manson1972, the original comment about eyebrows might arguably have been slightly inappropriate. But your post #59 was absolutely, unambiguously inappropriate. If you see something that you think is inappropriate, you should report it, not up the ante.
We had a ongoing discussion about the eyebrows of the female lead (the eyebrows have been mentioned in several media sources, it wasnt some odd SDMB thing)
Manson kept and keeps going on that* “I thought we weren’t supposed to comment on the looks of a woman if it’s not germane to the topic?”* so much so, as to turn into a hijack (thus the mod note).
Anyway, this brings me to two questions:
1."I thought we weren’t supposed to comment on the looks of a woman if it’s not germane to the topic? "
Since when? Is this a new rule? Does it apply only to women? Obviously crazy-ass stalker sexist comments are over the line, but a comment about eyebrows being distracting? I mention this because Chronos sez " the original comment about eyebrows might arguably have been slightly inappropriate" and I am trying to figure out why?
Celebrities sell themselves based upon their appearance. Even if that appearance isnt necessarily “pretty” or handsome, it’s part of the stock in trade of Hollywood. Commenting on a stars appearance is no different than commenting on a singers voice or a sports stars ability.
3.And somehow, somewhere there is a meme that comparing "Ginger vs Mary ann " is somehow wrong.
Manda JO said, quite reasonably: I would also point out that I don’t mean that threads have to be gender-neutral. Gender specific don’t have to be icky, and gender neutral can be. Like, I don’t mind “Who do you like better, Ginger or Mary Ann?” or even “Who is more attractive: Ginger or Mary Ann?” But I’m really uncomfortable with “You have to choose: Ginger or Mary Ann?”. It sounds like a slave auction or something. Like, once you make that choice, they will silently go along.
So yeah, good suggestion that us clueless dudes work a little harder on finding a clue.
But none of these things are anything like the rabid sexist crap like rape fantasies or victim blaming, etc. Stuff why a certain poster was recently banned.
That seems a not very nuanced reading of the “new rules”.It’s the difference between “what’s up with those eyebrows” and “check out that ass”.
IMHO, Cafe Society should be much less strictly moderated on this principle though considering the point of the forum. How hot a guy/gal is a pretty normal part of the whole entertainment biz.
It seems to me that the main reason his comment is out of line is that he’s basically mocking people for discussing TV actors appearance, implying it must be because they are skeevy perverts. He was told that, if he thinks something is inappropriate, he should report it instead. Allow the mods to decide.
He was essentially junior moderating by assuming that looks were not germane to the discussion.
The line between what is acceptable and what is creepy is, like most lines, blurry. A comment about eyebrows, then, does in fact intersect some tenuous outer portions of that line, in much the same way that the International Space Station intersects some portion of the atmosphere. That said, one would still generally describe the medium the ISS is in as vacuum, even though it might arguably be slightly passing through the air. Am I clear?
Neither your analogy nor your point is particularly clear to me.
Character appearance is relevant to visual media – such as television and movies – pretty much by definition. I don’t see how those two comments about the lead’s eyebrows were even “arguably slightly” unacceptable. Here are those two posts in their entirety:
Manson objected, and then to prove his or her point, vomited up this threadshit:
If someone gets all skeevy, like manson did here, then sure, hand out a warning or a note or whatever, obviously. But the original comments that drove manson over the edge weren’t inappropriate in any way, even if you squint.
I’m actually starting to wonder if this might be a false flag operation to undermine the current board climate of trying to be more sensitive to and less tolerant of pervasive misogyny.
…I’m a photographer. I participate on a lot of photography messageboards and forums. And a general rule on almost every forum I participate on is that you can critique the image, but you cannot critique the model/subject of the image. Because they are two different things.
So character appearance doesn’t *have *to be related to visual media. Especially by definition.
The character Michaela Stone isn’t defined by her eyebrows. Her eyebrows aren’t a plot element, they aren’t a story element, in no way is Melissa Roxburgh’s appearance relevant to the show. Its just how she looks. And how she looks is not related to TV and movies “pretty much by definition.” Thats a nonsense statement.
You simply aren’t squinting hard enough.
The original comments *were *skeevy. There is nothing remarkable about Melissa Roxburgh’s eyebrows at all. She obviously doesn’t fit StarvingButStrong’s or Misnomer’s standard of how “people on TV should look”: but I hold the opinion that people shouldn’t have to fit a certain arbitrary standard of looks in order to play a role on TV.
And StarvingButStrong’s desire that Roxburgh “wish she’d pluck her eyebrows some” is something I found distasteful. I don’t want to hear that garbage. Keep your thoughts in your head. I didn’t report it. I don’t want that sort of thing banned. But lets not pretend there is a consensus here: because there is not.
Or maybe the you just don’t understand what misogyny actually is.
Fair enough. Just being a visual medium doesn’t guarantee that character appearance is relevant.
I’ll amend it to “any visual medium that requires suspension of disbelief.” I think photography is fundamentally different than television and movies. You’re not being asked to suspend disbelief when looking at a photograph.
But, for example, when a lead actress cuts her hair (Felicity back in the day, Kaley Cuoco last year) it tends to pull people out of the narrative and make it more difficult to lose yourself in the story you’re trying to watch.
Similarly, if Melissa Roxburgh’s eyebrows distract the audience during her scenes, then yeah, that’s relevant. Similar to hearing people getting pulled out of a story set in the Wild West by all the perfect pearly white teeth of the actors.
I remember last year watching The Chair on Starz, about two amateur filmmakers competing to see who could make the better movie. Both ended up horrible bombs (of course) but one contestant’s film had an unusual but interesting problem: A large percentage of the audience couldn’t tell the difference between two main characters. There was a significant “face blindness” problem going on, and the end result was that much of the audience just couldn’t follow the story because they literally didn’t know which character was which.
None of these things would be relevant to photography, but they absolutely are relevant to television shows and movies.
To me, this seems like a massive overreaction, to the point that I’ll give less credence to your opinions on this matter. “Garbage”? Really? Good grief.
…Russell got death threats because she cut her hair. That’s all manner of fucked up, don’t you think?
The two situations aren’t comparable. “Perfect pearly white teeth” might distract because back in the days of the Wild West people didn’t used to have pearly white teeth. But in real life people have eyebrows like Melissa Roxburgh. What is it exactly about how she looks that is distracting the audience? Why do you think she should pluck them? I don’t get it.
Is “facial blindness” a problem you had while you were watching Manifest with Melissa Roxburgh? You were having trouble telling the difference between her and other characters? If not, then I can’t see how this is relevant. Saying you can’t tell the difference between a couple of characters is very different from saying “that actress should pluck her eyebrows” :: snigger snigger ::
Of course they are relevant to photography.
Fortunately, and with the greatest respect, I don’t give a fuck about how much credence you give to my opinion. (If you are interested, I stopped giving credence to your opinion when you used the phrase “false flag operation”) I don’t want to hear that sort of garbage in person and I would much rather not hear it on a messageboard I’m a member of either. Just stating my opinion.
You are talking about characters, not actors. You aren’t demanding “Kevin James loose weight because his figure is distracting”. That is a thing I’ve honestly never-ever heard. (although it wouldn’t surprise me if someone had said it, the internet is a big place.)
And if you did express the opinion that Kevin James should loose weight because his figure was distracting you from “King of Queens” I’d think thats a garbage opinion as well.
Well, this is good. It shows that no matter how innocuous the comment, someone, somewhere can be offended. Thus, we can’t possible make everyone happy.
And, I want to make it clear that your opinion,**Banquet Bear **is perfectly valid, even tho it is at the extreme end. If it is offensive to you, then it is offensive to you.