's what he wants to see in comic books. So when women say what *they* want to see in comic books, it makes him upset and he goes ballistic. Women have no power. That's his point. Its hard for him to argue with folks who don't have the right to be in a debate. What he wants to see, he has a right to see, and no one has a right to object to this.

Personally, I think his fantasies are pretty creepy. And while he is right that sexiness varies from individual to individual, and no one can change what you think is sexy . . . but when you argue that your personal fantasies ought to be used as plot devices for mainstream comic book characters, other folks are going to have a problem with that. Anyway, kudos to Rational Madman for keeping it real!

[merlewhitefire.livejournal.com]

To the "Rational" madman:

You are aware, are you not, that those romance novels have a happy ending that almost ALWAYS consists of the man being humbled and having to change his ways and stop being a domineering asshole, yes?

[lost-angelwings.livejournal.com]

RMM is my favourite person to satirize on my blog XD